oh, deer

Ha, ha.  I know I'm corny.  Eschenfelder and Miller's take on the positive government-citizen relationships made possible by the internet is interesting in light of Yudof's warnings about the government and technology.  Both articles did say that the internet provides a very quick and effective way to reach the masses.  Whether the purpose is for propaganda or public safety & education is in the eye of the beholder.

Again remembering Yudof's warning concerning governmental omissions of information, I can see how easy it would be for CWD sites to strategically leave out information to tailor the message to someone's agenda.  The variety in levels of disclosure among the four CWD sites was astonishing.  I appreciated the authors' attempt to provide some structure and framework for including enough information for stakeholders to make decisions.  It makes a lot of sense that agencies should follow "guidelines for 'influential' information that require agencies to provide sufficient information such that interested parties could conduct an independent reanalysis and come up with similar conclusions" (p. 82). 

Of course my brain heads to school libraries.  In the same way that government websites must present the complete picture, school libraries should endeavor to provide a well-rounded collection, complete with controversies and debates.  The omission of certain books and topics may speak as clearly as the inclusion of them and should be considered carefully.  Just as government agencies should follow clear guidelines, so should school libraries follow a plan for collection development and management.

Changing directions, I found something missing in both the other articles was citizen-to-government communication.  If the governing body believes it is true that "the role of government information is to educate citizens so they can provide input to agency decision makers", then there must be a convenient avenue for communication from citizens to those agencies (p. 82).  The citizen-publisher form of government information dispersal seems to fill that gap.  The article goes so far as to suggest an online forum for discussion or even published articles from concerned citizens.  While this model may thwart traditional forms of authority to some extent, it also allows for a public sense of ownership (and possibly more complete/diverse information than would be available from the governmental office alone).  In light of the ubiquity of "wikis" and social cataloging, it seems like user-created content and discussion would be a natural next step in government information.  As providers of information to patrons, do libraries (particularly school libraries) provide ample opportunities for the public to speak to the library about their needs?

serving the user/cutting through the haze

I mentioned in my last post that teachers and librarians can tend to be "know-it-alls".  In that same vein, Weigand's article, "Mom and Me: A Difference in Information Values" points out that librarians (and I think educators in general) often feel their method of research is best.  I have to admit that when it comes to information searching, use, or storage, I have gotten set in my ways.  Another point I gathered from Wiegand's essay is that the search process may not be the only place where teacher/librarian and user disagree:  the patron may be looking for an entirely different outcome than the librarian assumes, as was the case with Wiegand's mother and car-shopping.  Assuming is where we need to tread carefully and go back to Elmborg's initial interview.  In our eagerness to serve and impart knowledge, it is all too easy to project our own values, priorities, and interests onto a patron's search process.  This reminds me once again that sometimes I need to shut my mouth and listen!

Listening to student needs is essential to being "student-centered", a popular phrase in education, whose core idea has seeped into reference work.  Being user-centered means catering to the users' informational and, to some extent, emotional needs.  In "Toward a User-Centered Information Service",   Morris' loose description of the user-centered reference process seems a practical physical application of Weinberger's assertions about the messy process of digital searching.  Who better to bridge the gap between the "essentialism" of the Dewey system and the dynamic human searcher than another human?  The article shares researcher Dervin's suggestion of finding a systematic process inherent in the user's ostensibly chaotic method of searching.  I disagree with the idea of a set process somewhat, as Weinberger points out, there is an intuitive and useful quality to a non-linear process like we use on the internet, though it may seem chaotic to some.  Unlike Weinberger, I do not think this process has to be limited to the digital realm.  Morris describes the process as guided by the "uncertainty principle" in Kuhlthau's research, where "individuals...seek meaning rather than answers" (23).  The librarian, by "facilitating problem solving" (24), can provide that internet-like flexibility and individualization in a way the catalog cannot.

Or can it?  I was excited to read about how being user-centered could impact cataloging practices since Everything is Miscellaneous got me thinking and wondering about such things.  After reading the book, I understood (and agreed to some extent) that Weinberger thinks the digital miscellany is amazing.  Great.  Now what do I do with that?  Where do physical libraries fit into that?  Since libraries do typically have a digital element, such as the OPAC, it seems like it might be easy to incorporate more meaningful and intuitive search tools.  However, the records on the OPAC are still attached to physical books on physical shelves, and as Weinberger pointed out over and over in his book, the physical has its limitations.  Morris has presented some ways that reference librarians can bridge the gap between the user and the physical resources.  She also shows how cataloging systems can evolve to be more user-centered.  For example, I like the idea of catalogs recording which search terms lead to successful acquisition of a piece of information.  These suggestions could then inform subsequent searches, Amazon-style.  It was encouraging to read about how Weinberger's ideas can be applied in real life libraries.