On this subject (evidence for claims made in very important reports by very important and influential people) I have to say that it is very difficult to read statements in these reports/articles (Karen Calhoun's report and Deanna Marcum's article on the future of cataloging in LRTS come immediately to mind) that make claims about users and do not cite a single study (evidence for their claims) to back up these claims.
One of the things that I discuss with my students is that every one of us probably has a prototypical "user" in mind when we talk about "users." I suspect that this is one of the things that make us, as a community, have disagreements (I have no evidence for this statement, of course). Then, when we want to justify some action, we often say that "users" do this and "users" do that, having our own picture in our own head of the "users" we are talking about. It is convenient to make these claims without citing evidence because frequently there is no evidence to support them. We should notice this propensity when we speak and try to correct ourselves when it is a public context (in the heat of the moment, I have some sympathy), but there is no excuse for it in written reports, articles, or columns. As a community, we should (even if we agree with the claims) always demand evidence for statements about "users" (whoever they are). When we review articles for publication, we should carefully review statements that make claims about users and make sure that there is research evidence cited to back them up. Also, we need to check the citations, because now someone could, for example, cite the Karen Calhoun report as evidence for user behavior when, in fact, some of the statements made there about users have no research evidence backing them up - or, if they do, the research is not cited in a footnote (citations to research in a bibliography are *not* enough - each claim made about users (and most everything else) should be footnoted - *with* page numbers). Allyson Allyson Carlyle Associate Professor and Chair, Ph.D. Program Information School MGH Suite 370 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-2840 U.S.A. -----Original Message----- From: Kelleher, Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 2:48 AM Subject: Re: Library of Congress response to LCWG I must admit to having very little faith in OCLC reports, after I went to a meeting with OCLC, which featured a lengthy discussion session in which I believe OCLC tried to convince a room full of cataloguers that they didn't need the standard of record OCLC provided, and could accept lower quality records, citing for evidence a report by Karen Calhoun (OCLC's Vice-President), prepared for the Library of Congress, which, on investigation, appeared to be largely based on interviews with a bunch of handpicked interviewees "to gather a range of perspectives" (hmmm!). Some time, the library industry will learn to conduct proper impartial research, maybe even of their users...... But that's a silly idea, I know! Martin Kelleher Bibliographic Services/Electronic Resources Librarian University of Liverpool
