So my literature review for comps has been distributed to my committee members. It’s a tome [1], so I feel a little bad about dropping in the collective lap of my committee. But it was a very useful paper for me to put together.

One of the things I argue in this paper is that the predominant conception of everyday life in LIS is limited in its negativity. In her dissertation [2], Jenna Hartel surveyed everyday life information seeking (ELIS) studies and found 80% of the ELIS-related studies in her analysis focused on information seeking in either compromised everyday life situations such as illness or crisis, or in the everyday lives of populations seen as marginalized or disadvantaged.

This problem-centered orientation also pervades much of information behavior research outside “the everyday.” Information need has typically been conceived of as “having a problem” that information can help you solve. Our models of information behavior are full of anxieties and gaps and anomalous states.

In a recent paper, Hartel and Jarkko Kari argued for a shift of research attention to the higher things in life, which they define as “usually positive human phenomena, experiences, or activities that transcend the daily grind with its rationality and necessities” [3, p. 1132]. I concur that LIS has a taken a negative view of information phenomena and that as a discipline we should also attend to the role information plays in the the higher things of life.

However, they contrast the higher things in life with the “lower things” of the everyday, described as “relatively drab, uninteresting, and involuntary basic events that dominate people’s behavior” and “dominated by conformity, rules, rituals” (p. 1131). This is where I disagree. This view may be the going thing within LIS but we need not keep it.

I argue, citing works in sociology and critical studies, that everyday life does not exclude the pleasurable and the profound. There are myriad ways in which people bring the pleasurable, the profound, and the creative into their everyday lives. Michel de Certeau views the ordinary person in everyday life as an active, creative individual making and seizing opportunities, triumphing over imposed order, and making joyful discoveries [4, p. xix]. This is what makes life worth living.

It is with all of this dancing in my head that I stumbled upon this article in the NYTimes: Unboxed: Can You Become a Creature of New Habits?

Yes we can, and it is good for us:

Rather than dismissing ourselves as unchangeable creatures of habit, we can instead direct our own change by consciously developing new habits. In fact, the more new things we try — the more we step outside our comfort zone — the more inherently creative we become, both in the workplace and in our personal lives.

This bodes well for my creativity, as I am the queen of instituting new habits which are inevitably replaced with new and different habits. Heh.

Anyway, the connection with notions of the everyday is that even our habits are not thrust upon us. We can design our everyday routines creatively. Of course there are always constraints (money, limited time, the need to sleep at some point even though Provigil exists); but, we are not cogs in a drab machine. That everyday life provides us with opportunities for higher things, and not just a tedious daily grind, is supported by a further quote from the article:

The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder…But we are taught instead to ‘decide,’ just as our president calls himself ‘the Decider’ … to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities. … You cannot have innovation…unless you are willing and able to move through the unknown and go from curiosity to wonder.

Ah, this last bit brings to mind some of Henry Miller’s rhapsodies:

The prisoner is not the one who has committed a crime, but the one who clings to his crime and lives it over and over. We are all guilty of crime, the great crime of not living life to the full. But we are all potentially free. We can stop thinking of what we have failed to do and do whatever lies within our power. What the these powers that are in us may be no one has truly dared to imagine. That they are infinite we will realize the day we admit to ourselves that imagination is everything. Imagination is the voice of daring. If there is anything God-like about God it is that. He dared to imagine everything [from Sexus, I know not which page].

How amazing the everyday is! And when did I become such an optimist?

But if anyone asks, I’m going to chalk up the length of my lit review to innovative thinking and the need to explore many possibilities and connections. It’s not just that I appear to be constitutionally unable to write concisely.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1. Final version was 171 pages, citing 663 sources.
2. Hartel, Jenna. 2007. “Information activities, resources & spaces in the hobby of gourmet cooking.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
3. Kari, Jarkko and Jenna Hartel. 2007. Information and higher things in life: addressing the pleasurable and the profound in information science . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (8): 1131-47.
4. de Certeau, Michel. 1984. The practice of everyday life. translator Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press

I prefer dabbling ducks, personally.

150 Anas [May Subd Geog] [sp 85004818]
* 053 QL696.A52 CANCEL
* 053 QL696.A52 (Zoology)
* 450 UF Dabbling ducks

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

(C) 150 Bawdy poetry, Greek (Modern) [May Subd Geog] [sp2008001615]
450 UF Greek bawdy poetry, Modern
450 UF Modern Greek bawdy poetry
550 BT Greek poetry, Modern

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

LC is very concerned with postage stamps.

150 Celebrities on postage stamps [sp2008002604]
550 BT Postage stamps

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I use craft sticks in art. … For mixing paint and ink.

(C) 150 Craft sticks in art [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008002289]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

(A) 150 Emi (Rhinoceros) [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008002710]
550 BT Rhinoceroses

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

mmm…. pops…

(C) 150 Ice pops [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002290]
450 UF Ice lollies
450 UF Icelollies
450 UF Popsicle (Trademark)
550 BT Frozen desserts

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

(C) 150 Laminated plastics in interior decoration [May Subd Geog] [sp2007002392]
550 BT Interior decoration

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

the famous paraplegic cat and his “draggin wagon”: http://www.dragginbear.com/

(A) 150 Little Draggin’ Bear (Cat) [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008002676]
450 UF Draggin’ Bear (Cat)
550 BT Cats

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

(C) 150 Nouveau riche [May Subd Geog] [sp2007007131]
450 UF New-moneyed people
450 UF New-monied people
450 UF New rich people
450 UF Newly rich people
450 UF Nouveaux riches
550 BT Rich people

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I’m trying to remember if there are any violent singing cowboys… I’m not real up on my cowboy movies and characters. If not, there should be. The question that comes to my mind next is: How much more terrifying would Anton Chigurh have been if he sang showtunes?

155 Singing cowboy films [Not Subd Geog] [sp2007025622]
680 Here are entered films that feature a non-violent, singing cowboy hero.
555 BT Western films

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

It must be famous animals week at LC. It’s the world’s smallest horse! Hmm… there appears to be no LCSH for Guide horses…

(A) 150 Thumbelina (Horse) [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008002679]
550 BT Horses

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

150 Towel folding [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002543]
450 UF Folding of towels
550 BT Textile crafts

(C)150 Grassroots comic books, strips, etc. [May Subd Geog] [sp2008020216]
680 Here are entered works on comics made by local community activists and other
non-professional artists that are intended to communicate a message and/or to encourage
debate on an issue.
450UF Grass root comic books, strips, etc.
450UF Grass roots comic books, strips, etc.
450UF Grassroot comic books, strips, etc.
550BT Comic books, strips, etc.

(C)150 Heart valve prosthesis-Fluid dynamics [sp2005003051]
550BT Fluid dynamics

curse, curse, curse the stupid black eyed peas that what first came to mind was fergie, not camels. or alanis morissette
(A)150 Humps (Anatomy) [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002242]
550BT Anatomy

155 Juvenile delinquency television programs [Not Subd Geog] [sp2007025296]
555BT Teen television programs
555BT Television crime shows

(C)151 Knapsack Pass (Wash.) [sp2008020219]
550BT Mountain passes-Washington (State)

151 Pella of the Decapolis (Extinct city) [sp 93003551]
* 451UF Pella Decapolitana (Extinct city)

(C)151 Surprise Gap (Wash.) [sp2008020221]
451UF Surprise Pass (Wash.)
550BT Mountain passes-Washington (State)

(C)150 Technomyrmex [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002181]
053 QL568.F7 (Zoology)
550BT Ants

150 Vespertilionidae [May Subd Geog] [sp 85142941]
* 450UF Evening bats
* 450UF Vesper bats

Unclutterer, a blog about getting organized and uncluttered, recently asked its readers to share a bit about themselves and (among other things) the kind of topics they would like more coverage on, what issues they need help with.

On the wrap-up short-list: Photograph and video organization.

Also: Organizing digital data and Paper clutter

OK, so my work is not going to save anyone but it’s a step in that direction. Hey, I’m relevant!

So, in a name authority record, the birth and death dates of a person are often added:

Gorey, Edward, 1925-2000

For living persons, a birth date is often added and left open:

Winterson, Jeanette, 1959-

When a living person whose date has been left open dies, the death date can be added. But you need a source of information to cite in the authority record, saying where you got the death date information. Hence, a post from an LC cataloger on RadCat:

I can probably add the death date, but I have to quote something as a source. I have been known to attend funerals and add death dates taken from the service leaflets.

That is dedication and that is why I love cataloging and catalogers.

(I’d just link to the post, but you have to sign in to access the archives. The post was made on Thu, 17 Apr 2008, has the subject “date of death,” so if you are a list member, you can go look. Since the RadCat archives are closed and I can’t find a list statement of policy on quoting list posts in other places, I’m leaving the author name off.)

Today I’ve been looking at several of the papers from Spink, Amanda H., and Charles Cole, eds. (2006) New directions in human information behavior. Dordrect: Springer.

I’ve been rather disappointed. The whole book seems to have been slapped together fairly carelessly, including papers by the editors. Maybe especially in papers by the editors.

The most egregious problem I’ve run across is this:

What do we currently know about information-organizing behavior? Human information-organizing behavior (HIOB) is the process of analyzing and classifying materials into defined categories, for example, the Dewey Decimal Classification System (McIlwaine, 1997). Spink and Currier (in press) have defined HIOB as the process of analyzing and classifying materials into defined categories. They give as an example the Dewey Decimal Classification System (McIlwaine, 1997). While the example they give is a document organization system, their definition lends itself to creating a cognitive framework for HIOB. Few studies have examined human’s information-organizing behavior in relation to other information behaviors.¹

Ok, so it’s a bit petty to pick on a cut-and-paste error. God knows I’ve made them (though I’d like to think I’d catch one before I published it…)

But that’s not the main problem here, even though it occurs also in this gem², which I’m not even going to go into except to quote:

According to the modular architecture view, a dramatic adaptation occurred 35,000–70,000 years ago (Mithen, 1996, 1998): the formerly strictly modular human cognitive architecture, containing firmly defined and task-specialized human intelligence modules. Then suddenly transformed, developing gateway mechanisms between the separate intelligence modules. So that data from the specialized module databases could flow the one into the other. When the flow occurred, the human could see their environment from a different perspective.

I will pick on the claim that “Few studies have examined human’s information-organizing behavior in relation to other information behaviors.” Few studies except those few little personal information management studies… to which I have at least 272 citations in my Procite database. Isn’t PIM in large part the study of how people organize, manage, and re-find information that they have previously sought, monitored for, foraged for, or encountered? Is that not some sort of information behavior in relation to information seeking? Ummm…. But that isn’t the thing that is really irritating me at this point. At least that gives me something good to talk about in my lit review.

Nor is it that they define human information-organizing behavior (HIOB) as “the process of analyzing and classifying materials into defined categories, for example, the Dewey Decimal Classification System” when:

• much of cognitive science has mainly agreed for quite some time that the human cognitive architecture is not made up of well-defined categories like “classes”;³,⁴,⁵
• Elin Jacob has repeatedly clarified the difference between classes and categories, and classification and categorization;⁶,⁷ and,
• There are myriad ways in which people organize information that do not involve some formal process of subject analysis and classification. There’s so much research on this, especially in PIM and CSCW, that I’m not even going to cite stuff here.

Nope, that all irritates me, but again, I have a whole section in my lit review on the wrong-headedness of this definition.

What I can’t really complain about in my lit review is the fact that in this and the multiple other studies where Spink and friends have used this exact definition for human information organization behavior, they include “the Dewey Decimal Classification System (McIlwaine, 1997).”

So?

The problem with that is that (McIlwaine, 1997) is an article about the history and development of the Universal Decimal Classification System (UDC), not the Dewey Decimal Classification System (DDC):

McIlwaine, I. C. (1997). The Universal Decimal Classification: Some factors concerning its origins, development, and influence. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(4), 331–339.

UDC and DDC are two completely different classification systems. It’s not as if the McIlwaine article is being shy about what classification system it is about; it’s pretty darned clear from the title. There is a small bit in the beginning of the article about how UDC was initially based on DDC but the two fairly rapidly moved in different directions. So if you read the first little section, it is made abundantly clear the two are not the same.

And it is not as if there is a paucity of literature on DDC.

And not one referee at any point on these multiple articles has said, “Hey why are you citing a paper on UDC here when you are talking about DDC?”

Sigh.

Citations are important. Citing something that is actually on the topic you’re writing about is usually a good move.

1. Spink, Amanda H., Minsoo Park, and Charles Cole. 2006. “Multitasking and co-ordinating framework for human information behavior.” Chapter 8 in Amanda H. Spink, and Charles Cole, eds. New directions in human information behavior. Dordrect: Springer, 137-54 [↩]
2. Cole, Charles, and John E. Leide. 2006. “A Cognitive Framework for Human Information Behavior: The Place of Metaphor in Human Information Organizing Behavior.” Amanda H. Spink, and Charles Cole, eds. New directions in human information behaviour. Dordrect: Springer, 171-202 [↩]
3. Rosch, Eleanor H., and Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. “Family Resemblances: Studies in Internal Structure of Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 7, no. 4: 573-605 [↩]
4. Smith, Edward E., and Douglas L. Medin. 1981. Categories and Concepts. Cognitive Science Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [↩]
5. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press [↩]
6. Jacob, Elin K. 1991. “Classification and categorization: Drawing the line.” In Proceedings of the 2nd ASIS SIG/CR Classification research workshop, Washington, D.C., October 27, 1991. 67-83 [↩]
7. Jacob, Elin K. 2004. “Classification and categorization: A difference that makes a difference.” Library Trends 52, no. 3: 515-40 [↩]

I think Martha Yee is swiftly becoming one of my heroes.

Anyone who writes a new set of cataloging rules as an alternative to AACR2/RDA gets props from me.

I’ve looked at her rules a bit, and I like the way in which they are written, but I haven’t had a chance to dig into them in detail. I’ve been telling myself I’ll do that “this summer.”

It is dawning on me that the number of things I have told myself I will do “this summer” has become a bit unrealistic. A serious plan is in order.

I have a question on which I’d like any opinions… this has been coming up for me lately, as I assess what I can do in the future to develop a more efficient, faster research/writing process.

Here is the type of situation I wonder about. I’ve made up a hypothetical one:

Let us say I want to discuss the concept of “cyberincentableness” in a paper. I learned about cyberincentableness in a paper by Doe, who explained that the concept of cyberincentableness was first developed in Smith, 2001.

So, do I:
1. Say “cyberincentableness is a term coined by Smith, who elaborated the concept in the context of the Theory of Insufferable Neologisms” and cite Doe, which is where I got this information?

OR

2. Dig up Smith, 2001, read it to verify that Doe’s interpretation is correct (or at least agrees with my own), and cite Smith, 2001 for my statement: “cyberincentableness is a term coined by Smith, who elaborated the concept in the context of the Theory of Insufferable Neologisms” ?

To me this is a no-brainer and the correct answer is 2. But as I pay attention to this in the (peer-reviewed) literature, I notice more and more of the first. In fact, the example I made up is adapted directly from something I just read in a well-regarded LIS journal.

Do I have an idealistic, perfectionist, and ridiculous notion of the level of work I am supposed to be doing? Is that (part of) why my literature review has taken 18 million years to write? Because when you go back to Smith you inevitably find that cyberincentableness is based on the ideas of Jones and Patel, who have some other ideas that seem relevant to my work…. etc etc etc.

(all hail the mixed blessing/curse of the highly associative mind!)

At some point you have to stop tracing everything back to its foundations, or you will spend your entire life reading backward in time. I think the process of the lit review has taught me to be much more skillful at knowing when to quit.

Do I also need to be training myself to not go read the original, but instead rely on the interpretations of others?

I’ve also been noticing the disturbing proliferation of a certain typo in the surname of a researcher who wrote a huge, dense, oft-cited work. It is not exactly a time-priority of mine to go back and ascertain that my sense is correct, (maybe I should do a study…) but it seems that authors citing papers that make the typo are likely to make the typo. Is it cynical of me to start to suspect that these people are citing something they haven’t put their hands or eyes on? It is hard to believe that the same careless mistake would be made by so many people so many times.

Early on in my doctoral studies I was disabused of the notion that I should only cite works I had carefully read in full so that I felt confident I understood all of the concepts and arguments, and could remember and talk about them at any time. (But saying so still feels like divulging a dirty secret.)

My current understanding of “the rules” is that you are not supposed to cite things you have not even looked at. Am I wrong about that too? Or do we say it is BAD to cite things you haven’t looked at, but the dirty secret is that it is done all the time…?

I guess the larger question is how many corners can you cut before you start cutting into your academic integrity? And is my notion of academic integrity getting in the way of me producing my academic work in a timely manner?

(C) 150 Aquaman (Fictitious character) [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008001579]
450 UF Arthur Curry (Fictitious character)
450 UF Curry, Arthur (Fictitious character)
450 UF Orin (Fictitious character)

(C) 150 Clichés in literature [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008001588]

150 Dingo [May Subd Geog] [sp 85038069]
* 450 UF Canis dingo
* 450 UF Canis familiaris dingo
* 450 UF Canis lupus dingo
* 550 BT Gray wolf

(Again with the great Washington State geographic names…)
(C) 151 Doubtful Lake (Wash.) [sp2008020201]
550 BT Lakes—Washington (State)

150 Fountain pens in art [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008002318]

(C) 150 Lizards in art [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008020208]

(C) 150 Melodrama, Japanese [May Subd Geog] [sp2008001992]
450 UF Japanese melodrama
550 BT Japanese drama

150 Metallurgy in rabbinical literature [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008002213]

150 Mothra films [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002212]
053 PN1995.9.M64
680 When subdivided by the appropriate geographic, topical, and/or form subdivisions, this
heading is used for works about Mothra films.
550 BT Monster films

(C) 151 Paradise Park (Wash.) [sp2008020180]
451 UF Paradise Meadows (Wash.)
550 BT Mountain meadows—Washington (State)

(C) 150 Rebirth in Western Paradise (Buddhism) in art [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008020192]

(Eep! One of my examples in my cataloging final project has just become obsolete…)
150 Scrapbooking [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002216]
450 UF Scrap booking
450 UF Scrapping (Scrapbooking)
550 BT Hobbies

(C) 150 Silver-haired bat [May Subd Geog] [sp2006003641]
053 QL737.C595 (Zoology)
450 UF Lasionycteris noctivagans
450 UF Lasionycteris pulverlentus
550 BT Lasionycteris

(Cookery! Everyone’s favorite subject heading to hate. This recently got its own classification number, too, as I noted here)
(A) 150 Sous-vide cookery [May Subd Geog] [sp2008002221]
053 TX690.7
450 UF Cryovacking (Cookery)
450 UF Under-vacuum cookery
550 BT Cookery

150 Wolfdogs [May Subd Geog] [sp 85147222]
* 450 UF Wolf-dog hybrids
* 450 UF Wolf hybrids
* 550 BT Gray wolf
* 550 BT Wolves CANCEL

And, Simon found an honorable mention not recently changed:
150 Lord’s Supper–Reservation (May Subd Geog) [R S D]
(Yes, the scope note told me what it actually means…you learn something new every five minutes in subject analysis.)

This is the current introduction to the literature review I have written in preparation for my comprehensive exams and as a step toward the dissertation proposal. It includes the questions my dissertation will address and an overview of the relationships between topics covered in the review and my questions.

(This monster is currently 138 single-spaced, 11pt type pages. That doesn’t include the bibliography, which shows that I have cited 568 separate sources. I feel somewhat proud of that number, even as I find it horrifying. I am about to begin slashing and burning through this paper, cutting out all the far-too-detailed and only-loosely relevant things I included in the sections as I wrote them separately. That should make it much more reasonable.)

In this review, I discuss some of the literature relevant to my proposed study of how amateur art photographers make decisions about managing the information and artifacts gathered and created in their serious leisure pursuit. This includes examination of the information systems and structures amateur art photographers have developed to support the management of said information and artifacts, how they make sense of the task of managing these, how their current strategies have developed, and whether they have strategies for the long term keeping of their photography-related “stuff.”
Continue Reading »