In the previous chapter, we considered the apparent need for a better theoretical understanding of library services. In the present chapter, we examine what it is we are to theorize about. The purpose is to clarify what it is we are seeking to develop a conceptual framework for. Then, having asserted the need and defined the scope, we will, in the next chapter, discuss what sort of theory might be appropriate.
Library services and information science
It is ironic that the term "information science" should, of all terms, have been used in an uninformative and unscientific way. Unfortunately, it has been carelessly used and even, on occasion, treated as a near synonym for librarianship. 1 It seems desirable, therefore, to review some aspects of information science.
All-embracing information science
After World War II, at least three intoxicating new developments emphasized information. Shannon and Weaver's "information theory" offered a whole new prospect for the scientific study of information. 2 Norbert Wiener's new science of cybernetics proclaimed a new, integrating approach to the study of human beings, machines, nature, and organizations based on the study of information and control. The powerful potential of electronic computers was just coming to be realized. There was the exciting prospect here for a whole new field of study based on information as its unifying concept. It might rival, or at least take its place alongside, biological sciences based on life and physical sciences based on energy. Vannevar Bush wrote an influential essay entitled "As We May Think" in which he speculated about an artificial information system which would resemble and extend the power of the human brain. 3
The fact that "information" is an elusive concept and difficult to define—let alone measure—was not (and is not) cause to despair. After all, "life" and "energy" are not simple concepts either. "Information," it seems, is in good company. The prospect was, and is, exciting. It is also clear that the scope of information science must necessarily be very extensive: logic, mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, literature, rhetoric, neurology, electronic engineering, cybernetics, librarianship, studies to do with decision making, mass communications ... all these and others have to do with information. The domain of information science is clearly very large. Two things follow from this. First, many different sorts of people who perceive themselves as having very little in common share in the study of information. Their present interests, techniques, and terminology may overlap little if at all. Each could define his or her area of interest as being "information science" (or, more honestly, within information science) without having much in common with the others except for the claim to being active within the field of information science. Second, it is not at all clear who would be capable of providing any integration of this dispersed field nor where such integrators would be found.
This "all-embracing" definition of information science is awe-inspiring. There would appear to be no sensible justification for limiting it in any way. Maybe "all-embracing information science" should be placed on a convenient pedestal to serve as a challenging inspiration to us all and to serve as a corrective for any inhabitant of a part of the field who came to assume that his or her part of the field was, in fact, the whole field rather than merely a part of a larger whole.
Computer science, librarianship, and information science
Computer science and librarianship are the two fields within the domain of information science which have most often used the name of the whole for the name of a part. Both have a valid claim, of course, but not to the whole.
Computer science is unquestionably much involved in the study of information-related matters: the coding of data into machine-readable form; and the transmission, manipulation, storage, and presentation of these data. The manipulation can include information retrieval and the use of inference for artificial intelligence. Yet, the limitation is that these matters are rooted in the computer and the computer is not coextensive with all sorts of information and information handling. Other information-related matters such as human cognition, speech, and indexing systems which are not computer-based can hardly be regarded as computer science.
With librarianship, the case is not stronger, even though one may concede that librarianship has implications and, applicability outside what are ordinarily regarded as libraries. It is, in this connection, instructive to observe what is actually taught in schools of librarianship under the heading of "information science" or by professors in these schools who identify themselves as "information scientists." By this empirical definition, information science (librarianship-style) is also something noticeably less than the all-embracing information science. In practice, information science (librarianship-style) is primarily the application (and applicability) of computers to libraries and (mainly bibliographical) data retrieval outside of libraries. To a limited extent, other matters are also included, notably the formal (i.e., theoretical) analysis of information retrieval processes. Actually, the case could be strengthened by including other topics that are also dealt with in schools of librarianship though it has not been traditional to categorize them as "information science." A good example is the study of human information-gathering behavior traditionally referred to as "user studies" but sometimes viewed in a broader sense as "social studies of information." Also, there is the rather thorough treatment of semantic and practical problems of information storage and retrieval with or without a computer. The causes of this partial use of the term "information science" would seem to be derived from the view in the English-speaking world that the term "science" ought to be restricted to those studies which partake of the characteristics of the "hard" (i.e., physical) sciences, or else not used. The social studies of information are clearly "soft" and within the general area of the social sciences and so tend not to be regarded as part of information science in the same way as the application of computers or of logic are. This squeamishness about the use of the word "science" is not, however, entirely consistent so long as the generic term for the principal degree in librarianship is referred to in North America as being "library science."
The interests of schools of librarianship have in fact been heavily concentrated on libraries. This has been even truer in practice than in rhetoric. Serious interest is now being expressed by some of these schools in a broader definition of their interests to include information-handling activities outside of libraries. How many schools will be able to achieve such a reorientation, how effective they will be with respect to areas outside of libraries, and whether they move outside of retrieval-based information services are key issues. Yet, even if all these things were to be done widely and effectively, one can hardly imagine the scope of such schools expanding to become even nearly coextensive with all-embracing information science.
Both computer science and librarianship have valid claims that they deal with information science. This is not to say that either deals with the whole of information science; if they did, they would no longer be departments of computer science or of librarianship; they would be departments of information science and, presumably, substantially similar to each other. Nor do we suggest that other disciplines, such as business administration and linguistics, for example, do not also share in the broad reaches of all-embracing information science. It might even be beneficial for our understanding of information if even more groups of people were to lay claim to the use of the term "information science." At least that would probably stimulate interest and debate. There remain, however, two dangers in the use of the name of the whole to represent a part: (1) it tends to cause misunderstanding as to what the term covers; and (2) it is liable to lead to preemptive use of the title by those who only deal with a part, thereby impeding others with a valid interest in other parts.
Information science and library science as "sciences"
The traditional view among those who have sought to develop an information science is reflected by Mikhailov and others who argue that any subject which claims to be a science (as the terms "information science" and "library science" appear to) must satisfy the following criteria: 4
- The subject area and the phenomena to be studied must be specified.
- The basic descriptive concepts must be clarified.
- The fundamental quantitative laws peculiar to the subject must be developed.
- A theory able to relate a multiplicity of phenomena must be developed.
Mikhailov and others think that only the first two of these can be claimed to have been achieved in information science. Therefore, they argue, anyone who wishes to assert that information science is a "science" has the onus of producing the fundamental quantitative laws and the theory. The same would hold true with library science.
The issue here is not the accuracy of these statements but their applicability. The specifications quoted above are for a formal, physical science. The subject areas which fit are physics, chemistry, biology, and the like—disciplines which are concerned with physical entities. Not all areas are like that. Theology, for example, which used to be known as "the Queen of the Sciences," has plenty of theory but not much quantification. These specifications would appear to be appropriate if, and only if, information science is deemed to be primarily concerned with physical matter. It may be inherently misguided to expect information science to partake of the same sorts of attributes as the physical sciences even though we might, with whatever motivation, wish it to. A more modern revisionist view is that the study of information services is not only not a "hard" science but a part of the social sciences, and that such social sciences are best regarded as a part of the study of history. 5
In this book, we are concerned with a theoretical framework for library services rather than information science as a science. Reflection on the phenomena of library services suggests that, if any affinities exist, they are likely to be with the social and behavioral sciences since the use of library services is an act of conscious social behavior. Further, since books are read and knowledge acquired, one might expect concepts and theories pertaining to education, linguistics, psychology, and human behavior to be relevant or similar to theory pertaining to library services. Further, management and technology are involved so concepts relevant to them may also be applicable. Whatever sort of theory may emerge, one might also reasonably expect it to have some affinities with philosophy since both library services and philosophy have to do with knowledge.
On the scope of librarianship6
The term "librarianship" is ambiguous. It can refer to a set of techniques or it can refer to the occupational field of those who are known as librarians. Neither definition is strictly identical to "library services."
The imagery of librarianship
Rhetoric is used to persuade and imagery is a major part of rhetoric. Images, repeatedly used, however, lead to stereotypes and are liable to influence the speaker as well as the audience. Movie star, computer scientist, peasant, librarian ... these labels evoke stereotyped images. 7 Individuals, impelled by social pressures, are liable to adopt, more or less unconsciously, the image and role projected onto them.
The rhetoric pertaining to librarianship is remarkably dominated by the term "library," an institution. In everyday speech, one goes to a "library school" to study for a "library degree" (usually formally known as a Master of Library Science degree), approved, one hopes, by the national library association. One reads articles in journals that typically have the word "library" in their titles. This heavy emphasis on an institution is less marked in other professions and professional schools. Journalists don't get a "newspaper degree" nor do would-be farmers enroll in "farm school." We do not refer to teachers as holding a "school degree" and attending a "school school" sounds bizarre. Librarianship, it seems, is somewhat out of line. One wonders what effect, if any, this imagery may have had.
The rhetoric would suggest that the institution, the library, should dominate the definition of the field of interest of librarianship and of schools of librarianship. Let us explore two alternative ways in which this might be done.
Librarianship and schools of librarianship
A simple approach would be to state that the field of a school of librarianship is coterminous with the institutions known as libraries and the preparation of people to work in them. Since libraries are complex, varied institutions and are fundamentally concerned with the fabric of human knowledge and with intangible values, and since they are labor-intensive with different types of staff, this need not be a simple or a narrow focus.
Schools of librarianship were set up to train personnel for libraries and early schools were often part of a library. The historical explanation of the title "library school" is straightforward. The practice is no longer simple. Schools of librarianship are no longer in libraries but in universities, albeit sometimes somewhat isolated within them.' Furthermore, they only train professional librarians. Other sorts of library personnel also need training: library assistants and library technicians especially.
Schools of librarianship are, in fact, well equipped to train people other than professional librarians in that they have a range of specialists, instructors, laboratories, links with other libraries, and good collections of instructional materials. In most cases, the schools have, or could probably acquire, the capacity to handle more students. But, generally, they confine themselves to the Master of Library Science degree and, sometimes, advanced programs, leaving less advanced training to the libraries and to other sorts of schools.
Schools of librarianship, then, do not simply prepare people to work in libraries—only the professional librarians. In doing this, a valuable opportunity has been missed. The syndrome seems still to be to flee the bad old days of undergraduate professional majors in librarianship. It is not, of course, only a matter of the preparation of personnel other than professional librarians to be employed in libraries but also of sharing what is interesting and useful in librarianship with people who are not intending to be employed in libraries but who may benefit intellectually and practically from what could be shared. There are a very few schools of librarianship that share in a serious way such topics as the effective use of libraries, children's literature, principles of information retrieval, history of the book, and so on, but this is unusual.
In the other direction, there has been a steady growth of "advanced certificate" and doctoral programs. A notable characteristic of both is that (with rare exceptions) they are based on the Master of Library Science degree as a prerequisite. This point is particularly relevant to the doctoral programs. The doctoral programs tend to be based directly on whether the proposed area of research is within the school's, area of interest and on whether the prospective student has sufficient preparation to undertake the specific area of doctoral research. Doctoral study ordinarily requires completion of the Master of Library Science degree and, often, professional practice as a librarian. The inference would seem to be that the schools want to inhibit some of the prospective doctoral students who could study aspects of librarianship and to restrict doctoral work to those who have been formally associated with libraries by acquisition of the professional training and by professional practice in libraries. A Master of Library Science degree, though useful for many purposes, cannot be claimed as the one and only sensible definition of suitable academic preparation for advanced study in each of the sorts of specialized research which schools of librarianship could reasonably be expected to want to foster, e.g., early printing, publishing history, content analysis of books, or foundations of information retrieval.
The preoccupation with the Master of Library Science degree has historical origins. For most of the history of most of the present schools of librarianship, this degree program (however named) and the school were virtually identical in that this was the school's only program. Traditionally, U.S. schools of librarianship require students to have a bachelor's degree in some other subject before undertaking professional education. A reason for this is that librarians deal constantly with knowledge of all sorts and, therefore, a significant level of general education should be required of them. However, the traditional concentration on the first professional degree for librarians who will be working in libraries can interfere with a clear view of the full range and opportunities of librarianship and information science.
This attempt to distinguish between the dominating Master of Library Science degree program and the full potential contribution of schools of librarianship leads to an alternative approach to defining the scope of the field of librarianship. From a naive, academic point of view, it would seem more sensible to take not an institution-derived view, but a conceptual one. In other words, one might seek to identify the concepts, skills, and mysteries which are characteristic of librarianship and to emphasize that body of knowledge as the foundation to be built upon. The addition of "and Information Science" to the names of many of the schools hints at this more basic view. Yet, in practice, the evidence remains thin. The name of the degree has been less frequently changed; the graduates remain headed for libraries. The "information science" tends, on closer inspection, to be mainly data-processing as applied to libraries.
If we are to get beyond the circular definition of librarianship as that which pertains to the provision of library services, then what sort of description would emerge? It seems unnecessary to impose the constraint that this "science" be unique to librarianship. Let us consider what is characteristic. (We consider later the consequences of any of it also being pertinent to activities which are not associated with libraries.)
Indexing, in its broadest sense, seems a good starting point. Library cataloging and classification schemes are but formal, rather structured, examples of the more general activity. The essence is description and labeling with the expectation that some person or persons as yet unknown will be able, at some future time, to find material that will probably be welcomed by them in the pursuit of some objective that they may have. The phrase, "information storage and retrieval" is appropriate. One might argue that document storage and retrieval is even more descriptive—and so it is in the sense that the units stored are overwhelmingly, if decreasingly, books and other sorts of documents. Yet, the books are there as a source of information and it is what is written in them that is of interest. So information storage and retrieval is an apt phrase, even though it has an aura of formality and machinery that seems out of character in a context that also includes reader's advisers, storytelling, and community information and referral. If we were to develop a more formal description of mission, then "fostering access to public knowledge" would seem likely to be close to the mark, so long as it is recognized that this mission is characteristic of, rather than unique to, library service. If an activity does not have to do with understanding, facilitating, or improving access to recorded knowledge in one way or another, then it probably ought not to be regarded as a part of librarianship.
While we may take indexing as a central feature of librarianship, there are, of course, many other activities necessarily associated with the provision of library services as was noted in chapter 2. Some of these—notably, management skills, communication skills, and a familiarity with relevant technology—are important in such a wide range of non-library contexts as to need little comment. There is, however, in addition to indexing, another area of expertise, which, like indexing, is unusual and is characteristic of librarianship, but is not unique to it. This has to do with what might be described, in words derived from Robert Fairthorne, as "documentary discourse." 8 By this, we mean an understanding of the relationships between author and document, between one document and another, and between document and reader. One can generalize this beyond documents to "recorded knowledge" to include data also. One could hardly implement, for example, a relational data base without this sort of knowledge.
It is probably unnecessary and unwise to attempt to define librarianship too closely. After all, defining things tends to be done by excluding things, and one may come to regret the exclusion.
Libraries only?
So long as librarianship is defined in terms of library services, it can be expected to be perceived only in those terms. However, as soon as we examine the nature of what is done, it becomes clear that the "science" of librarianship (or at least some of it) is not entirely unique to libraries, but also occurs in various forms in a variety of contexts: archives, Management Information Systems, records management, data base management, to name a few.
We can respond to this breadth of context in more than one way. Perhaps we should adopt a broad definition of the "science," but then restrict ourselves within it to the extent to which it occurs in or is significantly relevant to library services. But does it make sense to study the reading of library books but not the reading of other books? Is it reasonable to grapple with the arrangement and cataloging of library collections but to ignore problems in the arrangement and indexing of archives and data bases? A narrow view may inhibit broader insights. Yet a broader view may be rather wasteful if our practical aims are exclusively concerned with library services. Library services are almost ideal things to study for those who like challenges. They are long-established, varied, numerous, fraught with non-trivial problems at all kinds of levels, draw on all sorts of disciplines, are rooted in intangible social values, and are important enough to society to warrant the attention of good minds. Yet, if we have any significant insights concerning libraries and if the underlying "science" characteristic of library services also occurs elsewhere, then it would seem only responsible for those who inquire—and especially academicians—to offer and test their insights in these other, related, non-library contexts as well. It can hardly be argued, at a time when society appears to be drowning in data and documents, that non-library contexts do not also have problems worthy of the attention of good minds. Perhaps the apparent concentration of interests on library services has been reinforced, at least in part, by the imagery embedded in the phrase "library school."
A broader view
If one were to take a broader view than is implied by concentrating on library services, then one might represent it by figure 3.1, in which the theoretical insights from what might be loosely described as "theoretical information science" challenge and are challenged by pragmatic knowledge and empirical evidence relating to a set of retrieval-based information service activities, including library services.
Fig. 3.1 Libraries and related areas
Broadening the field of vision to include activities performed outside of libraries does not come easily, nor is it clear where the boundaries should be. Yet it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there would be a loss to all parties if attention to phenomena which occur in libraries but are also characteristic of other information retrieval situations were considered only insofar as they are manifest in libraries. 9
One way of relating library services to other retrieval-based information services and both of these to the broader reaches of information science is to think in terms of representations of knowledge. These representations can be considered in both an abstract sense ("texts") and a physical sense as manifestations of these representations ("text bearing media") such as a printed book, coding in a computer memory, and, in a more fleeting form, words that are spoken. The Gettysburg Address has been printed many times. The different printed versions—physical manifestations of the text—are not identical. However, the words that they bear are, or should be, the same as the words spoken by Abraham Lincoln on November 19, 1863. 10
If we take the broad and amorphous realm of "all-embracing information science"—or the fields of information study—as being concerned with representations of knowledge in one way or another, we can usefully distinguish a more specific area of concern: the identification, description, manipulation, storage, retrieval, and use of representations of knowledge or information. The processes of arrangement, description, and retrieval, in particular, imply the creation and use of representations of the representations of knowledge. The card catalog in a library is a familiar example of the representation of representations of knowledge.
Information storage and retrieval, then, can be seen as an identifiable subfield within the broader area of information science. We include in this subfield the techniques of storage and strategies for retrieval, indexing, classification, content analysis, and description, and similar sorts of activities.
Yet information storage and retrieval, while not without some technical interest, is sterile when considered in isolation. In order to see information storage and retrieval properly in context, we need also to concern ourselves with information science in the broader sense of concern with representations of knowledge, with knowledge itself, and, indeed, with people insofar as their needs are related through knowledge and representations of knowledge to information storage and retrieval. While the semantics of this whole field leave much to be desired, we can plausibly use the phrase "library and information science" to denote this area of interest, anchored in information storage and retrieval but also concerned with people, their needs, knowledge, and records.
The actual and potential contexts for studying and using "library and information science" are very extensive: libraries obviously, but also online retrieval services, archives, records management, and documentation in numerous specialized areas, e.g., museums, litigation, engineering, computer program libraries, planning, and bureaucracies. Nor is the field restricted to document retrieval systems. Data retrieval, information and referral services, and "knowledge availability systems" can all be reasonably included. From this perspective, library services are an area of application for a body of expertise that is best seen as applicable to a range of applications that includes but is not confined to library services.
There are further problems in definition. The techniques and knowledge associated with librarianship appear to be more or less applicable to a range of activities outside of library service as well. In other words, the techniques and knowledge associated with a range of cognate activities appears to coincide or at least overlap to an important degree. This has significant practical implications for those who need, possess, and/or study such techniques and knowledge; but that is not our present concern. The practical implication for this book is to require us to reiterate that we are concerned with "library services" rather than "librarianship." The title, Library Services in Theory and Context, was carefully chosen. It could well be argued that, if the techniques and knowledge characteristic of library services have some applicability in other contexts, then perhaps theory pertaining to library services has some applicability in other contexts also. Alternatively, it seems highly probable that the most useful approach would be to think in terms of a general body of theory which is, more or less, common to and applicable in each of these various contexts.
The origin of this book was an attempt to provide such a general conceptual framework not for library services but for a set of cognate activities of which library service was one example. However, generalities have to be tested in specific contexts. So the proper next step seemed to be not the development and presentation of a general conceptual framework for considering retrieval-based information services but, rather, to explore in some detail how well the general framework fitted one particular sort of retrieval-based information service. We chose to consider library services and this book is the result. If the approach is satisfactory for library services, then it is a plausible hypothesis that it will also prove satisfactory for other cognate fields.
Technology and theory
The technology of library services is rich and seductive. Books are interesting as physical objects as well as for the writings they contain. Papermaking, printing, type design, book design, binding—a range of technologies are involved which can be appreciated at several levels. A well-made book can have pleasing aesthetic and tactile qualities in addition to its intellectual interest. Printing and the book have influenced civilization profoundly: Would the Reformation have occurred without printing? Would the Counter- Reformation have been effective without it? How soon would the Copernican view of the cosmos have been reversed if early modern astronomers had not printed astronomical tables? 11 People relate emotionally to books and hesitate to discard them—unless it be to burn them in an attempt to attack abhorrent ideas printed in them.
Computers, too, have their fascination. They have an amazing power to perform computations. The sheer speed at which they work and their wide range of applications astonish. They can be programmed to fly airplanes, to play chess, to sort and sift through masses of data, and much else besides. Yet the consensus is that we have only just begun to develop their capabilities and to explore their potential.
Mathematics is another technology sometimes applied to libraries: queuing theory, linear programming, information theory, and so on. These, too, like books and computers, are strong magic.
The intrinsic interest and practical power of the technologies associated with library services are to be welcomed. Yet their very interest has perhaps been a distraction. To develop theory, it is necessary to look beyond the technology in the sense that an understanding of the potential role in society of access to recorded knowledge is not likely to depend only on a knowledge of the technology of printing. Principles of subject indexing preceded the invention and use of computers.
Technological developments make it more feasible to do things that were, in theory, feasible all along. Good theory should permit the more effective use of technology. Problems in the application of technology, on the other hand, stimulate thought which fosters the development of theory. 12 We shall consider some aspects of the role of technology further in chapters 7 and 17, but this is not a book about library technology. It is an attempt to consider library services at a more basic level—at the level of theory.
Summary
The preceding sections concerning the scope of this book can be briefly summarized as follows:
- The use of the term "information science" has been inconsistent. Any complete view of information ("all-embracing information science") must necessarily be very wide-ranging and presumably include, among other things, the provision and use of library services.
- The term "librarianship" is ambiguous; it can refer to a group of people known as librarians or it can refer to the techniques associated with libraries. Neither definition is satisfactory for our purposes—the former because it refers to people and the latter because the techniques associated with libraries appear to have some relevance and applicability outside of library services as well as inside them. We are concerned with the provision and use of library services. Possible applications of the techniques of librarianship outside of library services are outside the scope of our present study.
- We are concerned with theory rather than technology. The technologies associated with library services are rich, varied, and distractingly full of interest. We must, however, look beyond them to a more basic level of understanding because that is our goal and because that should enable us to use the technology more effectively.
We have not attempted a formal definition of library services and their users. Nor do we explore the fringes to ascertain when a library service ceases to be a library service. To do so does not appear necessary. The basic outlines of common sorts of libraries are widely known and our examples and discussions will related to the principal conventional sorts of libraries: university libraries and public libraries, with occasional references to school libraries and the "special" (i.e., specialized) libraries found usually in industrial firms. Discussion will be based on library services as they exist in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. Open access by readers to the stacks, arrangement of the books by subject, and borrowing will be assumed. Even though patterns of library service do vary from one country to another, the international similarity of librarianship is such that the examples and discussion should be intelligible to those whose experience is quite different from U.K. and U.S. patterns.
Having described the scope of our interest, we explore, in the next chapter, a particular perspective on library services which we expect to be helpful. Library services, their users, and the interactions between them will be considered as a system.
Go to Chapter 4
1 A. M. Schrader, "In Search of a Name: Information Science and its Conceptual Antecedents," Library and Information Science Research 6, no. 3 (July-September 1984): 227-71. See also the literature review and definition in J. G. Meijer, Librarianship: A Definition (Occasional Papers, 155) (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, September 1982).
2 Information theory as developed by Shannon and Weaver is a mathematical analysis of efficiency in the signaling of data. The meaning of the data and the benefit derived from receiving the signal are not considered. For details, see for example, C. Shannon and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1949); L. Brillouin, Science and Information Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: Academic Press, 1962).
3 V. Bush, "As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly 176 (July 1945): 101-8.
4 B. C. Brookes, "Information Science (Excluding IR)," British Librarianship and Information Science, 1966-1970, edited by H. A. Whatley (London: Library Association, 1972), pp. 137-49, esp. p. 137. Brookes is summarizing A. I. Mikhailov, A. I. Chernyi, and R. S. Gilyaresvskii, "Informatics: Its Scope and Methods," in On Theoretical Problems of Informatics (FID 435). (Moscow: All Union Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, 1969), pp. 7-24.
5 P. G. Wilson, "Limits to the Growth of Knowledge: The Case of the Social and Behavioral Sciences," Journal of Documentation 50, no. I (January 1980): 4-21, esp. pp. 15-17.
6 This section draws on M. K. Buckland, "Looking Ahead—And Around," Information Reports and Bibliographies 7, nos. 4-5 (1978): 15-18; and M. K. Buckland, "Library Education—Meeting the Needs of the Future," Catholic Library World 50, no. 10 (May 1979): 424-26.
7 For librarians see, for example, M. Slater, "The Image of the Library Information Worker," in The Information Worker: Identity, Image, and Potential, edited by M. R. Raffin and R. Passmore (London: Aslib, 1977), pp. 9-19.
8 R. A. Fairthorne, Towards Information Retrieval (London: Butterworths, 1961), pp. 95-96; R. A. Fairthorne, "Content Analysis, Specification, and Control," Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 4 (1969): 79.
9 For further discussion, see Buckland, "Looking Ahead—And Around," pp. 15-18; and Buckland, "Library Education," pp. 424-6.
10 For further discussion of texts and knowledge in relation to information retrieval, see P. G. Wilson, Two Kinds of Power: An Essay on Bibliographical Control (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), chapter 1: "The Bibliographical Universe."
11 E. L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 2 vols.
12 The relationship between theory and technology is commonly oversimplified: "The term 'basic research in engineering' causes a great deal of confusion, since engineering is ordinarily thought of as applied by definition. Nevertheless, there are a number of basic scientific disciplines which have become traditionally associated with engineering in universities even though they are pursued largely for their own sake, and are just as fundamental as the disciplines associated with the natural sciences. The basic sciences associated with engineering are primarily those concerned with the behavior of manmade systems—information theory, the theory of structures, the theory of feedback and control systems, computer and systems theory—but they are nonetheless fundamental. Also there are subjects such as fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, and thermodynamics—what might be called macroscopic or classical physics—which have been largely taken over as basic engineering sciences. All these engineering sciences are distinct from engineering as the art of applying the mathematical and physical sciences to the meeting of human needs.” H. Brooks, The Government of Science (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1968) p. 187, footnote.
Go to Chapter 4
Copyright © 1988, 1999 Michael K. Buckland.
Document maintained at
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Library/Services/chapter3.html
by the SunSITE Manager.
Last update January 21, 1999.
SunSITE Manager:
manager@sunsite.berkeley.edu
