Hi Jim, I'm not a professional yet, but I do split my time between working a fairly busy reference desk and cataloging Government Documents. I'm also one of the guinea pigs for RDA.
I think the problem here is differentiating what patrons want from what they actually need. You are absolutely correct in saying that patrons want Google. In fact, our library has tried to accommodate that desire by creating "Easy Search" boxes, where our users can type keywords into a single search box and bring back results for books, articles, etc. But while Google can be a great resource for some things, and I use it all the time on the desk, it would be very difficult to do any serious research relying on Google or Google-like tools alone. A good portion of the questions I answer day to day involve failed searches in our "Easy Search" boxes, not because the algorithms need improving, but because it just isn't the right tool for the job. (If you have not read Thomas Mann's Peloponnesian War essay, I would highly recommend it.) So I think we not only have to asks users what they want, we have to observe them to try and determine what they want to do, how they do it,! a! nd maybe what we could do to make those tasks easier. I can definitely say from experience that the users I work with are often frustrated by our online catalog. They don't understand why it is so complicated to find, for example, a Spanish translation of Camus' The First Man or why there are so many different records for what seems to them to be essentially the same item. FRBR might make such things easier. That said, it is much too early, I think, to tell if it actually will. Best, ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:59:18 +0200 >From: Weinheimer Jim <j.weinhei...@aur.edu> >Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Time and effort >To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > >Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote: ><snip> >Why wouldn't people in a library want to find/identify/select/obtain the >resources they want? ></snip> > >It is interesting that whenever I question the FRBR user tasks of (here we go >one more time!) "find/identify/select/obtain: >works/expressions/manifestations/items by their authors/titles/subjects" >people tend to believe that I am maintaining that *nobody ever* wants this >traditional type of access. This is not at all what I think, but what I do >maintain is that it is not the only way to find information as it was in the >card catalog (and it was!), and that the traditional way is not even of >primary concern with our patrons today; in fact, even the very concepts of the >traditional methods are becoming more and more removed from the experience of >younger patrons. My evidence for this is that people genuinely like >Google-type searching and databases, and it is *impossible* to do anything >like the FRBR tasks in those databases. They prefer these methods to ours. >Therefore, to maintain that the public wants and needs the FRBR tasks is >illogical and untenable. > >Also, analysis of the FRBR user tasks often stops after the >find/identify/select/obtain part, which really is almost totally speculative >since those are the things people do completely on their own, and what they >*really and genuinely* do is extremely difficult to know. In any case, what >should be of primary concern for catalogers right now are the rest of the >tasks, since that is what we are proposing to build and spend our resources >on, i.e. creating the "works/expressions/manifestations/items finding them by >their authors/titles/subjects". > >We need to ensure that what we make is what people want before we spend huge >amounts on changes, which could all be pointed in the wrong directions. All >this seems very non-controversial and obvious from a managerial point of view, >and in fact, even to disagree would be very strange. How in the world could >anyone say that something no one wants should be built? Yet, if there is >evidence that there is a genuine movement among our patrons that they say they >need FRBR displays so badly, to the detriment of productivity and so on, then >I would agree that it needs to be implemented. > >To me, maintaining that FRBR is what people want and need is obviously >indicative of "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." >The error is assuming that the tool we have made for such a long, long, long >time; a tool that our patrons have had no choice except to use or go without, >is therefore what people want and need. This is not progressive thinking and >we need to be humble. The undeniable fact is people flocked to other tools the >moment they had a chance. I want to emphasize that while I also believe that >people really do *need* the access that the traditional library catalog >provides, my experience shows they may not *want* it. There are many reasons >for this, along with consequences, which I will not enter into here. > >Once again, I shall state that *I do not know* how people search information >and how they use it. I have noticed tremendous changes in my own patterns, and >what I have witnessed from people I work with, it is also very different. >Since I understand how traditional access methods work, I can also see that >these new methods are lacking in many ways (e.g. not even any decent author >searches??), and in the hands of people less trained, these new patterns can >lead to incredible confusion and frustration. > >I confess I am not really sure exactly what it is that I do that is different >in my patterns of discovery, use and expectations of information from what I >did many years ago, but I only know that it's a lot different. I also know >that I like these new methods. A lot. These are the attitudes that I think we >need. > >For a couple of specific points: ><snip> >RDA makes WEMI explict, finally, so we can get started fixing the problems of >the past, and start thinking about new catalog designs built on a stronger >foundation. ></snip> > >Of course, this assumes that our patrons want this so badly that we must >retrain, retool, and redo practically everything to achieve it. It also >assumes that WEMI displays cannot be created automatically with what we have >now. I have seen absolutely no evidence to support any of this. > ><snip> >Our circulation and reference desk statistics attest to that shifting dynamic >as usage has climbed, and the sheer number and diversity of information >sources hinders people as much as it helps them, leaving a tremendous ongoing >need for reference service (and now training needs for all the new technology). ></snip> > >I guess you are saying that your library statistics, e.g. numbers of reference >questions, etc. have climbed. I'm happy for you, but the statistics I have >seen out there show completely different trends. Here are just a few that I >have noted. The initial ARL statistics are particularly pertinent (still the >latest ones), which show that ILL has increased tremendously, while reference >questions have gone 'way down. The ITHAKA study is sobering. >http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf > >http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/research/faculty-surveys-2000-2009/Faculty%20Study%202009.pdf > > >http://galbithink.org/libraries/circulation.htm (an interesting long-term >report) > >http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/07/if-libraries-ha.html (the comments >are also important) > >http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2010/07/generationY.aspx (discussing trends >among younger scholars) > >Plus, an interesting article in Wikipedia, of all things(!). >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_library_usage > >Sorry for such a long reply. > >James L. Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu >Director of Library and Information Services >The American University of Rome >Rome, Italy >First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Matthew Short Graduate Assistant Reference, Research, and Government Information Services (http://www.library.illinois.edu/rex/) History, Philosophy, and Newspaper Library (http://www.library.illinois.edu/hpnl/) - Graduate Studies in Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cell: (315) 276-9769
