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 »

As library and information scientists, we do not have a tradition of focusing on normative problems in which we can approach a line of inquiry with some measure of certainty. We cannot be sure that our areas are well defined and that our problems are important. We have no central theory or body of interrelated theories we can view as “middle range.”

In light of this discussion, it would appear we are currently focused on the application of conceptual frameworks rather than on the generation of specific theories. Drawing on bits and pieces from a variety of sources, we construct propositional statements that appear to have some bearing on problems arising from the occupational work we perform.

Chatman, Elfreda A. 1996. The Impoverished Life-World of Outsiders. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47, no. 3: 193-206.

Classification by attraction: The classification of a specific aspect of a subject in an inappropriate discipline, usually because the subject is named in the inappropriate discipline but not mentioned explicitly in the appropriate discipline. (source)

Dewey Blog has a Dewey (almost)crossword puzzle.

The lesson from this installment is that Washington State has the best mountain names EVAR.

(C) 150 A.T.O.M. (Fictitious characters) [Not Subd Geog] [sp2007005947]
450 UF Alpha Teens on Machines (Fictitious characters)

(C) 150 Baby carriages [May Subd Geog] [sp2008001936]
450 UF Baby buggies
450 UF Buggies, Baby
450 UF Perambulators
450 UF Prams (Baby carriages)
550 BT Carriages and carts
550 BT Infants’ supplies
550 RT Baby strollers

(mmm, bacon… a whole mountain of bacon…)
(C) 151 Bacon Peak (Wash.) [sp2008020139]
550 BT Mountains-Washington (State)
551 BT North Cascades (B.C. and Wash.)

(C) 150 Colony collapse disorder of honeybees [May Subd Geog] [sp2008000155]
450 UF Autumn collapse of honeybees
450 UF CCD (Colony collapse disorder of honeybees)
450 UF Disappearing disease of honeybees
450 UF Fall dwindle disease of honeybees
450 UF May disease of honeybees
450 UF Spring dwindle of honeybees
550 BT Honeybee-Diseases

(C) 151 Dreamland (New York, N.Y.) [sp2008001680]
667 This heading is not valid for use as a geographic subdivision.
550 BT Amusement parks-New York (State)

([in over-the-top French accent]: Formidable!)
(C) 151 Formidable, Mount (Wash.) [sp2008020150]
451 UF Mount Formidable (Wash.)
550 BT Mountains-Washington (State)
551 BT North Cascades (B.C. and Wash.)

(C) 151 Goat Rocks (Yakima County, Wash.) [sp2008020145]
551 BT Cascade Range
550 BT Mountains-Washington (State)

(C) 151 Icy Peak (Wash.) [sp2008020167]
550 BT Mountains-Washington (State)
551 BT North Cascades (B.C. and Wash.)

150 Immoral contracts [May Subd Geog] [sp 85064528]
* 450 UF Immoral contracts-Law and legislation

150 Impossibility of performance [May Subd Geog] [sp 85064654]
* 450 UF Impossibility of performance-Law and legislation

(C) 151 Magic Mountain (Wash.) [sp2008020123]
550 BT Mountains-Washington (State)
551 BT North Cascades (B.C. and Wash.)

(C) 150 Puppet television programs [May Subd Geog] [sp2001000697]
* 450 UF Marionette television programs
* 450 UF Puppet shows (Television programs)

(why could this not exist when I was a kid?)
151 Rock ‘n’ Roll Camp for Girls (Portland, Or.) [sp2008001962]
667 This heading is not valid for use as a geographic subdivision.
451 UF Rock and Roll Camp for Girls (Portland Or.)
550 BT Camps for girls-Oregon
550 BT Music camps-Oregon

(A) 150 Self-confidence in adolescence [May Subd Geog] [sp2008001533]
550 BT Adolescent psychology

(C) 151 Surprise Lake (King County, Wash.) [sp2008020131]
451 UF Lower Glacier Lake (Wash.)
451 UF Lower Scenic Lake (Wash.)
451 UF North Glacier Lake (Wash.)
550 BT Lakes-Washington (State)
551 BT Scenic Lakes (Wash.)

150 Telephone calls [May Subd Geog] [sp 99004511]
* 360 SA subdivision Telephone calls under names of individual persons and families,
classes of persons, and ethnic groups for recordings or transcripts of telephone calls by or
to those persons or groups

(C) 150 Tonto (Fictitious character) [Not Subd Geog] [sp2008001979]