Metalibrarianship. Ch.4 : The Issue of Library Information Science Self-Consciousness

Nitecki, Joseph Z. 1993. Metalibrarianship : A Model For Intellectual Foundations of Library Information Science. http://twu.edu/library/Nite cki/Metalibrarianship .Volume 1 of The Nitecki Trilogy .Also available as ERIC ED363 346.

CHAPTER 4:
THE ISSUE OF LIBRARY INFORMATION SCIENCE
SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

4.1 Definitional confusion

4.1.1 Lack of consensus.
A review of the literature on librarianship shows the disjunctive character of its definitions and an artificial separation of its two subfields, library and information science. Individual definitions of Library or Information Science address some, but not all, aspects of the discipline, while the concept of information science shows more similarities with, than differences from, library science.

Lack of consensus among librarians and information scientists is illustrated by definitional confusions and often contradictory hypothetical assumptions about the nature of the discipline. The argument for a definit ional unity of the field, referred to as Library Information Science (LIS), is based on the comparison among the three philosophical approaches to the concept of 'definition'. It is suggested that the prescriptive, linguistic, and essentialistic approaches individually define different aspects of the field. However, together they refer to the same conceptual unity, informational environment, and subject matter.

Irwin in the old Encyclopedia of Librarianship (1961) says that although the subje cts covered by the term 'Librarianship' are many, there is "nevertheless something much greater than the mere sum of these subjects. It shares with certain other vocations . . . something indefinable which transforms it from a mere occupation into a way of life."1

That 'something' to Irwin is the satisfying reward of the vocation. To me it is the essence of Librarianship, expressed in the philosophy of librarianship. Irwin dismisses the philosophical approach as a high-sounding phra se that merely signifies three purposes of librarianship: to teach, to do research, and to entertain. 2

As will be shown in this book, there is much more to the definition of librarianship than a mere description of its purposes.

4.1.2 Variations in Self-perception
A brief survey administered by me confirmed the notion of a lack of uniformity in defining the field of library information science. The survey focused on the identification of common bibliographic denominators in information science, shared by the faculty of the library school in one university.3

The term 'information' was defined by most participants as either a process or a commodity. The definitions of 'information science' were grouped in three clusters similar to Mansfield's (1987) threefold approach to the classification of the concept of information science.

(1) The most frequently cited was the socio-technological definition emphasizing recorded informa tion, its organization, classification, transfer, utilization, storage, and retrieval.
(2) The system approach to the definition stressed an interdisciplinary character of information science, bridging viewpoints of social science, cybernetics, systems theory, computer science, and other disciplines.
(3) In the least-cited, cognitive approach, information science was defined as a building of a predicative system based on the interaction between the input in the form of a neural flow and the outp ut of a receiving system.

The weakest consensus was displayed in identifying the domains central to the interdisciplinary nature of information science. Listed in descending order they were:

(1) management, viewed as organization and decision making;
(2) miscellaneous disciplines, such as communication, mathematics, cybernetics, philosophy, and systems;
(3) Library and Information Science and indexing;
(4) computer science, including Artificial Intelligence, expert syst em, and optical storage; and
(5) social and behavioral sciences, cognition, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and social anthropology.

The size of the sample was too small to generalize the uniqueness of the concept 'information', or to define the criteria that would distinguish the field from other disciplines. However, the study revealed, at least in this case, a high degree of divergence in interpreting the phenomenon of information, and the complexity and diversity of informatio n science as a field.

4.1.3 Hypothetical Opposites
Part of the confusion in defining the nature of Library Information Science (LIS) is created by a number of hypothetical opposites, i.e., assumptions that contradict each other within many definitions of the field,

(a) The subject matter is often seen either as a physical thing, with physical properties, such as a book, or as a sign or a message with informational properties such as meaning, validity, relevance, or information co ntent. The physical view of an information system focuses on the volumes of data, speed of transmission, reliability, and adaptability of its components. On the other hand, an information system loosely defined as a message conveys the views and intentions of the author, expressing his or her concept of information.

(b) In the LIS theory, the interpretation of reality can be subjective, metaphysical, and intellectual, or objective, physical, and sensual. The specific approach reflects a humanistic, scientific, or philosophical viewpoint, distinguishing between structure and form, substance and content, or metaphysics of ideas and physics of operations. The methodology may be deductive, logical and theoretical or inductive, empirical, and experimental.

(c) On the issue of neutrality, there is a long-standing conflict between the requirement of objectivity in providing information and the subjective needs of a patron; and the related distinction between the role of reference assistance to sa tisfy a patron's request for information material versus interpretation of its meaning. Selection of library material is necessitated by the limited resources; at the same time, it is criticized as unintentional censorship.

(d) The two disciplines of library and information science are seldom considered jointly; most often they assert their own separate identity, evading further elaboration. Yet both subdisciplines must be grounded in a social practice and services that are uniquely formulated i n human affairs. Both focus on social practice, with the primary emphases on communicating information, identifying its content, and relating the domain of research to the scientific, philosophical, or praxiological dimensions (Schrader, 1983).

In instances where the two subdisciplines are interrelated, the reasons given are often equally inadequate. The approach is criticized by Schrader for substituting all-inclusive phrases such as 'and others,' for formal definitions, and for the use of vagu e analogies and metaphors. There is no professional consensus, for example, on the use of domain neologisms. Generic functions are conceptually misused as synonyms, mixing different dimensions of the domains, such as philosophical with sociological.4

(e) And finally, society's prevailing preferences are the factors in determining library specific services, which vary with different times and locations. They are implemented horizontally, by different kinds of libraries serving diffe rent populations, and vertically, by serving different individuals with different backgrounds and needs. Hence, no two libraries are ever exactly the same.

4.2 Divergences in Defining 'Definition' 5
Different interpretations of 'definition' can be broadly summarized into three major groups: the prescriptive, the linguistic and the essentialistic approach (Abelson, 1967).

4.2.1 Prescriptive Definitions
The prescriptive approach considers definitions as imperative sentences, naming the things or events, rather than providing any information about them. There are two major prescriptive viewpoints. The nominalists explain "definitions as semantic rules for assigning names to objects," while the formalists consider definition "as syntactic rules for abbreviating strings of symbols."6

Nominalism is represented by Bacon and Hobbes, who view definition as a means for avoiding ambiguity and semantic confusion, by insisting that the de scriptions used are empirically verified.

Formalism is a preferred approach of some scientists, like Pascal, for whom the definitions are "conventional labels, that need have nothing in common with the things they name."7 Russell and Whitehead defined " 'definition' in terms of sameness of meaning . . . 'concerned wholly with the symbols, not with what they symbolize.'"8

Probably the most popular among librarians as well as information scientists, the prescriptive definitions are limited to the naming of different components of the field. There is an interesting parallelism between the ways these elements are defined by both the practitioners and the theoreticians of Library and Information Science. Both reduce the definitions of the discipline to observable and measurable properties of information, which has to be stored and later retrieved. This approach makes the discipline at least partly free from metaphysical ambiguity, at the price of saying very little about the essential nature of the reality addressed by the field.

4.2.2 Linguistic Definitions
The linguistic approach considers definition as a declarative sentence which communicates information; that, however, is determined by the way language is used to define that information.

J. S. Mills and G. E. Moore were the precursors of this approach in some of their interpretations of the concept of definition. Mills maintained that definition conveys information when it red uces complex ideas into simpler components. Moore restricted its meaning to explanatory and clarifying functions. The more recent philosophers, such as Ryle and especially Robinson, provided more direct linguistic interpretation of definition "as reports of word usage."9

4.2.3 Essentialistic Definitions
The oldest and best developed is the essentialist view of definition as a conveyer of information through cognition. It began with the Socratic question of 'What does x mea n?' followed by a variety of answers, most of them metaphysical, clarifying different aspects of definition through metaphors. Plato's answer was formulated in terms of the abstract form of an idea or a standard, expressed in the relationships between the object of definition (an abstract concept) and its empirical description (a copy of the concept).

Aristotle distinguished between the real definition of causal relations and the nominal, prescriptive definition. Causal relations are expressed in the systematic classification of different relations.

Locke's 'ideas' and Kant's 'concepts' are the products of cognition through introspection, intuition, or conceptual analysis. Thus, the essentialist's view of definition incorporates both: Locke's physical and psychological aspects of definition, and Kant's analytical (predicative) elements and synthetic (a priori) rules.10

4.3 Schrader's Linguistic Analysis
The linguistic approach, by con centrating on the rules of language, recognizes the importance of the relationship between definitions and the meaning defined by them. However, the approach limits the interpretation of these relations to the meaning as it is expressed in the descriptive language used.

The linguistic approach to the definition of library and information science is well illustrated by Schrader's analysis. His detailed, fully documented doctoral study presents a logical and conceptual analysis of over fifteen hun dred definitions of library and information sciences printed in the last hundred years (Schrader 1983). "The analysis reveals a profound depth of confusion, disagreement, contradiction, and inconsistency . . . Nowhere are the flawed claims more apparent than in the efforts to tease apart a domain of information science . . . from that of library science." 11 12

Schrader identified two approaches to the definition of the domain of library and information science :
(1) an empirical approach based on observation and experience and assumed to be a self-evident description of the whole field;
(2) the conceptual approach, which was selected by Schrader for his own definitions and uses logical analysis of the content of definitions to determine the relationships between the meaning of the concept and the term expressing it. "Discourse about a domain does not arrange itself in social reality; it must be rendered explicit. Concepts must be expressed as a sys tem of linguistic terms."13 Schrader examined each definition of the domain by first identifying various usage of the terms in different definitions. He compiled a list of synonyms for the meaning of each term. Next he reviewed the definitions' social functions in library and information contexts. The resulting topology of definitions contained (a) the name used to designate the domain; (b) the nature of the domain, such as a study, science, practice, art, technology, or their variations: (c) the description of the content of the domain, such as knowledge, recorded knowledge, information, or specific types of records and (d) the function of the domain, that is, the type of activity the domain is involved in (called by Schrader 'physical or immaterial objects') and the person requesting the record, or both.

4.3.1 Library Science (LS)
The name of the domain changed throughout the history of the discipline. The term 'library science' was defined as a scientific study for the practical organization of a library. 'Librarianship' stood for 'the office or work of a librarian.' The terms "library economy', 'library science', or 'library service' were used interchangeably for the management of libraries. 'Bibliothecal science' referred to the library collections. 'Bibliology' or 'applied bibliography' meant "the systematic description and history of books, their authorship, printing, publication, editions, etc."14 The nature of library science was also defined in several ways, among them as a bibliographic activity, a discipline, an educational enterprise, an interdisciplinary field, or an empirical or metaphysical phenomenon.

Schrader discussed several terms associated with each concept, such as object (e.g., 'to retrieve'), people (e.g., 'to teach') and combination of both (e.g., 'to link'). He also developed a long list of synonyms for each generic term (e.g., for the term 'to process' the synonyms were 'to handle, manipulate, restructure, or re package').

Schrader concluded that (a) there is no consensus on the domain of the discipline, since its definition ranges from the study of the physical records to that of cultures; (b) the foci of the definitions vary by centering either on objects, people, processes or activities; (c) definitions lack consensus on the meaning of basic concepts, such as 'library', 'knowledge', or 'book'; and (d) idiosyncratic citations provided poor references to original sources.15

L ibrarians engage in an activity that has as its goal effective access to recorded knowledge and service to those seeking such access. In these bibliothecal activities, the librarian encounters the structural and functional properties of the recorded objects that are in need of control. Documents exist as objects, contents, or as use potentials, whether intended or not. It is up to the librarian to understand the properties of the bibliothecal situation and to translate them into a functioning system. Librarianship can be defined as a professional activity (essential here is 'doing'), or as a field of study (essential motive is 'knowing'), where 'to know' means to grasp and to explain.

4.3.2 Information Science (IS)
Schrader's methodology in analyzing the definitions of information science is similar to the one used in the previous section. And the findings are also similar. The definitions are illusive and even less conceptually organized than the definitions of Library Science. Referen ces to previous definitions are uncritical and repetitious. The study and practice of the discipline are conflated, not distinguishing between the study of information-related concepts and their applications. Descriptions of the field's scientific status defend the claim rather than elaborate on its meaning, and they narrowly interpret the discipline's technological aspects. Inappropriate analogies, circular definitions and vague notions of 'information' add to the conceptual chaos.

In various def initions of information science, Schrader notes, reference was made to objects, persons or both, at social, psychological, biological, or physical levels. Information was considered as knowledge, data, ideas, facts, or documents. The emphasis of quantification reflects naive logical positivism, which suppresses social, psychological, and philosophical dimensions. Stress on applied or technological aspects of the domain equates its means with ends of the discipline. Information is considered as either input or output, shifting from anthropomorphism to mechanistic reductionism. This is the fallacy of using one level of analysis to explain another.
The name of the discipline 'information science' was implied in the term 'bibliography' used by Paul Otlet, and later replaced by Henri LaFontaine with 'documentation'. Both terms relate to the collection and classification of scientific and specialized literature. 'Information retrieval', introduced in 1950 by Calvin Mooers, described the function of prov iding access to stored information. 'Information science' is the American term for computer-related activities. Finally 'informatics' was suggested by Russian writers, to distinguish the activities of information scientists from those of librarians.16

The nature of information science is as diverse as that of library science, and the descriptions of activities in both sub-disciplines are similar, with more frequent references to scientific aspects in information science. The ran ge of these descriptions is illustrated by a variety of criteria used in defining information and theories of information science.

Samuelson (1974) categorized information theories according to nine components: environmental, sensing, informative, diagnostic, purposeful, or oriented toward action, result, goal, and ultimate objectives. Vagianos (1972) distinguished between information science as a part of social, natural, theoretical, technological, and professional sciences, and information scien ce as metascience. Wersig and Neveling (1975) considered information as a phenomenon, means, technology, or a purpose in which it was used.

Hayes (1969) argues that information science cannot exist as a separate discipline and that it should always be considered in the context of a specific discipline.17 Machlup and Mansfield focus on 'cultural diversity' in studies of information (Machlup and Mansfield, 1983).

Similar to the focus of library science, the focus of in formation science reflects, Schrader continues, a trichotomy of emphases on objects, people, and on the relations between the two. Many of the generic terms are the same in both fields (e.g., 'to retrieve', 'to teach', and 'to link').

Schrader concludes that "the conceptualizations of library science are inadequate because of their institutional bindings while the conceptualizations of information science are inadequate because of their object binding."18

4.3.3 Lib rary and Information Science
Schrader's own definition of library and information science is developed in the context of human social reality, focusing on the unique role of the librarian or information consultant "to bring about access to something for someone who is seeking that access." 19 The selected universe of discourse itself is a multidimensional study of different problems and issues considered in terms of general system theory.20

Both libra ry and information sciences are defined as systems of human social practice in which both librarians and information scientists facilitate access to selected cultural objects for the inquiring patron. The system proposed by Schrader consists of four components:
(1) The system affector (e.g., librarian); its function is to provide access to the symbolic cultural objects or their bibliographic surrogates.
(2) The system affectee (the user) is the seeker of the access to these objects or their bib liographic representations.
(3) The system content, the carriers of the symbolic culture, which stand for the reproduced symbolic culture, replacing terms such as 'information', 'knowledge', or 'cognition'.
(4) The setting, i.e., the physical, cultural, or administrative environment.

Within the larger societal system, the above components and interrelationships between them constitute the 'symbolic culture access system', the universe of discourse of library and information scien ces.

The fundamental processes of the system are twofold: to guide and to seek access to the symbolic cultural objects. The objectives of the system are summarized as scientific, philosophical, or praxiological inquiries into quantitative, qualitative, and performative aspects of the system; its 'what-is' and 'what-to-do' are reflected in the principles, policies, and operations of the system.21

The knowledge provided by the inquiries is the result of different kinds of analysis. Empirical analysis relates to scientific, conceptual or philosophical knowledge. Both the empirical and the conceptual analyses refer to praxiological knowledge, while the perceptual analysis provides the qualitative and transactional analysis to the performative knowledge.

The value of the library system, its goodness, relates to its two dimensions: the philosophical, expressing an intrinsic worth of the opinion or knowledge made accessible: and the praxiological instrumental worth of the effectiveness of the system, in obtaining the desired opinion or knowledge.

Schrader considers both library and information approaches as parts of one discipline with a social role to facilitate the access to recorded manifestations of culture.

The analysis is, however, restricted by its design to the linguistic study of taxonomic aspects of the discipline. It is an important step toward theory formulation, but it does not go beyond the definitional stage. "Further logical a nd conceptual inquiry is needed in order to relate the symbolic culture accessing system to other domains of social practice," 22 but also to develop a philosophical framework establishing library and information science as a unique, interdependent discipline.

4.4 Applications of Different Approaches to the concept of 'Definition'
All the above approaches, if applied separately, are criticized by Abelson for their mistaken assumption "that if definitions con vey knowledge, then the knowledge they convey is of the same type as that conveyed by ordinary statements of facts. Essentialists conclude that the knowledge conveyed by definitions is descriptive knowledge of essences, linguistic philosophers conclude that it is descriptive knowledge of language usage, while prescriptivists maintain that definitions do not convey knowledge of any kind."23

Abelson is especially critical of the metaphorical approach, claiming that at best it can be verified in terms of its logical consistency, which although sufficient in a logical system, is "merely a necessary condition for sound definitions." 24

In my definition of LIS, a metaphor is used not as a definition itself, but as a method of describing the essence of LIS in terms of its manifestations in the more familiar structure and functions of the discipline. It offers the opportunity to understand the less known facts or events by means of experiences more familiar to us. Through metaphors we can expand our understanding beyond sense perceptions. "It is as thought the ability to comprehend experience through metaphor were a sense, like seeing or touching or hearing, with metaphors providing the only ways to perceive and experience much of the world. Metaphor is as much a part of our functioning as our sense of touch, and as precious."25

Abelson proposes a fourth approach, which provides a context for the definition. He calls it a pragmatic , contextual viewpoint. Notwithstanding Abelson's criticism, each approach provides a valid description of different aspects of the definition.

The prescriptive definitions are used in logical and mathematical conventions by assigning specific symbols for given abstract statements in a nominal definition. In librarianship they are used in thesauri by providing formal definitions for individual terms, with cross-references to synonyms and homographs. Such definitions communicate meaning only in ter ms of the specific context for which they were designed and are valuable in technical operations such as indexing, cataloging, and classification.

Abelson's own focus is on the evaluation of definitions as good or bad, determined by the kind of knowledge sought. He is interested in the knowledge of the effective use of words in definitions, which, in turn, depends on the purposes for which a definition is formulated.

My analysis is based on the definition of knowledge as relations known between more and less familiar events or facts. In this approach the universe of discourse is based on a conceptual search for the essential, basic relations first. The contextual evaluation of the effects of these relations, or the procedural evaluation of the prescriptive values, follows and not precedes the search for the meaning of these relations. All three aspects of the definition are important, however, and are incorporated in the metaphorical model of metalibrarianship, developed later in this boo k, by considering each approach as a separate but interdependent dimension of the definition of metalibrarianship.

In this section the focus is merely on describing the field of librarianship; in the proposed model of metalibrarianship the aim is more ambitious, to identify relationships that are unique to the field considered as a bona fide discipline.

"When metaphor is considered as a tool for communication, attention is focused on its use for the exchange of information among speak ers and listeners. The consideration of metaphor as a tool for thought, on the other hand, is concerned with the discovery of relationships between seemingly disparate domains and an exploration of the extent to which they can be related."26

The interpretation of the meaning of LIS is explicated by a synthesis of the prescriptive, linguistic, and essentialistic definitions. It is an analytical process of obtaining a predicate (a relational association of different definitions of L& IS) by analyzing its subject (LIS subject matter). It is a mental process, which in the Kantian sense explains the meaning of the discipline by mentally dissecting its subject matter.

4.5 Conceptual Unity Among Information Sciences
The thesis of this book is the hypothesis that all information agencies dealing with recorded knowledge share some basic, common characteristics. They all evolved from the activities of the traditional library and therefore are expressed here in the form of metalibrary model. In literature their theoretical formulations are developed under the auspices of Library and Information Science (L&IS).

A straightforward but somewhat simplistic argument for the unity of library and information sciences was provided by Wilkinson. After reviewing the few published definitions of the two fields she concluded that philosophically both of them are "one and the same." 27

The functions of the two disciplines, Wilkinson argues, are s imilar: library science is a theoretical framework based on long-existing library practice, which focuses on acquisition, organization, and utilization of information records. Information science is the theory addressing properties and behavior of information (Harrod, 1977) and information-producing processes (Hayes, 1980). Both disciplines study human communication processes 28 and both deal with information 'containers' (the products of record-keeping), with a purpose that has remained u nchanged throughout the ages: "to commemorate, to communicate, to pray, to calculate, to measure, and to preserve." 29 In library science these containers are identified and classified, and in information science they are filtered for relevant information. With time, the format of containers changed, from tree bark to printed records, and the process of recording from marks in stone to computers. Both approaches study relationships between subjective human knowledge (Popper's World 2) an d the accumulated objective knowledge (Popper's World 3). And finally, both relate to a unique role of librarianship, the study of the "relationship between social needs for information on the one hand and imprinted knowledge on the other."30 When they are so perceived, Wilkinson concludes, "there is no distinction between the role of the librarian and the role of the information scientist. They are one and the same discipline."31

4.6 Common Denominators
All information agencies, whether differing by subject, location, or clientele, share the same subject matter (their structure, function, and processes); they are subject to the same kinds of influences from without (cultural, political, and technical environment); and their role in the society is evaluated from similar vantage points (psychological, sociological, and philosophical).

4.6.1 Common Subject Matter
In this book, the subject matter of information agencies is defined concep tually, as a series of relationships between the availability and needs for information (information transfer parameters) on the one hand, considered as independent variables, and on the other, as three basic dependent variables describing the structure of the physical library, the purpose of the information agencies, and their functions.

[Fig. 4-1]: Common denominators of information agencies.

Mukherjee's (1966) review of library-science subject matter illustrat es a variety of interpretations of common denominators. Danton (1934) defines the subject matter of LIS as collection, preservation, organization, and utilization of graphic and printed materials used in recorded communication. Wheeler extends Danton's definition to include individuals who are able and willing to seek information, recreation, or self-development. Broadfield (1949) combines subject matter with the art of human skills and scientific attitude of observation, causation, and efficiency. Foskett (1962) sees it as a social science with social aims. Meyer (1925) stresses production, care, and use of records of knowledge, Temple (1949) identifies organization and manipulation of records as major aspects of subject matter. Wheeler (1946) adds to it the processing of books and their utilization.

4.6.1.1 Structure of Information Resources
The structure of the generic information agency is viewed as a system combining basic components of the physical resources --that is, (a) collection of recorded information (resources), (b) organization of their content, and (c) access to them. Each of these components can be expanded into more specific and technically more complex concepts, such as acquisition and ordering of material.

The structure of any information agency is based on a general objective of bringing the right book to the right person at any cost (Roden, 1923). The focus is on generic books as living organisms, controlled by a librarian as a 'doctor and a hygienist' of reading . Library structure combines both the humanistic concerns about the values of what librarians do and the scientific focus on discovering laws about people's need for and use of information.

Generic books are defined by Shores (1971) as the sum total of human communication. Their function is to realize the reader's abilities through reading (Clayton, 1940). The process of discovering the topic of interest, selecting, and reading the appropriate book is part of the reader's self-development. The socia l function of a book is a transmission of society's experiences to the individual (Butler, 1933).

(a) Library resources represent society's culture and are treated as its reference and as a storehouse of information. The gap between a potential collection of all knowledge and the actual accessible knowledge in a particular collection is narrowed by better cooperation between libraries, promotion, bibliographic instruction, and access (Savage, 1946).

Sociological analysis of book selection is ba sed on an ideal of meshing together the reader's purposes with the impact of reading on them. For reading satisfaction to be achieved, focus on those types of readers that the library can best serve is required. Most readers seek reinforcement of their beliefs rather than a purposefully guided change (Goldhor, 1942).
(b) Bibliographic organization of resources discussed here refers to the collection's classification and cataloging. Classification "consists of that part of the theory of librarianship which deals with the organization of knowledge -- a basic operation in the advancement of learning . . . it relates to the philosophical and psychological foundations of human communication, and so has relevance to any subject."32 Cataloging is perceived as a sociological function of providing satisfactory access to the resources (MacPherson, 1939). Cataloging rules differ among cataloging systems, but the cataloging principles of organizing the resources are common to all types of libr aries (Foskett, 1964).

(c) Provision of a full access to information resources is a major obligation of librarians in democracy. It relates to the dissemination of knowledge to the present clientele as well as to the preservation of library records for their dissemination to future generations of patrons.

Scholars now realize that "our culture, historically the most prolific in terms of paper records, could in two centuries well become a lost culture because little by way of permanent records would remain."33 The same concern is now expressed about the newer media, such as videotapes, microfilms, and magnetic tapes. The issues of preservation directly affect not only future dissemination of records but also their formats, indirectly influencing the changing structure of library information science itself. 34

From the very beginning of library history, the preservation of records has been its primary responsibility, born, in the words of Shera, "of the coincidence of social need [for communication] and physical scarcity [of fragile graphic records]."35 Until the introduction of electronic data, the interdependence between access to and the preservation of library material was almost mutually exclusive, requiring special arrangements such as closed stacks, or, later, duplication of frequently used materials and separate, restricted-use collections of rare publications. With electronic data gradually supplementing printed records, acc ess is determined by the financial cost of electronic equipment and services available to the library, thus creating a new information-poor category of patrons.

4.6.1.2 Purposes of Information Agencies
Librarianship has no purposeful mission of its own; it cannot initiate new purposes. But it can interpret the mission or purpose assigned to it by society (Reith, 1984), even though it lacks strong advocacy and at times it succumbs to aggressive special interests. The purposes of librar ianship are here defined as goal-oriented actions in terms of relationships between the library services (as dependent variables), reacting to its society's needs (as independent variables). Three basic end-objectives define library purposes: the informative, the educational and the cultural; and each, in turn, can be further subdivided into more specific actions.

(a) Informative End-objective
The informational goal is twofold: to provide answers to specific questions, and to stimulat e new questions by making patrons aware of the needed information. The latter goal is well illustrated by the essential role of communication in scientific research. Such communication requires a constant exchange of data on the changing status of knowledge. "The ultimate function of a sophisticated data bank would be to become part of the scientific process itself -- to anticipate scientists' information needs; to disseminate information created by the scientists in the community being served to other scientists outside the community on whom it would be predicted to have a significant impact; and even to generate information such as synthesis as a result of analyzing information flow and use."36

The overall goal of informative processes of LIS is to provide a description of resources available to the patron. Descriptions range from raw empirical data, to the material dealing with emotional as well as fictional descriptions of experiences, to tightly formulated theoretical t reatises. In cases of controversy or a variety of opinions, the descriptions include objective representation of all viewpoints. All descriptions are subject to verification in terms of their relevance to the facts described.

(b) Educational End-objectives
Educational goals of librarianship are seen differently by various writers. Boaz maintains that future librarianship must go beyond traditional requirements by knowing the content of books, and it must also be able to un derstand and communicate the ideas expressed in them (Boaz, 1972). John Cotton Dana (1906) considers the library as a public educational institution, a cultural center for the community. Important to him are specialized information services for scholars and readers considered as 'indexes' to total knowledge.

The role of the library in educational system was fully reviewed by the National Society for the Study of Education's committee chaired by Louis R. Wilson in 1941 (Henry, 1943). Library educ ational goals are perceived as independent and self-directed learning (Christ, 1972). For Johnson, the public library as a people's university strengthens culture through education, citizenship, Christianity, and democracy. It assists in job training and understanding of political, social, and cultural ideas of democracy (A. Johnson, 1938). Predeek (1939) wants to educate by creating an intellectual environment for the interpretation of cultural values, by providing reading material and by maintaining neutr ality in responding to conflicting interests groups' needs.

An aggressive educational leadership is called for by Sherman (1939). The library is seen by Dewey, Dana, and Foss as a public institution, an extension of public education.

The political role of the library in education varies: from serving the needs of the government in totalitarian systems, to satisfying the informational needs of individuals in democracy. Objections to the educational function of libraries in democracy are ba sed on its restrictive goal determined by the specific political system (Brown, 1940). The overall function is to educate the citizens in the prevailing cultural and political doctrine.

B. Landheer (1957) describes the medievalist attitude of library relations to education, as illustrated by librarians' efforts to fulfill two contradictory needs of reading, for recreation and for professional purposes.

Putnam considered education as a primary library function "to supplement, complement , and substitute for the schools37 The main means of education was the proper use of books to discipline human mind, by bringing order into chaos. Krieg (1970) pointed to a strong affinity of Putnam's views with those of his favorite philosophers.
(a) Putnam advocated Jeffersonian intellectual aristocracy by promoting higher education for gifted individuals.
(b) He subscribed to Locke's view that education ought to promote good habits, principles, virtue, and wisdom, reinfor ced by Horace Mann's belief in the essential importance of moral education for social survival.
(c) With Kant, he believed that it is a basic duty of each individual to improve himself. Putnam shared with Francis Bacon distaste for 'inferior' books and endorsed Thomas Carlyle's stress on the importance of preservation of culture through books. As Eisner pointed out in the abstract of Krieg's report, Putnam's ideas about library functions were formulated before the philosophy of librarianship was dev eloped, and they reflect less the views of other librarians than those of the philosophers popular at his time.

Dissemination of knowledge is the most direct expression of library educational purposes. It is performed by the librarian as a 'teacher' or as an advisor in the library that is viewed as a cultural center of the community, addressing all intellectual needs of the community.

Burke identifies four major processes involved in the dissemination of scholarship: (a) education in providing cultural materials to patrons, (b) consultation in the availability of needed material, (c) mass communication, by making the cultural material available, and (d) reference work providing the patron with the information asked for.38

Effects of library dissemination of knowledge are moral, social, and political. The existence of censorship is evidence of the significance of dissemination on influencing human behavior. In totalitarian systems, the library is seen as a tool in propagating the system's political ideas; in democracy it is used to educate the voters. Major support of public libraries by philanthropists and reformers is based on their belief in the significance of library contribution to the prevention of socially negative behavior. For example, a provision of material for 'amusement and recreation in nineteenth century was designed to protect members of the working class from intoxication.

(c) Cultural End-objectives
Culture can be transmitted from one period or location to another only by recorded symbols of knowledge and ideas. Librarianship is concerned with the facilitation of that transmission. Butler (1943) lists four methods of transmitting knowledge: through (1) education (curriculum), (2) research based on individuals' experiences and observations, (3) consultation as a social communication, and (4) reference defined in terms of its function as a process by which civilized man can obtain specific information by using library collections.

Distinction is often made between purposive and recreational, cultural usage of a library. The use of the term 'recreational' function is, however, misleading. The library never was in the business of entertainment. It did, however, provide intellectual opportunities for activities that were mentally pleasing, or relaxing. The aesthetic role of the library in general, and the public library in particular, is to provide opportunities for aesthetic experience. Thus, for example, the p urpose of encouraging recreational reading is to cultivate reading for pleasure, taste, and aesthetic enjoyment. The focus is on emotional or sensuous experiences.

Reading for pleasure, a pleasant library physical environment, library architecture, furniture, and library decor are elements the external aspects of library's aesthetic function. The kind of print used in books, their page arrangement, and their binding are examples of internal aesthetic aspects of LIS.

Some ancient libr aries had decorations and statutes placed in and outside the library, partly as esthetic and partly as communicative symbols.39

4.6.1.3 Functions of Information Agents
The basic function of information professionals is to facilitate transfer of the meaning of the recorded message to its recipient (information transfer). This is accomplished by (a) the managerial coordination of library resources and services, (b) interpretation of resources, and (c) mediation between con flicting needs and available resources (intermediacy).

(a) Managerial Coordination
Librarians increase the social utility of graphic records by management of knowledge toward better understanding of the universe. Librarianship is a 'time-binder,' providing an interdisciplinary arrangement of knowledge by ordering, relating, and structuring graphic records. In this sense, it is closely related to general semantics; both are interdisciplinary, concerned with the utilization of information; both are parts of communication chain, its language, symbolism, abstractions, conceptualizations and evaluation; and both are epistemological (Shera, 1961).

(b) Interpretation of Resources
The interpretative role of librarians is based on what Fairthorne calls patrons' ignorance about things they want to know. "This ignorance makes the librarians' task possible . . . to help the reader to find out what people have to say; not to expound to the reader what has been said, as a substitute fo r the author; not to make use of what has been said, as a substitute for the reader; not to tell the reader what he ought to read, as a substitute for God." 40

The essence of interpreting library resources is the establishment of interrelationships between records and their informative content relevant to the user's needs. Fully developed interpretation for nonspecialists would set documents in context in the same way that the documents are consulted by specialists. Thus, librar ians here substitute for the knowledge of the subject specialist.

(c) Mediation between Demands for and Supplies of Resources and Services
The task of a reference librarian is to act as an intermediary between the inquirer and the library information system. This is accomplished through neutral questioning in 'query negotiation'. Dervin and Dewdney's model (Dervin and Dewdney, 1986) is a strategy for asking questions to understand the user's needs for information. The authors distin guished between traditional, or closed, and new, or neutral, questioning methods. In closed questioning, reference librarians look for direct yes/no answers to their specific questions, and then direct the inquirer to the specific author, title, or subject area in the collection. By asking a direct question, the librarian prejudges the need. On the other hand, a neutral questioning approach requires listening, thus inviting patrons to talk more about their needs.

This approach, according to Derv in and Dewdney, is based on three elements: (a) situation, based on requesters' background, which determines the way they perceive the issue, and a context for the information needed ("Why do you need it?"); (b) the information gap, which is expressed by the question asked ("What would you like to know?"); (c) the anticipated use made of the answer provided by the reference librarian ("How do you plan to use the information?"). Information seeking is a 'sense-making' for a particular situation. Thus informa tion is not a commodity that can be stored, accessed, retrieved or transformed. Neither is it "intrinsic in the data . . . Rather, the value for the user is a function of the way the data satisfy that person's needs."41

The same information may be of different value to the same person in different situations. "Information does not have an independent existence, but is rather a construct of the user." 42 In such an approach, Swigger notes, libraries become sto rehouses of answers to questions, not just storehouses of recorded knowledge. It is a shift in focus from collections to their use, with questions asked indicating the need for information.43 Swigger illustrates the change by suggesting research questions: What are information needs? How they can be articulated? What are the available resources for satisfying these needs? What is the initial impetus for the patron to ask the reference question in the first place?44

Effective conversion of information into knowledge requires that "each document be studied within the universe of all other documents on the same subjects, that it be weighed, assigned status . . . and provided with a position . . . within the existing canons of scientific knowledge."45 Descriptors assigned to a given document include ideology governing a document, its perspectives (e.g., a conflict or a consensus), its school of thought and its methodolo gy (e.g., synthetic or analytical). Abstracting services are of value for providing information, rather than for their referential potential. Encyclopedia articles, state-of-art reviews, catalogs, indexing, abstracting, and bibliographies are not by themselves sufficient for providing adequately revealing statements, they do, however, provide specific items of information.

4.6.2 Informational Environment
Shera emphasized the importance of social environment of the library, especia lly the public library, by insisting that the library is a social agency, rather than social institution. "The distinction is fundamental to complete understanding of the relation between the library and its social environment. Whereas the social institution is primary and basic, the social agency is secondary and derived . . . The one determines the pattern of society, and the other is determined by that pattern. The agency is the instrument of the institution, and by means of it the institution exercise s much of the social control. Thus, the distinction . . . involves a flow of power and authority.46

All libraries are directly affected by their cultural, professional, and technological environments. Each significantly influences the effectiveness of library fulfilment of its primary responsibilities. Taylor, in order to bridge the gap between the information environment and the information users, focuses on an 'information use environment', to "organize what we seem to know about the environment within which different types of users seek information available to them."47

He concentrates on three types of information transfer, affected by the information environment: technological (what is stored in the book or computer), content-driven (how the information is stored and organized), and user and use information (the context within which the user makes decisions about information useful to them).

In this section three types of informa tion environment are identified and discussed: cultural, political, and technical.

a. Cultural Environment
Burke defines culture as "the mode of living by which a community exploits the human possibilities of its environment."48 It consists of material, social, and intellectual components. The intellectual content of a culture in librarianship is manifested in scholarship about factual knowledge, ideas, values and opinions; many of them are expressed in the recorded exper iences of that culture. "Scholarship is for a society what memory is for an individual", Burke continues, ". . . a social memory of communal experiences, that is built up and transmitted by successive generations."49 It is made up of technology of the means, the social organization of environment, and the intellectual curiosity about the meaning of experiences. One of the products of scholarship is a generic book, either presenting or representing the ideas and experiences. The former are the scientific texts, describing or symbolically representing the experiences, and the latter are the literary texts of imaginary experiences.

b. Political Environment
Political environment is here reviewed on two levels: external reflecting society's expectations, and internal, formulated within the society's professional organizations.

Political aspects of cultural environment are illustrated by library dependence on governmental support. Prior to 1850, for example, public , tax supported libraries did not exist in the United States. They were preceded by subscription libraries, voluntary associations of individuals for buying books in a jointly owned organization. The arrangement worked well, as long as individual support lasted. It was eventually replaced by tax-supported public libraries.

Here are some of the positions on political aspects of library environment, expressed by librarians representing different political viewpoints. Kolitsch (1945) called for a socio-political philosophy, compatible with national philosophy concerning reader-book relations. Wellard (1934) and MacLeish (1940a) wanted a philosophy of librarianship in support of democracy. Danton (1934) argued for political involvement to assist in developing well-informed citizens who could adjust to a changing environment. Joeckel with Winslow (1948) considers the library as an organ of social democracy instrumental for the patron's self realization. To Laski (1935) the library was a nucleus of social changes which are based on cultural heritage. Ortega wanted the library to be a policeman of ideas, by rejecting those he did not agree with (Rogers, 1984).

On the other side of the political spectrum, Lenin introduced the socialist library system, subordinating library work to the political, economic, and cultural goals of the country. N. K. Krupskaia expressed a Marxian view of librarianship and its importance in classification of library resources. In her 1968 paper she described the library as a policeman of ideas, selecting books in Marxist philosophy and aiming at a scientific view of the world in agreement with its materialistic and atheistic trend. This approach was reflected in cataloging and in subject headings used in Russian libraries.

The professional status of the library in its society is reflected by an image of its role held in the community. Concerns about the 'good' image are motivated by a need for respectability. Some of the efforts in this respect, however, show a lack of confidence in the librarian's own profession, as illustrated by linking librarianship with better established professions such as medicine or teaching.

Librarians' professional requirements include scholarly background in a pursuit of truth, humanism reflected by sensitivity to community needs, and involvement in education by fighting mediocrity. However, library education, lacking philosophical context, tends to produce well-trained technicians rather than professional informati on specialists. Overlapping librarian and paraprofessional responsibilities add to the confusion by considering some activities as paraprofessional, assigning non library-degree holders 'librarians' function. "There is a paradoxical relationship between the standards of librarianship and library service established by library associations, on the one hand, and conditions of work as they exist in most libraries, on the other. Like many other technical and semiprofessionals, librarians possess normative stan dards that define how work is to be done but lack the legal authority and economic power of the established professions to enforce those standards on the job."50

Another example of the professional dilemma in librarianship is the issue of professional neutrality. Essential in any mediating process, it is a highly controversial and misunderstood concept. Argument in favor of neutrality is based on 'no religion, morals or politics' in the performance of professional responsibiliti es (Foskett, 1962). Librarians' function is not to improve patrons' personalities, but to provide them with the opportunities, which may or may not be taken advantage of. Individuals must decide for themselves what they consider good or desirable.

On the other hand, Archibald MacLeish (1940) maintains that the librarian as a consultative agent of democracy, cannot be neutral. Ogilvie (1940) is against impartiality and for shaping public opinion. Broadfield takes a middle road by arguing that im partiality is a quality of a divine being, not of a librarian, and represents an ideal for a researcher. It is an attribute of personal judgment, not of a social institution, thus a library cannot be an 'impartial instrument of purposive society.' It is neither partial nor impartial, but it simply responds to social forces that determine its role.51

This is a paradox created by the expectation of political neutrality within a given cultural system, contradicted by the demands f or political advocacy expressed by competing interest groups within that system.

The issue of neutrality is also a part of professional ethics. Ethical obligations include rules of conduct against prejudice, censorship, and operational errors, and for objective selection and services of library resources. It reflects social consciousness, respect for intellectual, moral, and spiritual values of individuals and their communities. However, librarianship is also a product, not a base of society, and hence is a subject to changing social ethical standards.

c. Technical Environment
As already pointed out, there is a very close relationship between the state of technology and cultural activities of the library. Burke (1953) illustrated this interdependence by enumerating five similar functions associated with the changes in the technology of communication throughout the history:

(1) ancient mnemonic methods such as knotted cords are today replicated by various memory aids;
( 2) the prehistoric picture, like today's photograph, recorded single events; (
3) pictographic (iconographic) writing, similarly to cartoons, provided visual descriptions of series of events;
(4) ideographs (hieroglyphs) recorded fixed meaning for ideas, in the same sense that today's red traffic lights communicate the order to stop, since ideograms "stand for ideas suggested by the things represented rather than for the things themselves;" 52 and
(5) phonetic symbols, similarly to electronic codes in the computer, represent the specific sound of a language. Yet the concept of symbolic communication remained the same although the technology of communicating the ideas vastly improved.

The development of the tools for recording messages depends not only on the changes in available technology, but also on society's willingness to accept them. Changes in the ways of communication are cumulative rather than successive. Once recorded, in whatever format, the messages becom e of prime interest to the librarian.53

4.6.3 Role in Society
The conceptual interpretation of an information agency's role in its society is here briefly reviewed in terms of (a) the psychological aspect of satisfying individual information needs for self-improvement of the patron, (b) the sociological educational need of the society, and (c) the philosophically based task of mediating between these two often-conflicting individual and social needs.

(a) Ps ychological Evaluation
The fundamental purpose of librarianship is to serve individual patrons and, through them, the society. Individuals are distinct and unique members of the library population, each requiring special consideration. This service is accomplished by transmitting society's knowledge to individuals through recorded messages and by understanding the relationships between the individual patron's use of library resources and the nature of these resources.

(b) Sociological Eva luation
The general social function of librarianship is to provide cultural continuity by preserving and expanding the collective social memory. This is done by providing access to cultural, informational, and historical records.

The social functions of the library are defined by the relationships between the producer (author), the distributor (library), and the consumer (patron). The library is always an 'expression of its age' in the kind of services provided and in its mediation betwee n conflicting group interests, always in terms of the perceived interest of the society. To Peirce (1951) it is based on a sociological philosophy of education, which in turn is a goal of the librarians to contribute to the creation of a learning society (Chisholm, 1985). It is identified with 'culturalism,' which is based on the understanding of the nature of scholarship and its role in civilization (Butler, 1944).

(c) Philosophical Evaluation
Philosophical evaluation of the library's rol e in a society should express the meaning of library services as an assistance to people in their interactions in informational marketplace (Nader, 1974). Shaped by society, library services reflect group interest, conflict, and relativism (Kolitsch, 1945). Dana argues that the library provides a reconciliation for group conflicts, based on tolerance and dedication to intellectual service, and that it expresses social responsibility by objective social advocacy (Berminghausen, 1972). It offers spiritual and religious interpretation of information, promotes an international viewpoint, contributes to scientific objectivity, and resists prejudices (Burke, 1947).

In this essay, philosophical interpretation of the discipline is expressed by an ideal model, combining the pragmatic issues of managing and servicing information needs with theoretical explanation of the subject matter of the discipline, "Librarianship is rooted in epistemology -- knowledge about knowledge."54 It is an i nterdisciplinary field focusing on the management of knowledge contained in the records of library collections. And because of that, Shera maintains, librarianship must be concerned about philosophy of knowledge.

4.7 Summary.
The common mission of all libraries is to serve as an intermediary between individual needs for information and the records containing information. This mission did not change throughout history, in spite of changing technology and social conditions. MacLeish (1972) calls it the transfer of meaning. He defines a book as a report upon a mystery of existence; it interprets the signs and provides knowledge about ourselves and the world. Therefore, librarianship is more than storage, organization, and dissemination of records. It provides a total relationship, a wholeness of different individual records, covering different fields and different times in different cultures.

The library as an intellectual node in the interdependence of individuals in the society p rovides different library services to different populations and individuals with different backgrounds. All libraries share in common a responsibility for preserving past and present records of the society, and for protecting their intellectual, social, and philosophical expressions of freedoms. The major difficulties in formulating a theory of librarianship that would incorporate both the precision of the scientific method and the well-defined bibliographical and informational scope of the s ubject matter are twofold: (a) a thoroughly practical approach in library operations defies generalizations by creating too many exceptions to the established rules; and (b) the widespread application of these operations resists theoretical definition of their knowledge base.

Hence the theory of library science must be: (a) necessarily flexible, so that it can respond to the variation in the nature of demands on library services; (b) sufficiently broad, so that it can accommodate the findings of specific disciplines; (c) logically consistent to assure a degree of uniformity in the formulation of general principles of library science; and (d) satisfactorily defined, so that it distinguishes library science as an autonomous discipline.

Citation:
Nitecki, Joseph Z. 1993. Metalibrarianship : A Model For Intellectual Foundations of Library Information Science. http://twu.edu/library/Nitecki/Metalibrarianship .Volume 1 of The Nitecki Trilogy .Also available as ERIC ED363 346.