Previous topic: "(Re)packaging the Library for the Web"
Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu
Many thanks to Paul Doty for hosting a really super discussion on "(Re)packaging the Library for the Web." We've certainly heard from several different perspectives and learned a lot on this topic. Thanks again to Paul for suggesting this topic, guiding us, and summarizing from time to time.
Please welcome Robert Bauchspies who is our guest editor for "Information Culture: Concepts and Application." Robert is currently the Research Services Librarian for the Export-Import Bank of the United States. His continuing interests include information and society issues, systems administration and information behavior.
Robert Bauchspies is currently the research services librarian for the Export-Import Bank of the United States. His continuing interests include information and society issues, systems administration and information behavior.
Please join the discussion.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
P.O. Box 5555
Middleburg, VA 20118
bauchspr@mediasoft.net
For those of you that were around last fall, this is a reissue of a topic that was suspended due to some technical glitches with the host. I am pleased to have this opportunity again to introduce, promote, and otherwise explore the validity and merit of "information culture" as a perspective that is still wanting in the expanding arena of information studies. I hope to emphasize, with your participation, why understanding information culture is important to your own activity and organization.
Information culture can be broadly defined as the cultural consideration of information. In this usage, "information" is conceived of in the abstract so as to allow detachment -- chiefly, that information is both an entity and a process, where content generally (entity), and its subsequent transfer (process) is our concern. Third we must extend anthropological definitions of culture to include behavior that is relevant to our consideration of what information is within our working definition. Then, and here is the hook, we must weigh how we measure the valuating processes of information as they are influenced by cultural criteria. Such as framework, as I would like to explore with this list, can then be readily applied to individual, organizational and societal levels of information behavior or their collective aggregates, however the case may be.
Consider identifying cultural aspects of information creation and transfer in your own behavior, organization or society.
Pick a question or ask a new one, and run with it. My current WHO CRISTAL-ED to the Majordomo application running this list counts over 900 current members. Surely each of you can consider these questions and offer an insight, comment, or observation.
D. Heenan
CTO
PIX, LLC
NY, NY
DanH6000@aol.com
This topic was introduced in such a thought-provoking way, that even I had a thought. My thought, confirmed by my dictionary, is that "information" is a noun. What happens to information can be termed a "process," but information itself is not a process.
I tend to think that what we call "wisdom" defines fairly well the cultural aspects of information processing and transfer in one's own behavior, organization or society.
I would suggest that what we call "knowledge" is the organization of information by society. This organization puts the information into a structure so the whole can be understood, but there may ultimately be no "correct" way to do it. Knowledge always indicates a direction for further information gathering, often uncovering new information that forces the restructuring of knowledge and subsequently the redirection of future information gathering down new paths. Knowledge and information help define each other.
When I think of information transfer, the word "communication" comes to mind. Communication does have a host of cultural, organizational, societal, and even psychological situations that influence its "behavior." Those knowledgeable and wise communicate successfully and those who manipulate symbols without understanding their meaning communicate less successfully, in my humble opinion.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
P.O. Box 5555
Middleburg, VA 20118
bauchspr@mediasoft.net
Dan Heenan's initial comment dismissing my working definition of information requires another address which I will offer here. By tightly packing my introduction, I did have concern that its brevity attempting to frame an argument would leave some pondering askew to my primary concern. Hence let me briefly expand the "information as process" component to this working definition of information, especially if it is I Dan alludes to as "manipulat(ing) symbols without understanding their meaning."
Information by itself does not exist. Some element of cognition, either consciously or unconsciously, is required to give information its more commonly understood definition of form or entity. However existential it may be, information is NOT, without some manner of abstraction provoking reference, provoking form. Hence, we as "information professionals" need to recognize that to merely state what information IS, implies a process to posture such a definition. To recognize information requires a process. This process in turn, gives the entity its form and in this instance, I am not referring to content but to the abstract entity I mention in the introduction.
My concern is with the cultural consideration of information. Indeed it is argued that what impacts its creation, evaluation, valuation, and transfer is embued with cultural criteria. And yes, I will grant you, people have been debating what IS is for some time, now haven't they? And yes, culture, information, and knowledge along with a few other choice words are not easily defined, not matter what or how many dictionaries one has.
I need some consideration and response to my opening questions to extend these comments. Thanks in advance.
Eric Ketelaar
Professor of Archivistics at the Universities of Leiden and Amsterdam
The Hague
The Netherlands
fketelaa@pobox.leidenuniv.nl
Samuel R. M. Souza
Librarian
Sao Paulo - Brazil
sams@mandic.com.br
Robert Bauchspies asks:
It seems difficult for me to answer in a straightforward manner. Some would see culture itself as a dependent variable and others as an independent variable. In other words, one could think every society, for example, has its unique culture wihle others could see culture as set of contents which can be comparable to other contries' similar contents. The same for individuals -- two people could hold a similar profile according the Myers-Briggs indicator, but how far could we accept they will behave in the same way ? Finally, organizations can experience such a "myopia" that new information would hardly be seen as vital. In this case how can we identify the cause of the problem ? where are the "eyes" of an organization ?
Perhaps information as a process is based on a sense-making process that takes
advantage of pieces of information, raw data and personal insights mixed up according an
organizational, societal or individual culture. Everyone has its personal culture no
matter one has few years or a life of instruction. But sometimes, as
we see in the literature, a scholar would become a "gatekeeper" because he/she
helps others in seeking information, and so on. Individual aspects are added to
institutional ones, with the help of language, postulates of a science and its members,
and relevant pieces of information. So, the infomation process for academia is different,
because there are some scientific criteria for making sense of the world, not only
language itself. But scientific criteria could be fostered by those pioneers which began
establishing a field as a science. Their human example remains, although their methods
became obsolete.
From this narrative we can extract the following elements: language, social groups, institutional boundaries, values of the founders, and also the challenges a given individual, or group/organization, or society faces and tries to solve using information. Can we name them as "foundations" of infomation bahavior ? Taking that in consideration in our library day-to-day life could be a good idea.
Let's take for example collection development and evaluation. The colletion can be considered as a reflection a given culture along the years, decades or centuries. Than we ask: a group culture ? a science-field culture ? a national culture ? For an academic library the answer seems obvious, but... how can we recall the library history so as to get a more precise answer ? and how to respond to the current needs when we face decisions which affect a 500-year collection? will next generations value the past in the same way as we (for example) do?
Its not the intention to raise a badly-elaborated question, but sometimes it is the culture that makes decisions, not us... like Latin, which was the primary way to communicate science and now is a restricted language.
By using ways to assess the climate of a given organization, the cultural values that resisted time and are still living among us, one could create some tools that make more easy some library procedures... But it would involve lots of individual effort and insights... as well as cultural background. After all, culture could be the "information" every library needs to survive.
Sorry for any error or difficulty in expressing thoughts.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
P.O. Box 5555
Middleburg, VA 20118
bauchspr@mediasoft.net
Professor Ketelaar suggests that we are "culturally biased by the software of mind". Dan Heenan adds that it is "wisdom" that "defines the cultural aspects of information processing and transfer".
Is wisdom then, reflection over knowledge gained in both formal and experiential modes that is analogous to the hermenuetical notion that there is no objectivity? A splendid point of departure if you consider cultural identity.
Our behaviors, individually and collectively, in varying scales of measure are results of organic and environmental variables. As readily as we define behaviors in biological terms and genetic tendency on one hand, there is no escaping the equally compelling argument that we learn to become what we are through our environmental experiences.
Cultural identity, and the artifacts of such, range as limitless as the creative imagination. Cyberculture was unheard of just a few decades ago. Consider the following:
Individual information culture is identified through the organic and environmental influences put upon the assignment of value to information and the resulting decisions impacting the further creation and transfer of information.
Organizational information cultural is both the ad hoc and intended orchestration of value systems impacting the creation and transfer of information within the organization. The value systems are exponents of individual and group cultural identity as linked to some measure of participation and identification with the organization.
Societal information culture is the observation of intended and random collective behavior extending identity into macro forms, both as originating proponent and resulting imposition of how culture influences information's creation and transfer.
Each of these "levels" of application of information culture as a lens by which we may discern the creation and transfer of information is much more fluid and dynamic than such a hierarchy might suggest. Moreoever, depending on the emphasis of what particular accent of cultural identity is made, it is safe to say that all of us are a composite of several cultural groups, whether we are aware of it or not.
As anthropologist Richard Barrett states,
"It is never the less a fact, and one that any anthropologist or sociologist will attest to, that the behavior of most individuals most of the time -- and including that of persons we consider exceptional -- falls within the rather narrow range permitted by their culture. This is true not only in our own society, but in every society on earth. And the reason that individuals are not normally aware of this, or that they do not constantly feel the burden of their culture upon them, is because cultural conditioning is so much a part of their existence that it is inseparable from their individual being."
(Cf. Barrett, Richard A. 1984. _Culture and conduct_. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing, p. 66)
If cultural identity is so intrinsic to our being, what are the influences that, both consciously and unconsciously, impact how we value information?
Do not the implicit value systems in the hierarchy of individual, organizational and societal forms compete with themselves in directing /determining our own information behavior? (i.e. how and why and in what way we respond to stimuli, etc.)
Robert P. Holley
Associate Dean University Libraries
Dean's Office
3100 David Adamany Undergraduate Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
313-577-4021 (voice) 313-577-5525 (fax)
AA3805@WAYNE.EDU (Internet)
RHOLLEY@LISP.PURDY.WAYNE.EDU
(Alternate Internet)
I believe that one of the components of our current information culture is an increased reliance on information transfer to share "best practice" as a solution to problems. In my opinion, "best practice" often relies on technical solutions that mimic the surface characteristics of a "real" solution. For example, a company teaches its customer service people how to appear friendly rather than to be friendly. While not an information example, people regarded small size to be an indication of tenderness in peas, "petits pois," until plant breeders developed peas that stayed small no matter how old and tough they really were. Thus, we have a surface characteristic that should indicate an underlying reality, in this case "tenderness," but no longer does.
Our information culture has taught us to analyze and codify what the experts do and then teaches us how to mimic then. I don't have any problems with this tendency in areas such as learning to ski or to fix my gutters. On the other hand, I have concerns with an information culture that gives the best practice for appearing to be in love when you're really not or that tells my insurance salesman how to mimic having my interests at heart when all she really wants is her commission. Without any hesitation, we teach our graduates how to look competent on the interview even if they aren't really competent.
I believe that this factor has made us cynical about communication and has taught to look for the signs of insincerity in all communication. Protestations of honesty are often correctly regarded as just another "best practice" to have others believe that we're honest when we're not.
I also believe that "best practice" in all fields is popular because it does
indeed work. But what is this reliance upon techniques doing to us?
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
P.O. Box 5555
Middleburg, VA 20118
bauchspr@mediasoft.net
The two recent posts by Samuel Souza and Bob Holley provide substantive yet notably different extrapolations to our current discussion of information culture. As both gravitate toward organizational forms, let us spend a few rounds here as I attempt to draw the two together highlighting some of the important questions both have raised.
First off, may I mention that with reference to studies of information culture in organizations, concrete footing has been established by Miriam Ginman of the Abo Academy in Finland, Thomas Wilson of the Sheffield School of Information Studies in England, and Lars Hoglund of the Research Centre for Library and Information Studies in Sweden. And, within the burgeoning literature on knowledge management, best practices, process innovation, intellectual capital, learning organizations and business intelligence certain names regularly make the references. Some of these are Davenport, Drucker, Kling, Malhotra, Negroponte, Senge, Strassmann, and Zuboff to name a few.
As many of you on this list are either students, professors or practicing librarians and information professionals, clearly active engagement with and within organizations is a given for each of you. Thus each of us is involved with an organization that has, as articulated by it's mission, certain implicit values supporting the organization's reason for being. It is my belief that a well defined organizational culture remains leadership driven. In information intensive organizations (which the Harvard school suggests as everyone's 'should be' organization), the linkages between behavior and information toward the fulfillment of mission remain poorly understood. Buzz phrases such as 'knowledge management' and 'best practices' are clearly in today's mainstream in part because their rationale has evolved concurrently with the impact information technology is having on organizational change. When headhunting firms are recruiting knowledge managers and the government is seeking technical information specialists where job descriptions parallel many a given librarian announcement, something indeed is at issue here. Moreover, with respect to the self-fulfilling prophesies as articulated by some of the better business schools across the land, the "new think" hits the ground running with top consulting firms that then translate these neo-paradigms into enterprise as CEOs are retold the obvious and facilitators attempt to reestablish cohesion within an organization across enhanced ICT (information and communication technology) lines. As if having knowledgable, competent staff, both well spoken and written, with information habits supporting current awareness relevant to the organization were a new revelation is indeed eye opening. The point to be made however, and as was suggested in my third opening question is, can we instill information behaviors within our organizations that are not only supportive of mission or mandate but serve to sustain motivation toward a more successful outcome, whether it is enhanced service or the bottom line? Can not an information culture within an organization be cultivated intentionally or is it left to the individual to discern his or her own effort in relevant context as interrelated with others in the organization?
And as dean Holley intimates, how much is just smoke and mirrors, bluffing the eager believer and leaving little to demonstrated competence or performance? The productivity paradox is alive and well [sic] in many an MIS strategy. And "reliance on techniques" as Bob asks, does indeed raise a concern. Some are at risk of becoming automatrons to their autopatrons where technique as a primary criteria of employable worth is also seen as the appropriate response to an innocent information seeker. This observation however has much greater ramification than it might first seem. Jacque Ellul has taken "technique" to a broad critical view of technology and civilization and the search for solutions. Our micro-environments work within this greater symbolic architecture as well as retain scientific and systems thinking indicative of our continuing age of reason and rationality that is in stride with our technological innovations.
Samuel Souza emphasizes values as distillations of what I referred to earlier in the context of cultural identity. Where there are clashes of values in an organization, how does this impact the content and transfer of information? How much can value systems be streamlined within an organization to arrive at a contiguous and vibrantly performing outfit? Where does the responsibility lay with such an ambition? I would agree with Mr. Souza's observation that understanding the cultural contexts of organizations would indeed assist us in developing tools (and frameworks) that would further assist us in some of our "procedures".
And with regard to disingenuous 'best practices' referencing, should not library schools and information studies programs be emphasizing how, both from user, practitioner and instructor perspectives, one arrives at determing the value of information as well as what criteria lay behind such valuing processes? A logical response might naturally be the 'satisfying of information need' yet I sense there is more at work here.
I would think that the leaders and those in supervisory roles participating on this list might readily discern cultural criteria in their respective environments, especially as they may influence their units in relation to the larger organization.
Your comments?
Judith A. Jablonski
Lecturer / Phd Candidate
School of Library and Information Studies
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Helen C. White Hall
600 N. Park Street
Madison, WI 53706
(608) 263-2900
email: jajablon@macc.wisc.edu
Mr. Bauchspies opened the discussion noting his goal to "explore the validity and merit of 'information culture' as a perspective that is still wanting in the expanding arena of information studies." Further, he hoped to "emphasize. . .why understanding information culture is important to your own activities and organization." Thus far, the discussion has focused on the modern era framed by the context of the "Organization." Can we expand the context a bit and, thereby, expand the notion of information culture itself?
By positing a more concrete definition, we may be able to contribute to information studies in a more meaningful (i.e., research-credible and practice-informing) fashion. As part of my research work, I have been trying to develop a more "measurable" or "researchable" definition of information culture. This is in part, as the preceding commentary demonstrates, because the terms "information" and "culture" are so densely packed as jargon or buzz words. Context or perspective controls our individual understanding and usage of the terms. If information culture is to have "validity and merit" as a theoretical perspective, a definition must allow for testing of the theory in order to work out 1) its accuracy and justifiability as a theoretical perspective and 2) its utility to information studies and practice.
I define information culture as << the manifestation of an individual's or group's knowledge or information experience within the context of the person's or group's social, political, psychological, or intellectual milieu.>> These manifestations are visible, documented, or in some way recorded and serve as evidence of that person's or group's information culture. I am making some assumptions, of course. The primary one is that of the "realist" perspective in cultural anthropology which takes culture as a given -- existing whether or not its participants or external researchers acknowledge or interpret it. A second is that the terms "information," "knowledge," and "culture" will be explicated within the context of the research project/question at hand.
At issue is how an information culture event can be meaningfully researched. For instance, if we were to study the information culture of an individual urban homeowner, what does the evidence consist of? And how would we evaluate and interpret it? Is the researcher a sociologist at this point? An anthropologist? A library/information practitioner doing action research at the library this homeowner uses regularly? What if the target audience is historical -- e.g., the elite-level scholars at the point when Gutenberg's printing press became the technology of the day, radically altering the information culture the scholars were products of? Is the researcher primarily (and only) a historian at this point, or can "real time methods," such as those of cultural anthropology, be employed to investigate the then-contemporary information culture experience?
I think information culture as a perspective <can> serve to inform information/library studies and practice if
Ben Speller
North Carolina Central University
SLIS
Durham, NC USA
Speller@nccu.edu
I like the idea of linking the value of information in an organization to its mission. Based on what I have seen recently, some organizations are not very sure about their mission. This then leads to the question, how do you build an information culture in organizations that are not sure of their mission?
R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, C.A.
Nevada State Library and Archives
rjarmstr@clan.lib.nv.us
I should say first that I am an archivist and a cultural anthropologist. Wearing the latter hat I specialize in diachronic studies, particularly for the period 1840-1940.
As I would tell my students in the first class, 'culture' is not directly observable. 'Culture' (as used as a 'term' by anthropologists) refers to the beliefs (values and attitudes) that underly the behavior of individuals and in terms of which they interpret the behavior of others. 'Culture' only exists inside people's heads. What people say, do, and create reflects their culture but is not 'culture' itself. One observes behavior in order to make inferences about its ideological underpinnings - culture - and one tests one's understanding of culture by attempting to forecast how individuals will behave.
Any study of 'information culture' would need to rest on a solid foundation of observation and analysis of information _behavior_. And the conclusions of such a process should be testable by measuring hypotheses generated from them against further observations.
Undoubtedly, values and attitudes about 'information' exist in all cultures and these structure the communication and utilization of information within the related societies. Equally, the existence of information modalities (literacy, printing, telecommunications, etc.) effect the development of societies and their ideological base.
There has been an increasing interest in the last decade on the social functioning of information (particularly literacy and recordkeeping) among scholars of non-Western societies. And there is an increasing body of work on historic Western societies. Of especial interest is the extent to which this scholarship is now incorporating the consideration of iconographic materials.
It is true that there has been much more work on the generation and communication of information than on the seeking of information. It seems to me that the challenge to those in the 'information professions' is to integrate the findings of such scholarship into the study of information seeking behavior. With sufficiently informed analysis of all sides of the information process, we will then be in a position to formulate models of particular information cultures.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
P.O. Box 5555
Middleburg, VA 20118
bauchspr@mediasoft.net
Thank you Judith for the meaningful contribution. As you raise several points and a few questions, I will take this opportunity to respond as well as "expand the context a bit" as you request. It had been my intention all along but with a silent 900+ member list and a couple of deja vu-like systems administration issues, my waiting for the fish to bite lost a couple days at sea.
First off, my intention to explore the validity and merit of information culture as an area of study remains. I have not wanted to soap box and one could indeed speculate on the 'death of a list' or the passivity stereotype of librarians showing itself once again in such a forum, but then watching waves rather than making them is somewhat a character trait for us librarians. What I have wanted has been engagement and discourse, not fence sitting to what I remain believing to be an important topic for each of you in your various endeavors. And I suspect for some, you really need to read something controversial or provocative to muster a response. And, just to note with interest how the first two posts to this discussion came from outside the United States. This is where I'll begin...
Definitions
Professor Ginman of the Abo Academy in Finland defines information culture where the "transformation of intellectual resources is maintained alongside the transformation of material resources. The primary resources for this type of transformation are varying kinds of knowledge and information. The output achieved is a processed intellectual product which is necessary for the material activities to function and develop positively". (Cf. Ginman, M. 1987. "Information culture and business performance" _IATUL Quarterly_, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 93-106)
She further adds "the criteria used to define information culture were the degree of interest in information and the attitude to factors in the external company environment" (p. 103).
As Judith points out, the recent effort on this theme has given emphasis to information culture in organizations. Part of the reason for this has been the research funding in an area of tangible return, (i.e. applications of research results toward the ambition of increasing business performance) As mentioned, credible research has been ongoing by the scholars mentioned in the previous post. Case studies and participant observation have been the methodologies, yet theory, I would agree, has been weak.
Theory
Professor Ketelaar provided me a personal email on some of his theoretical positions
regarding information culture but I will leave it to him to offer the post again to the
list where he highlights Derrida among others. Quite frankly, theory in LIS in general and
the legitimacy of LIS doctoral programs has periodically taken a beating. Regarding
anthropological theories in LIS, Sandstrom and Sandstrom highlight how erroneous use of
theory in LIS research has hurt the 'discipline'.
(Cf. Sandstrom, A.R. and P.E. Sandstrom. 1995. "The Use and misuse of anthropological
methods in library and information science research" _Library Quarterly_, vol.
65, no. 2, pp. 161-199).
Additionally, I need not point to the many bibliometric studies attempting to draw a bead on peer-reviewed research versus the testimonials and reporting which remain the lion's share of LIS professional writing. So Judith, I applaud you in your serious consideration of this topic and encourage you to pursue it.
In a paper recently submitted for publication on information culture, I make the argument, as I have been doing here, that it is the culturally influenced determination of the value of information which frames an information culture at any level of observation or context one may discern. My election of individual, organizational, and societal levels of consideration is simplistic but concrete as there is both marked distinction between each yet allowance for the obvious dynamism of interaction.
The processes of valuing information are many. Many of these in turn are cultural in orientation. In my paper I take some measure of formulating organic and environmental influences on cultural identity. From socio-biology to Anthony Gidden's "third way" I have sought to frame an identity which encompasses the multiple variables which factor into such a consideration.
Two helpful articles in this light are T. Saracevic and P. Kantor's "Studying the
value of library and information services" Pts 1&2 JASIS 48(6)97 and J. Curry
('97) "The Dialectic of Knowledge-in-production: Value creation in late capitalism
and the rise of knowledge-centered production" available at:
<http://www.sociology.org/content/vol002.003/curry.html>
Moreover, as we are talking about individual and collective information behavior, the work of Peter Ingwersen and Soren Brier, both of the Royal School of Librarianship in Denmark, is recommended for their "cognitive IR theory" and "cybersemiotics" theories respectively. Original thinking, I might add, is alive and well where Dervin, Kuhlthau, Nahl and others continue to provide us insights to information behavior. For the big picture much can be drawn from Bourdieu, Castells, Foucault, Kling and others in attempting to design a theoretical framework which, as Judith suggests, "must allow for testing to work out ... accuracy ... justifiability ... utility."
So what am I proposing here?
Consider these questions:
ANSWER- ***Perceptions of information value are culturally driven but not inconsequential***
While I long a return to funded doctoral research at some point, for now I remain a practitioner of the craft some call librarianship.
My effort on this theme to date has been to introduce, propose, suggest and convey my thoughts on "information culture". There's a lot of work to be done I agree, but it's now out of the gates and there's no bill :)
Your comments remain welcomed and encouraged.
Robert W. Bauchspies, Jr.
P.O. Box 5555
Middleburg, VA 20118
bauchspr@mediasoft.net
We've come the end of this two week installment of CRISTAL-ED where we have been discussing information culture. First may I thank all who particpated. I am encouraged by the comments which did come in regarding the advancing of information culture conceptually.
As I have tried to respond to each contributor, I will not once again highlight their comments nor my responses except to say that I encourage you to re-read the posts and formulate your own conclusions for what substance and gain might have been presented.
With this format in mind may I take a last effort to reply to Professors Speller and Armstrong-Ingman.
Ben asks "... how do you build an information culture in organizations that are not sure of their missions?"
My reply would be, and with tie in to my initial questions regarding the optimizing of an information culture -- through the dual efforts of heightening the organizational culture and ubiquitous ICT competencies. Gravitation of this effort should be inclined toward the mutually held understanding of the reasons for being for a particular organization. Moreover, through effective leadership, linkage to valuative processes of information content and effective delivery would advance the cohesion and decision making as well as the relevant current awareness within the organization. Operations such as these, void of the greater purposes as ensampled with Ben's mention indeed might then otherwise perform such activities in singular mindsets or within vacuums. Those who's positions compel them to interrelate with other divisions in their organizations as well as those orgs outside their own should be required to demonstrate an extended grasp of the importance (read 'value') of such interrelation as well as competencies displaying effective communication in the context of such mission. Team building, participatory management styles, effective training and oversight and a reinforcing espirit d'corps contribute to this ambition of a high information culture. All organizations have a reason for being, no matter how trivial or serious they may be. Making sure staff are cognizant of what this actually is remains the responsibility of the leadership, management and existing staff as well as those who critique and otherwise review your operations.
Regarding R.J. Ingram's rich post, it is fair to say that culture and information are each prone to a certain existentialism as regards what they actually are. But I must admit, having observed a tree or two falling in the forest, I can say that they do make a sound and I have heard it. This basically supports your mention that it is through methodical observation of behavior (individual and collective) that we may then extend and/or assign cultural definition over time. Remove the observation and you can only surmise, assume and infer. And yes, to be taken seriously any studies in information culture need to be rigorously grounded in a theoretical base which supports the chosen methodologies of inquiry, be they qualitative or quantitative.
Thus cultural considerations at the individual, organization and societal levels provide a ready pool to frame the inquiry. You could extend these in many directions to extract any such grouping for information culture consideration. Thus, the basic premise underlying this effort has been to suggest that the creation and transfer of information is affected by cultural criteria. Specifically, that the assignment of value impacting the evaluation, as well as decisions effecting action are influenced culturally (i.e. through the values, attitude and beliefs and the artifacts which extend them). We can prove this with the daily news.
As there did appear to be a resurgence of comments toward the latter quarter of this discussion theme, each with notable insight, perhaps we can revisit this topic toward the end of the year now that we have something to think about and chase after (as the interest and time warrant). And, as we approach the Y2K and all the nail biting that seems to be spreading, let us remind ourselves of the great dependency we have made for ourselves with our machines -- itself an expression of selective determinants culturally driven. Moreover, let us also consider the very nature of artificial intelligence and our trends with genetics, biotechnology and high technology warfare. As information intensive pursuits, what values and missions are implied? To make for a better ...?
Professor Kling and his colleagues at Indiana's Social Informatics program speak of
socio-technical criteria in defining their area of study. Information culture
clearly has relevance here with a need for greater attention yet it's consideration
readily extends beyond IT as well. See his January '99 _Digitial Libraries_ article for a
recent synopsis of the subject. Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/kling/01kling.html
.
And as some information schools splinter into multiple specialties, I tend to believe an
advanced generalist has more to offer for the long term. Extended competencies in
current technologies yes, but not through the forfeiture of other more time independent
skills and attributes as regards the information professions. The Rutgers and Hawaii
interdisciplinary CIS doctoral programs address this reality.
Thank you all for your participation, willingness to read these posts and thoughts reflecting over the current discourse.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
