Librarianship
seems like a perpetual tug-of-war between theory and practice, in which many bright
ideas are frequently proposed about what could be done to advance one issue or
another, but do not always have such an impact in real life. Both Hope Olson and Emily Drabinski propose
strategies to subvert traditional library classifications and cataloging,
especially related to the Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress
Subject Headings. The strategies are
proposed to reject the systems of classification and cataloging practices that
put forth universality as an ideal,[i] and instead hope to
subvert the systems through Queer Theory’s methods of disruption and resistance.[ii] While these strategies can prove useful in
disrupting particular parts of these systems, especially as it pertains to
cataloging and databases, I fear they may prove less useful, even harmful, to
the library patron’s user experience.
In
“Patriarchal Structures of Subject Access and Subversive Techniques for Change”,
Olson rejects the universality of naming in processes of classification and
cataloging,[iii] instead seeking to
subvert these practices through encouraging alternative techniques that will “breach
limits” and “make space”.[iv] A “limit” refers to an identified instance
where universal naming has been used, and created norms around a term (in the
contexts of classification and subject headings), simultaneously othering any
other interpretation of the word. Olson
suggests “breaching the limits”, or subverting these practices through use of
technology[v] to “make space” for other
voices to be heard. Some of the
suggested techniques include allowing user-created social tagging in the
catalog, or incorporating specialized vocabularies in the systems that are better
suited to a subject.[vi] Both of these suggestions allow for more
specific language to be used to capture more representative and nuanced
understandings of a given term, providing a potential solution to the problems
that arise from the system of universal naming.
It is important to note here that while Olson does encourage alternative
techniques to act in opposition to the standard practice of universal naming,
she does not seek to replace it.[vii] Instead of attempting to replace a flawed
system, Olson hopes to empower the voices that have been excluded,[viii] creating space in the
system in a way that had not existed before.
Drabinski
takes the idea of leaving the flawed system intact a step further, saying that
it is not merely a flawed standard to be subverted, but to be engaged with and
learned from as a pedagogical tool.[ix] The flawed system itself is as important, as
necessary as the resistant discourse that ensues, in that the resistant
discourse is born out of opposition to it.[x] Keeping the flawed system leaves the problems
more overt, unchanged, and allows future library patrons to identify and engage
more easily and historically with the discourse.[xi]
The
idea of leaving a flawed system intact may come with problematic implications,
potentially even harmful ones, to the library patron. While there will be many folks able and
willing to engage with the problematic classification and cataloging
structures, there will also be plenty of people who will not be equipped with
the knowledge and tools to deal with them productively. Olson and Drabinski presuppose some level of tech
literacy that not everybody has, and a level information literacy that is often
not obtained until at least the university level.[xii] This discounts a great
portion of the population, such as children and teenagers who have not reached
these levels of cognition or schooling, or even adults who have never been
taught these tools. These populations
could encounter this flawed system as an obstacle that they are unable to navigate,
and at worst might even be hurt by what they find. This kind of system will not, in these
circumstances, pose as either a subversive, resistant, or productive tool, but
rather as a hindrance and pain to many library patrons that do not fit Olson
and Drabinski’s idea of a patron.
There
does seem to be a simple solution to this problem though: ask a librarian for
help! Indeed, an important intervention
posed by Drabinski includes the discursive engagement of librarians. It becomes apparent that Drabinski is angled
more strictly at academic libraries, given the level of critical engagement
expected, the references to instruction sessions, and the later reference to
the ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) framework,[xiii] though it does not seem
to be very explicit throughout the article.
However, even within the context of an academic library, there are
multiple difficulties that may yet arise.
Beyond the fact that many students or patrons may not be willing to ask
for help, you still encounter problems related to information literacy
itself.
Information
literacy sessions by many academic librarians are given in one-shot rounds,[xiv] in which the librarian
has a very limited amount of time to explain the basic toolkit of information
literacy to a class. Most often, this is
not enough time to explain the more theoretical or conceptual aspects of
information literacy, let alone a specific critical theory on systemic and
structural flaws. While pedagogy in
librarianship is always seeking ways to be able to incorporate critical
frameworks into information literacy, the reality is that there is usually
little chance to do so.[xv] In this regard, there will still likely be
barriers to many students/patrons seeking to utilize the systems put forth by
Olson and Drabinski, causing user experience issues of various kinds in the
process.
While
I worry that some of Olson and Drabinski’s ideas come from lofty heights, some
suggestions were useful. The concept of
social tagging has indeed taken off in many systems, allowing for patrons to
engage more personally with cataloging systems.
Allowing the patrons or students to engage on their own terms, at their
own pace, and not merely according to a theoretical framework, might point to
more useful systems and ideas. Sometimes
in looking towards end-goals, we forget that our services should be first and
foremost patron/student-centered. Critical
theory, grounded by patrons’ and students’ experiences and needs, can form the
building blocks to both novel and useful ideas and systems that can serve a
greater population even better.
[i]
Olson, Hope. “Patriarchal Structures of Subject Access and Subversive
Techniques for Change”.
The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 26:2/3 (2001): 8
[ii]
Watson, Katherine. “Queer Theory”. Group Analysis 38:1 (2005): 74.
[iii]
Olson 7
[iv]
Olson 21
[v]
Olson 22-23
[vi]
Olson 25
[vii]
Olson 21
[viii]
Olson 25
[ix]
Drabinski, Emily. “Queering the Catalog: Queer Theory and the Politics of
Correction”. Library
Quarterly 83 (12) (2013): 101.
[x]
Drabinski 102
[xi]
Drabinski 104-105
[xii]
Gross, Melissa and Don Latham. “What’s Skill Got to Do With It?: Information
Literacy Skills and Self-Views of Ability Among First-year College Students”. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(3) (2012):
574
[xiii]
Drabinski 107
[xiv]
Wengler, Susan and Christine Wolff-Eisenberg. “Community College Librarians and
the ACRL Framework: Findings From a National Study”. College & Research
Libraries, Vol 81, No 1 (2020): 7.
[xv]
Wengler and Wolff-Eisenberg 13
No comments:
Post a Comment