Beginning the chapter about government communication, and tipping the balance thereof towards education and away from propaganda, I was insulted by the first few paragraphs dumping on polisci as not examining the avenues of power that is so central to their disscussions on how governments operate. What about Constructivism? Neo Liberals, and their emphasis on the importance of nongovernmental actors? Only Classical Realism regards all of a country as a solitary rational actor!
Then, through the Carter references and the last paragraph in the conclusion, I realized that this article is from before the 80s. A thirty plus year old article, wherefrom much of the theories, arguments and evidence from my political science training come from after that. (Constructivism is from 83 or 87, I can't remember).
From this side of the Reagan era, it's easy to see that this article is prescient in its warnings of the government being able to promote its messages and agendas as its own agent (albeit a really big gorilla of an agent) in the ideas marketplace. The Republicans (and Clinton) seem to have become really good at this, and Obama less so. Hence phenomena like the media coverage of the Tea Party rally with Glenn Beck on the Mall, versus the amount of coverage Jon Stewart's rally got, even though more than two and a half times the number of people showed up to support Stewart.
I was struck by his point about school teachers as government agents of information spread, it seemed a powerful argument, until you consider how stubborn and pre opinionated most schoolteachers are. Maybe that is a Madison phenomenon bias however, to do with the power of the union here and how uppity it can make them.
Aside from good civics (and everybody needs more civics education) I didn't quite follow what this was supposed to contribute to libraries and librarians discussion, aside from the fact that we count as government agents too.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Week three
Welcome to the land of Procrastinia, I am their Queen.
(if you would like to join our ranks, please allow me to point out the PBS show Sherlock, a modern update of that Holmes business, which is the best thing on tv that I have seen in months. And I watch a shit ton of tv. Start with "A Study in Pink" http://video.pbs.org/video/1619685888/ Full episode, no commercials, god I love pbs.)
But on to the week three readings
Having read some of Pawley's other work, I was leery of her article for this week's reading, but I found it one of the most readable and compelling of this batch. I had a conservative political science professor who had pointed out the disturbing disconnect between the liberal encouragements of "Promote Diversity" and multiculturalism, and the emphasis on treating everybody the same ("just be nice to everybody" as one of the quoted librarian's in Pawley's introduction put it.
I like how Pawley zeroes in on this from a completely different direction, and how it affects library work, but more importantly (especially from our perspective) how it affects library training. I only wish she had gone into more specifics.
(if you would like to join our ranks, please allow me to point out the PBS show Sherlock, a modern update of that Holmes business, which is the best thing on tv that I have seen in months. And I watch a shit ton of tv. Start with "A Study in Pink" http://video.pbs.org/video/1619685888/ Full episode, no commercials, god I love pbs.)
But on to the week three readings
Having read some of Pawley's other work, I was leery of her article for this week's reading, but I found it one of the most readable and compelling of this batch. I had a conservative political science professor who had pointed out the disturbing disconnect between the liberal encouragements of "Promote Diversity" and multiculturalism, and the emphasis on treating everybody the same ("just be nice to everybody" as one of the quoted librarian's in Pawley's introduction put it.
I like how Pawley zeroes in on this from a completely different direction, and how it affects library work, but more importantly (especially from our perspective) how it affects library training. I only wish she had gone into more specifics.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Copyright Readings
I- hmmm.
I have stolen digital content on the internet, and I am likely to do so again. I self justify some of these thefts with later purchase of the works involved, but by no means all. Usually I steal things because their legitimate formats are unavailable to me (I don't own a tv, and also (therefore?) don't have cable) such as British tv, tv shows whose network does streaming with commercials, but using a horribly coded engine to do it with (I'm looking at you, CBS).
I understand and acknowledge that this is illegal. But I don't agree with the way that the law is currently set up. The systems in place to try and answer the reasons I steal have become much better (hulu, netflix, audible), but they still aren't optimized, and neither are the laws and underlying philosophical definitions of property and ownership of digital content.
Reading the readings this week I was saddened at how much hasn't changed law-wise since many of the readings were written (1996? Modems?), how much this is still a muddle.
In the Revising chapter, I enjoyed the history of copyrights, and I liked how the author pointed out the current disconnect in the "copyright bargain," which seems a very good way to think of it, even if that bargain is a drunken three way of a mess.
The Liberal state reading was good, but perphrastic. Immoderately so.
I have stolen digital content on the internet, and I am likely to do so again. I self justify some of these thefts with later purchase of the works involved, but by no means all. Usually I steal things because their legitimate formats are unavailable to me (I don't own a tv, and also (therefore?) don't have cable) such as British tv, tv shows whose network does streaming with commercials, but using a horribly coded engine to do it with (I'm looking at you, CBS).
I understand and acknowledge that this is illegal. But I don't agree with the way that the law is currently set up. The systems in place to try and answer the reasons I steal have become much better (hulu, netflix, audible), but they still aren't optimized, and neither are the laws and underlying philosophical definitions of property and ownership of digital content.
Reading the readings this week I was saddened at how much hasn't changed law-wise since many of the readings were written (1996? Modems?), how much this is still a muddle.
In the Revising chapter, I enjoyed the history of copyrights, and I liked how the author pointed out the current disconnect in the "copyright bargain," which seems a very good way to think of it, even if that bargain is a drunken three way of a mess.
The Liberal state reading was good, but perphrastic. Immoderately so.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Literacy
I was having trouble coming up with what I wanted to say about this week's book, Literacy in American Lives by Deborah Brandt, so read a few of my fellow students' blog entries for this book. I agree with them on how difficult this book was to read, especially finding the argument, or even the point to many paragraphs. Brandt has lots of great anecdotal literacy histories, but she doesn't say anything definitive with her data. (maybe that's my science background speaking). I feel like many of the paragraphs in the conclusion were plug and chug along the lines of
"Of course [obvious and very general statement about literacy]. And while [extreme statement about the seedy and/or spurious economic motives for promoting literacy] is too extreme a thesis [idyllic naive happy fluffy bunnies universe of all good reading] is also false. Literacy Literacy literacy. we must keep in mind [urban/rural, rich/poor, racial, cultural, generational] factors when thinking about literacy, like in chapter[s 1-9].
Unlike others in this class, I did not see my family's literary history depicted in one or more of Brandt's subjects, in that my family's generational differences skewed her generational norms (my grandfather-my father's father- was a veteran of WWI, born in 1894), we didn't follow her rural to urban to suburban trend (all but one were urban and stayed so), nor did education level dramatically increase. My grandfather was a blue collar mechanic on train engines, but read his library out of books in the genres he preferred (westerns, mysteries, science fiction), and kept up correspondence with 10 siblings. My other grandfather was an optometrist, and very active in political causes, rating the op ed page in three different regional newspapers at least once a month.
I understand that this is not typical for this region, or from her examples in book.
I did like how broadly Brandt cast the net of literacy, and made the point that definitions of literacy have broadened and become more complicated from 'ability to sign one's name."
"Of course [obvious and very general statement about literacy]. And while [extreme statement about the seedy and/or spurious economic motives for promoting literacy] is too extreme a thesis [idyllic naive happy fluffy bunnies universe of all good reading] is also false. Literacy Literacy literacy. we must keep in mind [urban/rural, rich/poor, racial, cultural, generational] factors when thinking about literacy, like in chapter[s 1-9].
Unlike others in this class, I did not see my family's literary history depicted in one or more of Brandt's subjects, in that my family's generational differences skewed her generational norms (my grandfather-my father's father- was a veteran of WWI, born in 1894), we didn't follow her rural to urban to suburban trend (all but one were urban and stayed so), nor did education level dramatically increase. My grandfather was a blue collar mechanic on train engines, but read his library out of books in the genres he preferred (westerns, mysteries, science fiction), and kept up correspondence with 10 siblings. My other grandfather was an optometrist, and very active in political causes, rating the op ed page in three different regional newspapers at least once a month.
I understand that this is not typical for this region, or from her examples in book.
I did like how broadly Brandt cast the net of literacy, and made the point that definitions of literacy have broadened and become more complicated from 'ability to sign one's name."
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Hela, informed consent, psychology of the interview
I had two fillings done today, at 8 am. I wasn't thinking about HeLa or Henrietta Lacks during, just clutching my hands and trying to listen to my audiobook instead of the drill, but after, it occurred to me that there is a lot dissatisfying to me about the way I'm treated at the dentist's office- not the dentistry, but the doctor patient relationship, the part that involves informed consent is lacking.
Much of this is on my shoulders, in that I don't take charge of making sure I'm satisfied and feel like I know what's going on, but I think the psychology of the dentist interaction is also at fault. I had my first filling a long time ago, when parents came along to the dentist, but I didn't know then that I could have the entire procedure explained and all my questions asked and answered. Since I've had lots of fillings, my dental health folks assume that I know all that I want to about the matter, and it's on me to ask if I have more questions, but the nature of the dentist visit discourages seeking informed consent. The person that greets you in the waiting room is the assistant, not the dentist, not the person who will perform your procedure. When the dentist does arrive, you are sitting in the chair, she enters and sits behind you, so no eye contact can be obtained. You converse, but it's usually chit chat, ice-breaking on how one is doing, and that is done as you are lowered into what I usually think of as the Position of Helplessness. It's hard to be assertive and feel in charge laying on your back with your feet above you, a bright light in your eyes (akin to interrogation scenes on TV). You feel vulnerable, exposed, and you want to please those in charge precisely because of your powerlessness. Then they stick fingers in your mouth, and your ability to communicate is severely diminished. The dentist and her assistant discuss what they are doing, and the general condition of what they find, but as they are professionals consulting with each other the conversation is going (literally) over your head. The dentist usually takes her leave before the chair has even sat up, so followup questions or concerns can't usually be addressed by her.
At the dentist I arrive feeling anxious, cowed and docile. I leave feeling shaky and a little violated. And I have a good dentist! Trying to be forthright, or even curious in this mindset is difficult, and even when you ask questions (which I try to do) and even if there are good replies, I'm not in the frame of mind to fully absorb the information.
All through reading the Henrietta Lacks book this week I was intrigued by the difficult ethical questions brought up in the book, but I was having trouble tying them into libraries in ways we haven't covered in class (privacy, authority of librarian, help or body blocking medical questions). The bio ethics questions, especially those raised by the underhanded doctor behavior with the Mo cell line are tangled in such a way that neither side is in the right as to how this should be handled, but the current state of affairs is unsustainable. Too tangled an issue for one class.
Today it came to me, in that I was struck when reading the passage discussing Day's general medical reaction when he gave autopsy permission- that his response is yes to what the doctor says and wants. The Henrietta sections also emphasized her lack of information and understanding when it came to her medical care, especially when it came to conditions like her neurosyphilis. This surprised me as my doctor relationship has never been that way, even as I child my pediatrician would explain diseases, symptoms and mechanics, and treatment options.
So what the heck does my dentist visit and Skloot's book have to do with library stuff? It has a lot to do with reference interviews. My dad is a reference librarian, and when I was little the reference desk, just like the Circulation desk, was high up, with the librarian sitting on a stool above the patron, and the computer screen only facing the librarian. I was weirded out and nonplussed when the model shifted to what is currently in vogue (tho not at Memorial Library) where the librarian sits at a low desk with a chair for the patron as well, and a swiveling screen that is patron inclusive in design. I was bothered by how much less authoritative the lowered desk looked, but it's essential to its purpose, which is equalizing. Making the librarian less intimidating, and less distanced makes them more approachable, the shared screen makes searching for information more collaborative, and even if it makes the finding of the information take longer, it also makes the how to find the information (our new emphasis, teaching) much easier. So does the structure of the interview, with lots of leading questions, tips and preferences, and checks that the patron is satisfied or has any further questions.
I understand that the physical limitations of dentistry preclude any sort of equal standing (really sitting) to occur, but I wish it would be something that they try to improve. My doctor experiences are nothing like those that the Lacks family went through, but my dentist ones bear a resemblance. HeLa helped me in a professional sense in that it emphasized that ease and feeling of control are important things for the patron to feel in any interview for it to be a successful one.
Much of this is on my shoulders, in that I don't take charge of making sure I'm satisfied and feel like I know what's going on, but I think the psychology of the dentist interaction is also at fault. I had my first filling a long time ago, when parents came along to the dentist, but I didn't know then that I could have the entire procedure explained and all my questions asked and answered. Since I've had lots of fillings, my dental health folks assume that I know all that I want to about the matter, and it's on me to ask if I have more questions, but the nature of the dentist visit discourages seeking informed consent. The person that greets you in the waiting room is the assistant, not the dentist, not the person who will perform your procedure. When the dentist does arrive, you are sitting in the chair, she enters and sits behind you, so no eye contact can be obtained. You converse, but it's usually chit chat, ice-breaking on how one is doing, and that is done as you are lowered into what I usually think of as the Position of Helplessness. It's hard to be assertive and feel in charge laying on your back with your feet above you, a bright light in your eyes (akin to interrogation scenes on TV). You feel vulnerable, exposed, and you want to please those in charge precisely because of your powerlessness. Then they stick fingers in your mouth, and your ability to communicate is severely diminished. The dentist and her assistant discuss what they are doing, and the general condition of what they find, but as they are professionals consulting with each other the conversation is going (literally) over your head. The dentist usually takes her leave before the chair has even sat up, so followup questions or concerns can't usually be addressed by her.
At the dentist I arrive feeling anxious, cowed and docile. I leave feeling shaky and a little violated. And I have a good dentist! Trying to be forthright, or even curious in this mindset is difficult, and even when you ask questions (which I try to do) and even if there are good replies, I'm not in the frame of mind to fully absorb the information.
All through reading the Henrietta Lacks book this week I was intrigued by the difficult ethical questions brought up in the book, but I was having trouble tying them into libraries in ways we haven't covered in class (privacy, authority of librarian, help or body blocking medical questions). The bio ethics questions, especially those raised by the underhanded doctor behavior with the Mo cell line are tangled in such a way that neither side is in the right as to how this should be handled, but the current state of affairs is unsustainable. Too tangled an issue for one class.
Today it came to me, in that I was struck when reading the passage discussing Day's general medical reaction when he gave autopsy permission- that his response is yes to what the doctor says and wants. The Henrietta sections also emphasized her lack of information and understanding when it came to her medical care, especially when it came to conditions like her neurosyphilis. This surprised me as my doctor relationship has never been that way, even as I child my pediatrician would explain diseases, symptoms and mechanics, and treatment options.
So what the heck does my dentist visit and Skloot's book have to do with library stuff? It has a lot to do with reference interviews. My dad is a reference librarian, and when I was little the reference desk, just like the Circulation desk, was high up, with the librarian sitting on a stool above the patron, and the computer screen only facing the librarian. I was weirded out and nonplussed when the model shifted to what is currently in vogue (tho not at Memorial Library) where the librarian sits at a low desk with a chair for the patron as well, and a swiveling screen that is patron inclusive in design. I was bothered by how much less authoritative the lowered desk looked, but it's essential to its purpose, which is equalizing. Making the librarian less intimidating, and less distanced makes them more approachable, the shared screen makes searching for information more collaborative, and even if it makes the finding of the information take longer, it also makes the how to find the information (our new emphasis, teaching) much easier. So does the structure of the interview, with lots of leading questions, tips and preferences, and checks that the patron is satisfied or has any further questions.
I understand that the physical limitations of dentistry preclude any sort of equal standing (really sitting) to occur, but I wish it would be something that they try to improve. My doctor experiences are nothing like those that the Lacks family went through, but my dentist ones bear a resemblance. HeLa helped me in a professional sense in that it emphasized that ease and feeling of control are important things for the patron to feel in any interview for it to be a successful one.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
It's the patron, stupid
My dad is from Mason City Iowa, the city were Meredith Wilson is from, the city that the Music Man's River City is based on. I've been to Marian the Librarian's house, walked across the "Till there was you" bridge, etc. Marian, as a librarian was in love with her collection, and not particularly bothered about getting the city to read the things that she loved. It's Harold Hill who interests the town in reading ("the professor told us to read those books, and we simply adored them all- Chaucer, Rabelais, Balzac!"). Marian is the traditional Guardian librarian, like the Irish monks who copied and Illuminated their texts through the dark ages, not understanding them, but understanding the need to preserve and protect.
I am a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. In the spinoff show that follows the redeemed vampire Angel, they always emphasize his status as a champion- helping those who are helpless, being their partisan against all the forces of evil.
The articles this week were all about mentally moving away from the guardian librarian mentality, where the collection, and the knowledge is the primary concern of the librarian to a champion model, where the patron is the focus, where all the library collections and the librarian's knowledge are tools in helping the patron.
This isn't a perfect metaphor (it's pretty dorky I know) but changing the viewpoint from guardian to champion is a hard one to do.
I found the article on teaching at the desk to be most helpful of this week's readings, as it outlined the teach a man to fish training I've received and tried to emulate. It's not every patron who needs it, or every patron who's interested, but helping someone master or gain proficiency in a previously bewildering task is more satisfying than being the master of the knowledge, or the guardian, or even the Hermione Granger.
I am a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. In the spinoff show that follows the redeemed vampire Angel, they always emphasize his status as a champion- helping those who are helpless, being their partisan against all the forces of evil.
The articles this week were all about mentally moving away from the guardian librarian mentality, where the collection, and the knowledge is the primary concern of the librarian to a champion model, where the patron is the focus, where all the library collections and the librarian's knowledge are tools in helping the patron.
This isn't a perfect metaphor (it's pretty dorky I know) but changing the viewpoint from guardian to champion is a hard one to do.
I found the article on teaching at the desk to be most helpful of this week's readings, as it outlined the teach a man to fish training I've received and tried to emulate. It's not every patron who needs it, or every patron who's interested, but helping someone master or gain proficiency in a previously bewildering task is more satisfying than being the master of the knowledge, or the guardian, or even the Hermione Granger.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Third order?
I am 24, and I have always had a computer. I understand this is rare, and that first computer was green type on a black screen, but the idea of digital information and the revolution of organizational concepts that it implies does not seem radical to me, just an obvious point about the searchability and the OCD attractiveness of digital information and the possibilities of organizing to your taste. When I was ten I filed my books alphabetically by author first name because they were my books and that was how I wanted them. While Weinberger points out interesting applications of the accessibility of digital information, nothing he points out as remarkable or game changing strikes me (as a member of my generation) as game-changing as he seems to think I ought to. It has always been thus. Sure, there are new data collections since I was aware of this (Amazon, Wikipedia, Itunes Flickr), but they all file under the same thesis, just like all the examples in Weinberger's book.
It must seem amazing to have so many systems of information digitized when one originally learned them analog, but to me, that overlooks that the old organizing schemas are absolutely still necessary- we don't live in a perfectly digital world, even sitting in front of screens all day. I have my personal books (currently organized alphabetically by second word in title) put together so I can find what I want, I still only have so much shelfspace in my pantry. None of these can conform to digital organization options, there is no search box in my closet (unlike Cher in Clueless), so while its cool to think about how customizable and unlimited by conventional physics of dimensions digital organization can be, its just one set of things in one set of schemas.
It must seem amazing to have so many systems of information digitized when one originally learned them analog, but to me, that overlooks that the old organizing schemas are absolutely still necessary- we don't live in a perfectly digital world, even sitting in front of screens all day. I have my personal books (currently organized alphabetically by second word in title) put together so I can find what I want, I still only have so much shelfspace in my pantry. None of these can conform to digital organization options, there is no search box in my closet (unlike Cher in Clueless), so while its cool to think about how customizable and unlimited by conventional physics of dimensions digital organization can be, its just one set of things in one set of schemas.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)