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 -- "The Luddites Were Right: Technological Change Is Disruptive"
Many thanks to Dr. Rosmarie Fouad for leading our discussion on "Faculty Status for Librarians: Who Wants, Who Needs it, and Why?" This topic is an important one that often elicits strong passion and emotion. I am heartened by our reasoned and objective discussion and thank the membership for their participation. Thanks again to Dr. Fouad for suggesting this topic, pondering over our comments, and adding more questions to focus and enhance our discussion.
Let's now turn to a new topic and welcome Bob Holley who is joining us for yet another term as guest editor. Our new topic is "The Luddites Were Right: Technological Change Is Disruptive." Bob is the director of the Library and Information Science Program at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. He holds a doctorate in French language and literature from Yale University and an MLS from Columbia University. He was a librarian and library manager at Yale University, the University of Utah, and Wayne State University before becoming a full-time faculty member. Bob has eclectic interests, including film, which he taught at Utah, and Canadian studies. He also confesses to being addicted to computer games.
Please join the discussion on "The Luddites Were Right: Technological Change Is Disruptive."
Robert P. Holley
Director
Library and Information Science Program
106 Kresge Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
Voice: (313) 577-4021
Fax: (313) 577-7563
RHOLLEY@LISP.PURDY.WAYNE.EDU
Luddite, n. 1. a member of any of various bands of workers in England (1811-1816) who destroyed industrial machinery in the belief that its use diminished employment. 2. any opponent of new technologies or of technological change. (1805-15; after Ned Ludd, 18th-cent Leicestershire worker who originated the idea) -- Random House Webster's Dictionary
I believe that to most of us Luddite is a pejorative term that conjures up a quixotic attempt, doomed to failure, to resist the inevitable progress of technology. While this judgment may be very well true, the Luddites were correct in foreseeing that technology would change enormously the world in which they lived. The industrial revolution led to the growth of ugly cities, a decline of agriculture, pressures upon the environment, and many other negative factors that seemed intertwined with the positive changes such as a general increase in wealth, scientific advances, and improvements in health care. I hope that over the next two weeks we can examine these issues within the context of the information revolution.
Let me begin with an example. I started as a cataloger before the introduction of OCLC. The changes over the last 25 years have had tremendous positive benefits: lowered costs for cataloging that could be used to fund essential services, the building of large databases for multiple uses, the reduction or the elimination of cataloging backlogs. To my mind, however, these benefits have come with certain costs. Original catalogers usually had the opportunity to see all cataloging and could learn about new topics from looking at copy cataloging. Catalogers with any selection responsibility also became very familiar with the collection in their areas of expertise. My final cost, among many that I could list, is an increased homogeneity in bibliographic records. In the pre-information technology era, there was a greater tendency to make changes to bibliographic data to reflect local needs; for example, authors connected with the institution often got an entry that was not justified by standard cataloging rules. While I helped implement this technological change and wouldn't want to go back to typing catalog cards, would we have done things differently if we had been able to foresee the future?
I also volunteered to lead this discussion from reading the free electronic journal Netfuture: Technology and Human Responsibility, edited by Stephen L. Talbott. This journal provocatively questions the assumption that technology is always good. I found it interesting that the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) provided a new home for the journal when it had to move. (The journal and subscription information may be found on the Web).
To provide focus for the discussion, I'll pose the following questions:
I encourage all of you out there not to be shy. I'm looking forward to an active and provocative discussion over the next two weeks.
Samuel R.M. Souza
Reference Librarian
2nd Circuit Regional Labor Court
Sao Paulo, Brazil
samr@mandic.com.br
Trying to contribute for this vital ongoing discussion, I would like to organize some modest lines with reference to Mr. Holley's statements (those numbered):
Technologies, on the one hand, spring within a context of necessities and/or challenges which a person/group face and take for legitimate in a given time. In this sense the options make technology something far from neutral. The same would occur when a "new" technology is somehow blocked by a luddite.
Perhaps it is difficult to point a specific item. We can consider that any technological tool available in libraries or other environments can lead to collection of raw data for analytical facilities fostering some human activity in some way. However, not all people, workplaces, societies or even libraries could reach effectively this general goal. Sometimes we can possess a home computer without having access to password-protected vital data, for example, just to demonstrate that the great challenge could be to offer a significant amount or vital information available to every citizen, without any exaggerated criteria of data security.
As the early Industrial Revolution, it seems at first all efforts emphasized quantity for everyone instead of variety according personal or group needs. Now we can have done some useful or pleasant facilities like buying a car with a desired colour that were not at all conceived by pioneers like Henry Ford. We can hope the same would occur with information technology, without forgetting that many people in the world have never dreamed on having at least a second-hand car, nor an obsolete home computer. As information professionals we could help giving for these people a lift, in case they could not afford a car, or some pieces of digital information, even if they could not pay for this.
Perhaps technology is not simply an external apparatus, but something embedded in our individual and collective minds. Alphabets, languages and writing are living examples. They help us in making sense of the world as well as word processors and TCP/IP protocols. It carries a wider cultural dimension for all concerned with information services which could be figured out with more attention.
Once information technology and services become a tool not a control, people would take advantage of them in their continual social revolution, with information for, not against them. Management would imply some intervention, and not so few people would be allowed to do that considering information is to do with modern civilization -- thus with all and everyone.
Thanks for the attention.
Jim Curtis
Director
Portage Lake District Library
Houghton, MI
curtisj@mlc.lib.mi.us
Since I see there has been a posting from Brazil, I thought you might want to hear a view from an opposite point -- Upper Michigan (notice I did not say opposite point of view).
First, what are "technologies"? I believe the definition that this discussion is leaning toward is what some might call "high technologies" -- computers, advanced telecommunications, etc. But, as anyone who has tried to buy the latest and greatest computer knows, "high technology" is a relative term. By the time you get the darn thing home, it is obsolete. Truly, the relatively new (read recently obsolete) computer I am typing this E-mail on would be "high technology" to the original Luddites. But, then, so is the rollerball pen that is in the organizer on my desk. The same concept could be applied to the Luddites themselves. I am sure that they enjoyed many comforts that their ancestors would have considered to be "high technology." If there were no "technologies" then we humans would still be running around trying to find wild foods (animal and vegetable) with our bare hands.
Another problem with the above quote is that it anthropomorphizes inanimate objects. Technologies themselves are never helpful, neutral or hurtful -- it is their human creators that wield them that do good or bad.
Again, it is the people that use the information technologies that can pose dangers. The people I would nominate would be those who control television and radio broadcasts. Lump in their poor cousins in print "journalism" as well. The media people are the ones who cause the most trouble by exaggerating and distorting the possible (and fantasized) uses of technology. The general public has been led to believe that all-powerful "technology" can solve all our problems and/or is causing all of our problems.
As Pogo (a wonderfully anthropomorphized collection of ink and paper printed with technology) said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Sticking to my theme, it is the library and information science professionals who are using "information technologies" that are the greatest danger to the "profession." If we involved in this area do not use technologies efficiently and effectively to best serve the information needs and desires of our patrons/users/customers, then it is we who are signing our own death warrant. If we do not stay up to date (or further ahead!), adaptable, and open-minded, our public will go elsewhere - and many of them already have.
I work in a library building that was constructed in 1909. The "library" that existed in this building at that time disappeared long ago -- and that is not bad. We do not and should not use the same technologies from 1909 to try to meet the needs of our patrons. Yah, we have books, and despite the media hype, books will not go away anytime soon. But, the books we buy today are produced with much higher technologies than when our building first opened.
I believe the Internet access issue is really an old one that is clothed in new duds: "How do we give our patrons the most up to date information possible without being too expensive, too offensive, or too expensive?" ("Expensive" repeated on purpose) We information folks should get off the media inflamed Internet chest beating bit and look at the real issue of how to best serve our public. Use the tools of the day to solve the same challenges we have been facing for a long time. And, we should also be aggressively looking into the tools of tomorrow.
Ouch?! So the steam driven looms made the little children loose their fingers in the machinery? No, it was the textile mill owners who employed them and the people who bought the cheaper cloth from those mills with little or no thought as to how the product was produced. Today's information technologies are tools that can be used do great good -- and great evil. As an information caretaker/guide, I view my role as one of providing the most information possible to the greatest number of people possible. It is up to them, using the wisdom they can find in libraries and elsewhere, to do good -- or evil.
Only in that we may be so caught up in waving the flag for the profession that someday we may look around and find that the rest of the world has left us in the dust.
We cannot manage change, change manages just fine on its own. As I said earlier, I only hope that by providing as much information and points of view to people as we can that we can help them make the best choices.
Inevitable. The better or worse is up to the people.
I want you to know, Dr. Holley, that I was recently quite impressed by some recent graduates from your program. I attended the graduation ceremonies in December '97 to see my mother get her Ph.D. from Wayne (alas, it was in nursing, not your program). When they were announced to come up to the podium, the folks graduating from Wayne's Library and Information Science Program and their families were the noisiest, rowdiest bunch of all. You have obviously done a good job of instilling in your students that library folks need not fit the stereotypical "shush"-ing, mousy image! I should also say that I have worked with some of them, and their professionalism made me proud to have them as colleagues.
Robert Bauchspies
robert.bauchspies@exim.gov
Greetings:
It is interesting to note the "silence" on this topic. Are we, by our mere engagement with this medium, void of anything to say either challenging or agreeing with what Bob has outlined? I would suggest that indeed, this is the case. It is difficult for users of E-mail, the Internet, desktop applications, a phone card, an ATM card, etc. to think critically about technology without the passivity of "the inevitable" influencing the effort (or lack thereof).
For librarians on the net, I would argue the situation is that much more stifling. Users beware, the betty has embraced the beast! The concerns voiced over the book versus the screen, the library as place versus the one online, the vast changes in organizational structure, communication and society in general provoked by information technology seem to be waning. And why you ask? Acquiescence. So much for a plug(-in) for technological determinism.
If I look again at Bob's original questions, here is the key wording that strikes me:
Now the sentence:
The Luddite in me proposes that the blind-sidedness of today's librarians with regard to technological change dismisses their social role, allows for and promotes dangerous and hurtful change to their constituency, and helps promote inequity and injustice back upon themselves and toward society at large by embracing the notion that not only is technological change inevitable but that it's ubiquitous implementation in or in conjunction with a library is inherently good.
Why you ask?
For along with some of today's controversial sociologists (only so because they question the tsunami of information technology), librarians should be there as well. We should be critically examining the value of such a medium compared with the arguable attributes of static or print sources. And more critically, we should be examining all the fuss over the "information society" especially if we position ourselves as "information professionals" (gaack).
Just recently, the CEO for Hewlett-Packard went on record saying that he fears what IT is doing to society (Cf. Atlanta Journal & Constitution March 22, 1998. "Commercialism Threat to Web"]).
Also, just recently, Dr. Carol Tenopir, authority on information technology in the library sphere, discusses techno-stress in the March 1, 1998 issue of Library Journal. Ever the partisan, she suggests,
"...stress does not have to be negative, as many of the respondents reported. Academic librarians are tackling and, most often, embracing the stress and excitement of change. Two respondents sum up the joy that a bit of technostress can bring to the job..."
With all due respect to Carol for her many contributions and accomplishments to the library community over the years, I fear than she has nonetheless missed the boat. As Prof. Anthony Giddens remarks in a review of Manuel Castells's book entitled The Rise of the Network Society...
"This should be a time of renewal for the social sciences. Modern social science arose from the extraordinary changes that created an industrial order out of the ruins of feudal society. Arguably we live today in a period of equally intense and puzzling transformation, signaling perhaps a move beyond the industrial era altogether. Yet where are the great sociological works that chart this transition? Intellectually feeble accounts of the information society and vacuous accounts of postmodernism fill the space which should be occupied by more compelling and substantive social interpretations. Hence the importance of Manuel Castells's multivolume work..."
Cf. http://www.gsp.cam.ac.uk/infocity/giddens.html
The relationship between what Carol writes and what Anthony is saying is subtle. Is library science a social science? Should we not be questioning this tomfoolery of the "joy of technostress"? More importantly, should we not be more critical of the tools we use and what our missions are and why we exist?
Much can be said of North/South issues and the information rich and information poor. Yet this too is often wrapped exclusively in the language of emerging IT and those who are left behind. Librarians need to be reminded of their inherently social role to the extent which allows the questioning of technology in general ... faster is not always better, the medium and the message and so forth.
With regard to sociologists, there are many authors on this beam. Librarians, as social do-gooders, should be reading these as well, perhaps prior to their next budget request. Look folks, I am in IT up to my grey hair, swim in information daily, and have spent many hours learning mission critical technology. Nonetheless, I do find time to reflect over this activity and question what it is we are actually doing and where perhaps this may lead us. There is quite a bit being written about IT and social change but dare say, little is coming from the librarians, which comes back to my point about the silence of the list on this topic. No surprise, albeit disappointing. It appears the "snake oil" has rubbed our eyes ...log on.
Lastly, to mention, I just finished Stephen Talbott's The Future Does Not Compute and while some sections are a bit fuzzy, the issues he raises should be of concern to every librarian.
http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/stevet/fdnc/
(Note: I read the hard copy)
Somebody at IFLA must have thought so as they host his NETFUTURE LISTSERV which deals with social issues and technology.
Cf. http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/ifla/II/lists/netfutre.htm
So, silence is as silence does. Is the server down, the power out, or have we just too little time to think about it?
For a good jumplist on Luddism, NeoLuddism, etc., check:
http://www.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html
Andrew R. Bonamici
Associate University Librarian
Administrative and Media Services
115 Knight Library
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403-1299
Voice: (541) 346-2682
Fax: (541) 346-3485
bonamici@oregon.uoregon.edu
In July 1997, Scientific American ran an article with some relevance to the current discussion. It is available on the Web.
The focus is on IT as an engine of macroeconomic growth and productivity:
"...the explosion is well under way, and its economic blessings so far appear decidedly mixed. For all the useful things computers do, they do not seem, on balance, to have made us much richer by enabling us to do more work, of increasing value, in less time. Compared with the big economic bangs delivered by water-, steam- and electricity-powered machines, productivity growth in the information age has been a mere whimper."
Reasons cited include poor user interfaces and "creeping featurism" in software design.
To be fair, it is pointed out that in some sectors (including education), IT investments have resulted in new services and quality outputs which are hard to measure.
Hope this is helpful; as always, thanks to UM-SI and Kellogg for providing this forum.
Ned Fielden
Reference/Instruction
J.Paul Leonard Library
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Ave.
San Francisco, California 94132-4030
Voice: (415) 338-1454
fielden@sfsu.edu
I attended a lecture at UC Berkeley the other week by a physicist (Gene Rochlin, Professor of Energy and Resources -- latest book is Trapped in the Net: The Unanticipated Consequences of Computerization, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997 -- who had spent some time studying technological issues in large organizations, notably the U.S. military. He had some charming anecdotes to narrate about the use of technology in a variety of settings, one of which I shall relate.
To refuel an aircraft carrier at sea, it is necessary to maintain a critical distance between the fueling ship and the carrier -- too close and the flexible fueling lines can get pinched between the ships and rupture, too far away and the lines can pull off their connecting couplings. In either case the result is dangerous and potentially disastrous, and the whole process can be extremely tricky in rough seas. One high-tech contractor, left nameless, offered to design a special Doppler sensor that would accurately gauge the ships' distance apart, and thus, it was hoped, improve the safety of such an endeavor.
One aircraft carrier captain refused to ever use such a device, however. When queried by upper-level staff, he pointed his finger out his captain's window, and explained that his distance solution was supremely low-tech. He looked at the ladder next to his window, and knew that if the waterline of the fueling ship remained at a certain spot on the ladder as seen from his window, the distance was optimal. He made his corrections in ship placement based on this deliberately low-tech gauge, which did not depend on electrical power or computers and could not be misinterpreted by any means. Any high-tech solution (which would involve the use of someone who had been through thorough training and who would be staring at a computer screen, and then interpreting data) was far too prone to error for such a high-risk activity.
He went on to illustrate the rest of his thesis, that technology is often grand when applied with commonsense to the problems faced in one's work, but distracting or worse if OVER-APPLIED to such tasks. By keeping the focus on the goal (rather than the glamorous use of technology to solve the problem) much better results are possible.
I agree with this, and second the notion, expressed earlier on this thread, that technology is not the carrier of good or evil, but rather the person or persons who employ suitable technology to problems that call for judgement. Commonsense in the choice of technology tends to be scarce in many arenas, and we are not alone if we sometimes look fondly on the overall utility and durability of more primitive technologies applied to certain tasks.
Michael Seadle Editor, Library Hi Tech Michigan State University Voice: (517) 432-0807 seadle@pilot.msu.edu
Of course the Luddites were right. Change almost by definition disrupts old patterns and technological change is no exception. One set of arguments in this theme seems to be high tech versus low tech with some people feeling that low tech is more reliable. It is not surprising that older, simpler, well-tested solutions are more reliable than new, more complex relatively untested ones. But how long is it before a new, complex solution becomes the established low tech norm?
The story Ned Fielden relates is an interesting example because the low-tech solution relies on one person's skill at perceiving changes in an analog device. If every captain had the same perceptual ability and unflagging attention as that captain, the doppler device would indeed be unnecessary. But human skills vary, whereas the doppler device, once thoroughly debugged, offers a consistent measure.
An anecdote in the opposite vein comes from the Berlin Airlift in 1948-49. At the beginning of the airlift, pilots did all of the landings by sight without relying on ground radar. But as fog problems increased during the autumn and winter, the Air Force found that putting landing operations under the command of ground controllers watching radar screens reduced accidents significantly. Pilots carped about taking orders from clerks, but this (at the time) radically high-tech solution saved so many lives that it eventually became standard at civilian airports. Who today would want the pilot of their plane to ignore the controllers' orders?
Robert P. Holley
Director
Library and Information Science Program
106 Kresge Library
Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
Voice: (313) 577-4021
Fax: (313) 577-7563
RHOLLEY@LISP.PURDY.WAYNE.EDU
I lost E-mail contact with the outside world for five days last week. Perhaps the computer gods were punishing me for my choice of topic. What happened may be relevant to the current discussion. Systems office staff in the library took down a server without realizing that it was an intermediate stop for E-mail coming to my building from the university's server. When our systems person tried to correct the problem, all looked fine since internal E-mail took a different route; and he "pinged" this second functioning pathway. Only after five days of frustration all around did he discover the real problem. I and the others in the building learned just how much we had come to depend on E-mail and how this technology had become an integral part of our work (and personal) lives.
While I had hoped for wider participation in this discussion, I found many comments exceptionally interesting. Let me summarize my favorite insights. Samuel Souza emphasized that fact that technology is "something embedded in our individual and collective minds. Alphabets, languages and writing are living examples." I like many other underestimate the importance of "technologies" that are so common that they are taken for granted until they don't work. I have trouble imagining life without the ability to read or even without a wristwatch.
I'd like to emphasize two issues from Jim Curtis' post. First, he very correctly points out that technology is a continuum and that the most confirmed Luddites don't want to abandon all technology, but only those parts that don't work for them or are hurtful to their interests. I'm more inclined to disagree with his second point that "technologies themselves are never helpful, neutral or hurtful -- it is their human creators that wield them that do good or bad." As librarians, could we effectively resist technology and keep library practice as it was 30 years ago? I believe not. I have a computer on my desk whether I like it or not. I wish that we had had more discussion on this point since technology, though a disembodied abstraction, may have a life of its own through the workings of another disembodied abstraction, market forces.
Robert Bauchspies commented on the relative silence on a topic where I believed that we would all have a lot to say. I'd like to thank him for his references to other information sources. Perhaps we are too close to our culture and its technology to understand what is happening. I always have had great sympathy for leaders who made decisions that made perfect sense at the time but proved dead wrong and incredibly stupid within the longer historical framework.
The final two posts by Ned Lee Fielden and Michael Seadle dealt with high-tech versus low-tech solutions or high-technology versus human expertise. I thought of John Henry and his race against the drilling machine. John won because he was the best around, but anyone could achieve his superhuman productivity with the technological help. On the other hand, I also believe that it's dangerous to rely on technology to the point of forgetting the underlying principles. As a quick example, do students of the calculator generation understand mathematics as well as those of us who had to learn with pencil and paper?
I'd like to thank Karen Drabenstott for the opportunity to lead this discussion. I wish that technology would not have stopped me from participating more fully during the two week period.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|