Technical Services: It's More than Just Key Words and Computer Displays
Thomas Mann, Reference Specialist, Humanities and Social Sciences Division, Library of Congress
Spring Meeting of the New England Technical Services Librarians)
Friday, April 14, 2000
The College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts
Thomas Mann's talk centered on the proposition that the different formats of recorded knowledge are not all equally important. The printed book is the most important format, requiring special technical treatment. Mann added that he was not suggesting that nonbook formats are not indispensable.
To set some context for this assertion, Mann reviewed some of the history of railroading, with particular emphasis on the contention that "railroads failed because they thought they were in the railroad business, not the transportation business." This oft-repeated comment has been described as a good analogy to the contemporary library: that we are in the "information business, not the book business." This, he contended, is a misguided, even nonsensical analogy, and we must practice critical thinking before repeating it any further. The "railroad/transportation business" assertion can be traced to a single article in the Harvard Business Review: "Marketing Myopia" by Theodore Levitt (Harvard Business Review 38, 4, July-August 1960). While 265,000 reprints of this article have been distributed, Levitt provided no documentation for the assertion. Historians of the railroad industry ignore this remark, concentrating instead on real problems faced by the railroads, including federal subsidies for competing means of transportation, changing communications media, and federal regulations limiting railroad flexibility and growth. Yet, Levitt's assertion is held up as gospel truth by information science commentators, despite the fact that the concrete historical example makes a stronger case than bad scholarship and bogus claims to evidence. Dualistic assertions regarding the "book business" vs. the "information business" should be therefore be treated with caution.
Copyrighted books, stated Mann, are the most important format for recorded knowledge. There is a hierarchy of integrative levels: data, information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. If the higher levels are going to be grasped, greater attention spans are required, and the book format is the best means we have for conveying the levels of knowledge and understanding.
To the objection that the intellectual content of books can be freed from physical containers, Mann stated this contention is true in itself, but an additional truth is naïvely overlooked. That is, access is changed when format is changed. The mere existence of information does not guarantee usability. While electronic texts free content from physical location - a positive factor - the medium also makes content more difficult to absorb. Connected narrative or expository forms are not read as readily, eagerly, or carefully in electronic format as in book format. The difference is of great magnitude, and cannot be dismissed as transient, "transitional" sentimentality.
Mann anticipated, and addressed, two typical responses to this analysis. The first is generational: in short, that older people since cannot make a graceful transition to a medium with which younger people are comfortable. The question to ask is, does this "comfort" amount to the ability to absorb "long narrative or expository works in screen display formats," or are people being trained to accept shorter attention spans and a lesser degree of verbal understanding as the norm? The second response takes a "postliterate" approach, maintaining that text is in itself outmoded, and that reading and writing will become passé. This perspective ignores the circumstance that, as Mann put it, "A grasp of the most important insights about ultimate reality that underlie our civilization [such as free speech, private property, rule of law, constitutional democracy, women's rights, and ethics] is not achievable through 'right-brained' spatial or musical thinking. History shows us that such insights are not intuitively obvious." The preservation of these concepts in our culture must be grounded on the higher integrative levels, and expressed via the media which best convey those levels.
Digital formats raise significant issues for preservation, in that the factors that make them very good for distribution purposes simultaneously make them bad for preservation. Mann would not discourage the work being done on digital preservation, but warned against librarianship's default position that these efforts will inevitably succeed. In fact, they succeed only partially and temporarily; the great bulk of digital material may simply disappear. There is an imperative need to prioritize the materials to be given the greatest attention in preservation efforts.
Mann described a standard three-level model of importance respecting information formats. Printed books occupy the center ring. The middle ring is occupied by free Internet resources, with the outer ring including other nonbook formats, including site-licensed databases. Resources in the outer ring, in this view, may best be recorded rather than fully cataloged. In contrast, he offered a model in which freely accessed Internet resources are the outer, not the middle ring. The reason for this shift is that there are important forces at work to ensure broad public access to internet in their homes. These forces seek to capitalize on significant economic opportunities by reaching targeted consumer groups. One objective of this effort is to bypass libraries entirely where access to the net is concerned. Therefore, if we define Internet access as central to the mission of libraries, we do run the risk of putting ourselves out of business. The middle ring in Mann's alternative model is then the range of nonbook materials and paid online resources which libraries deliberately select and collect. This strengthens one distinctive element of library services: that we preserve those resources that cannot be tapped into anywhere, any time, by anybody.
Although we are often exhorted to "think outside the box" when it comes to electronic resources, Mann pointed out that the Internet comes with its own conceptual box. Access to Internet resources involves continually tradeoffs among what kind of material is available, to whom, and even where - the latter arising from the conflict between copyright-restricted and free access. Real, physical libraries, by contrast, are not restricted in what they can offer, to whom, in real places. It is therefore not a weakness, but a major strength, that physical libraries require physical presence to use physical resources: this restriction allows libraries to eliminate point-of-use charges and licensing limitations.
In his introduction, Mann stated that printed books require special technical treatment. He elaborated on the assertion, stating that, for example, books require classified shelving to an extent that other materials do not. Actual full-text searching is made possible through classified shelving, which expresses an intellectual structure. This distinction is not made by those who assert that there is little difference between books in physical or digital formats. He expressed concern that the "core record" standard of cataloging is the result of catalogers being stretched too thin, of indeed trying to be "all things to all people." (Both keynote speakers, incidentally, were critical of the NETSL program's subtitle.) It seems that the core record standard, in reducing the number of required subject headings, undercuts the principle of specific entry, and may therefore undermine the indexing function of the first heading in a record. Since standard practice is to relate the first heading to the classification number, simplification in subject cataloging may lead to overbroad classification.
In short, Thomas Mann concluded that we need to look into the numerous blind spots arising from uncritically acceptance of the "information business/book business" metaphor, and assertions made regarding digital vs. printed resources.
In response to questions from the audience, Mann discussed aspects of catalog usability. The catalog cannot, by itself, teach people how to use subject headings. This must be taught through bibliographic instruction and reference work. Mann asserted that learning to use Library of Congress Subject Headings, while not inherently difficult, is also not obvious. He wrote the Oxford Guide to Library Research in part to explain how subject headings work. He also discussed the question of whether making the catalog more transparent may actually interfere with process of doing research. No catalog can take on the instructional burden completely, providing all users with self-evident overviews of what they need. Reference librarians are crucially needed to explain aspects of catalog use, such as categorization, standardization and linkage.
From the audience, Michael Kaplan pointed out that a limitation on the number of subject headings is not called for by the core record standard, though it may be interpreted that way by managers.
An open discussion period with Walt Crawford and Thomas Mann concluded the day's program. Topics addressed by the speakers and audience included the need to pair live human assistance with good system design, the politics behind perceived vs. actual tradeoffs between electronic access and physical materials (and buildings), and the need to creatively communicate both the cost and value of library services to different constituencies. One audience member, noting the contrast between this NETSL program and those of earlier years, wondered if it represented a "backlash" against the recent emphasis on integrating electronic resources with library catalogs. Mann stated that people are tending not to use their catalogs as primary access points for the Web. Crawford added that, although he is not a "fine book lover," the book is still the most highly evolved technology for lengthy, involved exposition, and it continues to evolve as a technology. Neither speaker claimed to negate the value of Web resources, but what the Web does well is not the same as what books do well.
Reported by David Miller
Curry College
NETSL Writer/Editor
|
