Versed, published by ALA’s Office for Diversity

Posted on by jessamyn

I know I’ve mentioned this before, but it was over a year ago. Under Tracie Hall’s skillful directorship, the ALA Office for Diversity has really been turning out some quality content in their newsletter Versed. I picked up the latest issue at ALA and read it on the plane on the way home. I particularly enjoyed the interviews with past ALA president Betty Turock, East Cleveland Public Library director Greg Reese and the conversation about how to grapple with racism, sexism and the future of the profession.

I wrote my dissertation on job satisfaction of Black librarians in some urban systems of the Midwest, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic states. I did a lot of interviewing. Salary was not a factor in why people were happy or unhappy. It wasn’t even mentioned. What gave people the greatest job satisfaction was being able to help people and doing the work of a librarian. A third major reason was one I was totally unprepared for — a feeling by Black librarians that they were doing the work of God. They felt a calling. It was really striking. The major reason for workplace dissatisfaction was working in a hostile workplace and being subjected to discrimination by library directors, staff, and patrons.

radio book, book radio

Posted on by jessamyn

When you look at the creative bleeding edge things people are doing with user interface design you have to wonder why we can’t hire someone like this to design our OPACs. [thanks adam]

Our final concept, the “book radio,” takes the mental model of a physical book where user can browse by flipping pages, read by keeping a page open, and create a reminder of a specific page by placing a bookmark.

Each page of the “book radio” represents a frequency. The user flips pages to scan the frequency spectrum; opens to a specific page to listen to a station; places the bookmark on a desired page to listen and store the station; and slides the bookmark up or down to control the volume. In addition, the “book radio” inherits other qualities of a book. The user can scribble in it, place stickers or take notes while listening.

while we’re on the subject of success

Posted on by jessamyn

I’ve been enjoying watching the Library Success wiki grow. Now IFLA has a database of library success stories available to the public. It’s still getting started and some of the documents don’t seem to be quite web-ready [i.e. links aren’t hyperlinked, lists aren’t in list format] but it’s great to see people focussing on our successes instead of just our fears and our weaknesses. [thanks eoin]

OCLC Google LC and you

Posted on by jessamyn

There’s a lot of talk going on lately about whether cataloging as it has been done really matters in the age of Google and keyword searching. I’ve been reading about it a lot, both online and in the print materials sent to me by the Sanford Berman postal express, including his back and forth letters to the head cataloger at LC. Sometimes it seems that everyone starts with the same data point, but still arrives at different conclusions. So, the OCLC team [who has a dog in this fight] tell us that “Ordinary people do not search subject headings, Berman or LCSH. They search key words. ” which I think many people agree with. Then we read Thomas Mann [another dog-holder] who has a longish article in Library Journal about scholarly research and the ancillary functions of subject headings as more than just entry points to the information held in a catalog.

Keyword search algorithms, no matter how sophisticated their “relevance ranking” capabilities, cannot turn exactly specified words into conceptual categories. They cannot provide the linkages and webs of relationships to other terms (in a variety of languages, too), nor map out in any systematic manner the range of unanticipated aspects of a subject. Keyword searches cannot segregate the desired terms in relevant contexts distinct from the same terms used in irrelevant contexts.

In contrast, LC cataloging and classification—done by professional librarians rather than computer programs—accomplish exactly these functions that are so critical to scholarship. The search mechanisms created by librarians enable systematic searching, not merely desultory information seeking.

We all know Google is useful and is changing the way the average person searches for information. However, when we start to discuss whether Google is changing the way the average researcher does scholarship, then I think we have to be a lot more careful about understanding its [proprietary] mechanisms and thinking about what Google’s goals for Google are as well.