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
New topic -- "J.Z. Nitecki's Metalibrarianship"
Many thanks to Ray Metz for leading our discussion on "How Much Technology is Too Much Technology?" We have had a good discussion for the last two weeks with many good comments, suggestions, and ideas. Let's keep the discussion at this high level as we turn to our new topic on the writings of J.Z. Nitecki. I regret to say that I am not knowledgeable of Nitecki's works and am curious to learn about them. Our guest editor for this topic is Joanne Twining Williams.
Joanne Twining Williams is an entrepreneurial librarian and doctoral student in the Texas Woman's University School of Library and Information Studies, where she is studying the future, researching the question, and pursuing philosophy of librarianship. As a consultant she has worked with colleges, schools, libraries, businesses, government, and individuals in the areas of information management, computer literacy, systems analysis and design, Internet connectivity, and digital integration. Williams migrated to librarianship in the early 1990s after a 20-year career in journalism, the last 12 of which were spent as a newspaper publisher for a remote community in the wilds of the American West. "When I finished my one-year MLS, I was left with a sense of shallowness. The coursework and degree requirements were, of course, very rigorous, but it seemed to me there had to be more to librarianship than just 'doing it.' I entered the Ph.D. program and that's when I 'discovered' philosophy of librarianship and began to understand the depth of our challenges and the breadth of our influence. Ten years ago my secret motto was 'don't argue with people who buy ink by the barrel.' Today it's 'make friends with the ones who keep the knowledge.'" The focus of Williams' term as moderator will be J.Z. Nitecki's "Metalibrarianship: A Model for Intellectual Foundations of Library Information Science," which is published online.
Please join the discussion.
Joanne Twining Williams
twining@texoma.com
Librarianship, it's been said, won't be a mature discipline until it has a theory all its own. Our literature is peppered with pleas for, moves toward, and attempts to arrive at philosophy of librarianship. We've argued the definition and transcended the theological and political impossibility. We've entertained the convenient notion of adopting a string of dead germans from our social science sisters. A recent article denies the need for philosophy, claiming librarianship is confused enough, and that's as it should be. We've suffered the disjunction of our name, and focused our research attention on the parts: the buildings, bytes, books, and beneficiaries of the practice of our art. We've all but begged to be taken seriously as a science, a discipline, a profession...we seek just reward and esteem commensurate to the hugeness of value we add to life. But, bottomline, we just won't "get it" until we have a theory we can call our own.
Well, now we do: J.Z. Nitecki's "Metalibrarianship."
J.Z. Nitecki's "Metalibrarianship: A Model for Intellectual Foundations of Library Information Science" (1993) is available online as part of "The Nitecki Trilogy." It is published as a doctoral project by the School of Library and Information Studies at Texas Woman's University and is temporarily posted for your review.
As we spend the next two weeks in a sort of real-time, online peer review of Nitecki's work, let's frame our thinking with the primary question:
I'm leaving behind the official webbed version of "Metalibrarianship." The author, J.Z. Nitecki, is professor emeritus of librarianship and academic librarian (retired) SUNY-Albany. "Metalibrarianship" is the centerpiece of "The Nitecki Trilogy" and the capstone work of a rich scholarly career spanning nearly 35 years. Here's why I choose "Metalibrariaship":
Metalibrarianship is a synthetic work that presents a metaphysical model representing the reality of librarianship as a "...network of interrelationships between three basic perceptions of that reality.." (Nitecki 1993, 9.1.4) Nitecki's model builds on the relationship between the receiver of communication (alpha), the meaning communicated (beta), and the carrier of the message (gamma), by looking at three distinct dimensions: the procedural, physiological dimension of acquiring, organizing, and disseminating information records (Pd); the contextual, psychological dimension interpreted in terms of the environment provided for the use of library resources (Cx); and the conceptual, philosophical dimension of analytical relationships between library stimuli and patron's responses (Co). Metalibrary reality is fueled by the data -> information -> knowledge (d-i-k) transfer, and sparked by the user's needs:fulfillment imperative.
As a thought process, "Metalibrarianship is defined as an abstract system that interrelates generic needs for knowledge expressed by an individual with equally generic recorded means available for that individual." (Nitecki 1993, 9.3.2) Nitecki paints a clear picture of librarianship's historical and actual reality using a triadic approach, and points squarely to the "unknown reality" which is the ultimate subject of all our searches. Armed with this rich text, and no other, the librarian of the future will have access to the foundations of our knowledge about ourselves, and should be able to pick up the pieces and carry on when, and if all our buildings, books and bytes are gone.
Our second question is provided by a fellow TWU doctoral students Karen Harker and Sara Catherine Howard:
"...the major mission of librarianship is to provide an intellectual environment that would create the opportunity for any patron to explore the library collection of recorded knowledge to satisfy his or her own needs." (Nitecki, 1993, 9.1.1)
Joanne Twining Williams
twining@texoma.com
Howdy. When I first read Nitecki's "Metalibrarianship," I found myself turning the pages with the kind of fever and excitement brought on by a hot date with an outstanding mystery novel. Metalibrarianship is about librarians. It's not about where we work, or how we do our daily jobs, or what our public thinks about us. It's not about any ONE of us, but about us ALL: who we are, why we do what we do, how we've come to be: the way we think, our essence. I couldn't stop until I'd read the last page...and that must be what's happening now...either that, or everyone's on holiday, or caught up on the whirl of unfinished "jobs" and never-ending "to do" lists...I like to think the former, and would rather you spend time reading for yourself than discussing it here, unread. So read on, colleagues! And for those who haven't webbed their way there yet, here's the second installment: an overview.
"Part One briefly discusses the emergence of librarianship. Major accomplishments relevant to the intellectual development of librarianship are noted in Chapter Two. Their impact on the diversification of library functions is traced in Chapter Three, and Chapter Four brings together definitional disagreements and common denominators of different aspects of librarianship.
"In Part Two, the general nature of philosophical inquiry is described in Chapter Five, its applications to the philosophical interpretations of librarianship are discussed in Chapters Six and Seven, providing examples of philosophical debate on the nature of knowledge in Chapter Eight.
"Part Three summarizes previous essays on metalibrarianship, updated and expanded by more recent literature on the subject. Chapter Nine outlines the intellectual environment for the philosophy of librarianship. In Chapter Ten, the concept of information is examined and its role in metalibrarianship is redefined. In Chapter Eleven the theory of metalibrarianship is presented, and a model of metalibrary system is proposed. Possible application of metalibrarianship to the interpretation of library practice is discussed in Chapter Twelve by summarizing theory of management to the library environment. The chapter includes a comparison between information science, management of libraries, and information science. It ends with a critique of the metalibrary approach, and an epilogue. An appendix listing major contributors to the philosophy of librarianship and cited references completes the study.
"The book offers an approach to the discipline that may or may not be accepted by the reader. A consensus here is irrelevant, but constructive criticism, a dialog that would contribute to a better understanding of the basic premises of librarianship, is highly desirable, since it will reinforce the very purpose of this study. Knowledge of reality is, and always will be, incomplete. It is an open system of evolving objective theories and of constantly changing subjective speculations." (Nitecki 1993, 1.6)
For those with no time to read, the following question was suggested during this summer's Doctoral Colloquium in the Texas Woman's University Library School:
3. There is a general shortage of synthetic work about librarianship. What are the other major syntheses and how do they differ in content?
And our original questions:
P.S. For the INFORMATION SCIENTISTS among us, check out Chapter Ten, in which the concept of "infoscripts" gives promise of a new way to design digital access tools: a sort of "whole brain" approach to data representation.
Ann Cammack
Doctoral student
School of Library and Information Studies
Texas Woman's University
Denton, Texas
g_cammack@twu.edu
Unlike Joanne, I am not fortunate enough to be able to absorb Nitecki in one sitting. Since I must digest each chapter, it takes time. With Nitecki, each chapter can be read again and again. His elaboration of how practical the philosophy of librarianship is, or should be ("Metalibrarianship" 6.1) struck me as appealing, not only to most practicing librarians, but also to most students of librarianship. This is a step in a positive direction for the profession. He posits that the philosophy of a discipline emerges naturally as the discipline matures and should not only address the why's, but the how's; not only the purposes, but the operations of the discipline. Since this journey toward becoming librarians (that we are all on) is constantly changing and roles are constantly being redefined, he stresses the difficulty of coming up with a stationary definition of a philosophy of librarianship which could apply to all librarians, everywhere, and at all times (6.2.1).
Even though other professions also deal with the practical both as students and as practitioners, they do not seem as compelled to appeal to the practical in their philosophies. Is it not understandable that since most practicing librarians (out of necessity) are concerned with the practical every day and most graduate students are drawn more to it, they should relegate the theoretical (or philosophical) to a lesser role? I must say, how very practical. Nevertheless, Nitecki's need to make a distinction between a philosophy of librarianship and a philosophical approach to librarianship (without further elaboration on this distinction) is still somewhat elusive to me. (Although certainly overwhelming at first, Nitecki seems to have something for everyone in our discipline.)
Joanne Twining Williams
twining@texoma.com
Howdy. When I first read Nitecki's "Metalibrarianship," I began to "see" the patterns he was literally describing: the realm of librarianship, and it's multidimensional, simultaneous components and aspects. My brain started to sparkle as the models began to figuratively appear. They came to life, via geometry.
Imagine a sphere (in my mind, it was red.) You, the librarian, are at its center, or, you, the patron are at its center. (Anyone can be at the center: your library director, your Board of Trustees, the dean, the kids in your summer reading group, your library school students.) Radiating out from the center of the sphere are three divisors, each marking a different territory: alpha: the user or the reader; beta, the meaning, or the content; and gamma, the recorded data, or the carrier of information. This is the "realm" of librarianship: the mind, the meaning, the medium.
Within the sphere is a cube, which I call "Nitecki's cube" (as it resembles the Rubick's cube), representing the mutiplicity of metalibrary relations. The cube is equally divided into 27 subcubes, each designating an alignment of alpha, beta or gamma with the three elements: configuration, process or quiddity, which are interpreted at three levels: procedural (Pd), Contextual (Cx), or Conceptual (Co). In my mind, the cube moves freely in the sphere, aligning this way and that.
Within the cube is a pyramid, which represents conceptual relationships between alpha, beta, gamma, and reflect its four library-universal constituents: need (N), goal (G), means (M), fulfillment (F). The pyramid also moves freely.
"Sparking" the pyramid is the spiral: the need:fulfillment relations, or the means:ends relationship.
A spiral within a pyramid, within a cube, within a sphere. Simple, elegant: the essence of librarianship made real.
This is but one representation of the attributes of the components of Nitecki's model. Many others are possible. I dare say ANY aspect of librarianship can be reflected by the creative manipulation of the components, but they are all, at a minimum, triadic, and based on the data->information->knowledge (d-i-k) transfer.
Nitecki SYNTHESIZES the components of his model to represent "Metalibrary Reality" in Figure 9-2.
Nitecki's CONCEPTUAL ROOT-METAPHOR TRANSFER (d-i-k)(alpha-beta-gamma), the heart of the theory, is described in Chapter 11.
Nitecki APPLIES the model to one aspect of librarianship: management, in Chapter 12.
I read, and imagined, for three days straight...progressing from "Metalibrarianship" to the accompanying compendium, "Philosophical Aspects of Library Information Science in Retrospect," which gave guidance though the maze of names, schools and "isms" that confound (for me!) philosophy. At last I had found what I had been searching for: the wholeness of librarianship, nothing excluded, neatly packaged in the ultimate gift: a book. I hope you will agree.
By the way, there is only one print copy of "Metalibrarianship" in general circulation: self-published and donated by the author to his alma mater, Wayne State University. The goddess of the obscure citation led me to ILL it, so, unlike you, I had the advantage of print for my first reading. My intuition led me to contact Nitecki, who generously allowed me to convert the files, and granted permission for the School of Library and Information Studies at the Texas Woman's University to serve them to you vis the Web.
Here's my question:
Ray E. Metz
Associate Vice President for Information Services & Resources
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
Voice: (717) 524-1557
Fax: (717) 524-1237
metz@bucknell.edu
Knowing that I risk total public humiliation, I write this message anyway...
To be a librarian is a noble activity. We are the group that is responsible for ensuring that a human record is kept forever! In a literate society that is fairly easy to accomplish. In an increasingly graphic society (TV, interactive computing, etc), it will be ever more challenging for librarians to carry out this responsibility. WHO OF US WILL BE BOLD ENOUGH TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY? (Imagine the last scene in Les Miserables with the line "Who will be strong and stand with me?")
If you are interested in learning more about "metal librarianship," DON'T connect to the following web site...
Ned Fielden
San Francisco State University
Reference/Instruction
1600 Holloway Ave.
J.Paul Leonard Library
San Francisco, CA 94132-4030
Voice: (415) 338-1454
fielden@sfsu.edu
"1. If you could leave one text behind for the future of librarianship, what would it be, and why?"
I would suggest, only half-facetiously, the short story by Jorge Luis Borges titled "The Library of Babel" in Labyrinths; Selected Stories and Other Writings (New York: New Directions, 1962.)
I read it for the second time, after an interval of several years, for a collection development class in grad school, where, as might be imagined, it received lengthy and highly provocative interpretation. It remains required reading for all my Internet classes.
The notion of a unimaginably comprehensive collection that also proves to be unusable is a remarkably salient insight at the present time.
Bob Watson
Executive Director
Franklin Park Public Library District
10311 Grand Avenue
Franklin Park, IL 60131
bwatson@linc.lib.il.us
Hi folks,
I'd read the pages soon after they were advertised and was soon overwhelmed, though maybe not so much from content as from style. Tres dense.
Which certainly isn't a criticism of the theory, which seems (I think) all-inclusive, perhaps too all-inclusive. There is a perspective where, I think, one can argue that damned near anything is librarianship (as long as there are records and reasons to get back to those records and/or the "knowledge" contained therein). Conceding this perspective, however, may not be an advancement -- except as it gets the issue of theory "onto the table" where it belongs, for continued action and reaction, while we practitioners learn what we can to deal with the real world.
This said, the subject appears (to me) to be one of those things which require discussion and explication. I'm not sure that the list server format works well for this (at least not over a limited time frame).
So let me put on another "hat." As it happens, I'm also co-host of the "Tomorrow" conference at Howard Rheingold's Electric Minds. This is a "virtual community" that uses conferencing rather than chat. You can access it through your browser.
I'd be happy to open a Nitecki topic for folks who are interested, though this could be expanded upon in the "Library of Tomorrow" topic. Also, and while I'm at it (shamelessly promoting in a good cause), I'd be quite happy to help continue discussions that don't easily fit the list server format.
Joanne Twining Williams
twining@texoma.com
Howdy. As we near the end of the discussion of Nitecki's Metalibrairanship, here's hoping you've all bookmarked the site, or made a printout, and that you will return to it often during your careers. The concept of a "wholeness" of librarianship based on an understanding of our most basic theoretical and philosophical underpinnings will serve to strengthen and solidify our collective work. Some see the fragmentation of time and space represented by expanding technologies as a threat to traditional librarianship, and libraries. In one reality it is quite the opposite.
Philosophy of librarianship, and our theoretical foundation, are intellectually difficult. Librarianship, as Bob Watson points out, may be conceived as "all-inclusive." If, at our most common, we concern ourselves with knowledge, then everything IS librarianship (broadly defined as the mediation between mind, message and medium.) Perhaps this is professionally egotistic, but it nevertheless fundamentally undeniable. If in-FORM-ation is the process of giving form to knowledge, then with what should librarianship NOT concern itself? And why not consider the big picture as we search for the little answers?
Nitecki's work is not an easy, nor quick, read. It takes time to consume, time to digest, time to contextualize, and time to assimilate. Librarianship has been around for thousands of years. It takes more time and effort to "get it" than it does to "do it," but what's to be got is important.
Bob Watson's suggestion that the discussion might be best carried into the more leisurely digital conference realm via http://www.minds.com is an excellent one, and I, for one, thank him and take him up on the offer. I look forward to participating in a time-insensitive discussion...as will, I'm sure, the several LIS doctoral students from "big name" Library Schools who E-mailed me privately to express the same "EUREKA!" feelings I had when I first discovered Nitecki's work.
Ann Cammack's astute observation that the practical value of philosophy of librarianship, and Nitecki's meta-model, are an apt foundation for our constantly redefined roles reflects a general feeling that librarianship often seems dominated by form rather than essence. Librarianship must be concerned with the practical as well as the theoretical and philosophical. Nitecki's work serves both masters: In Chapter 12, he brings the two together by contextualizing Metalibrarianship in light of LIS Management issues.
The "answers" in Nitecki's work are not easily extracted. At first blush, Metalibrarianship is certainly not the "how to" manual our busy careers often force us to seek. But the answers are there for the diligent seeker, and the answers are universal and timeless. They can be applied in ANY situation or circumstance librarianship encounters. Metalibrarianship is, in essence, the expression of librarianship's collective knowledge.
I must take exception with Ray Metz's concern that Nitecki's mission to "explore the library collection of recorded knowledge doesn't really fit the library of the '90s or '80s." Considering the rich history of our field (described in Chapter 2), librarianship today is what it always has been, and hopefully, always will be. Many in our field see "the library without walls" as a threat to the individual institution and the comfortable confines of a singular collection. As a "fresh" and upstart librarian, however, I find Nitecki's work a comforting guide to "the living library" : the sum collection of what we know, regardless of time and space, regardless of the medium with which society records itself. Our collective concern is for the information seeker, and the would-be knowledge builder: with creating an environment from which knowledge can spring. It does not matter from where, or even how, this connection is made. It does not matter what form the library takes. That the connection between the user and the record is made is what is important. For librarianship to serve this role, it must have a connection with itself: with its roots, its purpose, and its function. That connection is made through understanding our essence. The essence of librarianship is its philosophy, and our philosophy is metaphysical.
The beauty of Niecki's work, and its enduring value, is that the connection between us has been defined. Regardless of what kind of librarian we are, regardless of our collection, our institution, our patron base, our individual mission, task or problem, we're in there.
As we continue to struggle for professional esteem and scientific acceptance, as we look for interdisciplinary definition, it makes sense to look first within. Armed with knowledge of our own essence, we can better turn our attention toward making the fit for those we are here to serve.
Thanks for the platform. It's been an honor and a privilege to introduce you to an important scholarly "book," a book once captured only in print, unread and on its way o burial the remote stacks of a single library. The online version of Metalibrarianship has been "checked out" over 200 times by people all around the world since January. If nothing more, it illustrates that the "economically infeasible" print publication of specialized knowledge is no longer the death knell of intellectual progress.
I don't know how to help you "see" what I saw when I read Metalibrarianship the first time. If I knew that, I would rule the world! I believe Nitecki's geometric models are the key to a quicker understanding. Imagine what we can come to know if we could take ANY aspect of ANY component of ANY facet of librarianship, and play with their alignment! Imagine how this could help us "see" what we have yet!
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|