Subject/Object

Steven Chabot

Feed reading and information overload

3 Comments »

Picture 1-1After spending a few weeks focused on class assignments, my Google Reader feeds have overwhelmed me. Particularly, my library related blogs feed category has some unknown number of unread posts in it. And I am not particularly interested in catching up.

The dilemma: every once and and a while, hell often every day, there will be some really good posts that come through in this category. Thought provoking, interesting, cool or infuriating posts.

However, to find those posts I have to slog through hundreds of daily one line or one image posts which are along the lines of “Twitter LOLZ!!!” or some other such things which I won’t repeat. People have a right to publish whatever they want on their space, this is not a call for an improvement of the blog medium.

My issue is this. These good posts do not come uniformly from any one source. Lots of different people write different interesting things at different times. I have only 71 total feeds, with most of them library feeds. That is a small amount compared to the number which I know someone like Walt Crawford monitors. However, I have this low number because I have removed almost half of the number of library feeds I read. It used to be a lot worse. But, I feel like I need to do this again.

I look at my bookshelves and I see Paradise Lost and Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human and Anarchy, State and Utopia unread. I think of Montaigne and Emerson and E. B. White and how I want to learn to write essays like them. And I feel anxious at the thought of having to wade through not even the coal but the piles sand, gravel, and disposable plastic use-once-and-never-consider-again pieces of waste, to find the diamonds online.
I wish LISNews and the Carnival of the Infosciences did a better job of providing me a digest format of all that went on in the biblioblogsohere. The former does have “This week in LIbraryBlogLand” but for some reason the formating doesn’t come through on me reader and I usually skip it. If anyone else could recommend a good weekly review I will take the suggestion.

In the mean time, I am cutting my feeds down to the bare minimum. I am not a reactionary, and while I think Library 2.0 is just laughable (particularly now that everyone is talking about Twitter), I do think that the Internet is just an amazing hotbed of creativity. I am just having such difficulty sifting the good stuff out from the filler.

Research Methods

3 Comments »

Went into the professor’s office today to discuss my research proposal for Research Methods. I am doing really well in the class, and you need an A- to do the thesis option.

I have been considering it–when I came here I had a specific issue that I wanted to look at, but as I have been going through the classes I feel that whatever I was studying at the time caught my interest too strongly. However, as I got to the time to write the paper, it really didn’t motivate me.

In preparation for this research proposal I have been throwing myself in Information Science theory: Information Seeking, Information Retrieval, Knowledge Organization etc etc. Going through volumes and volumes of the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology.

When I started this degree, I had it in my mind to study how Intellectual Property came about, how information was commodified, and how it was sold to the rest of us. Clearly, to me, oral culture is a free culture, where things ripped, mixed and “burned” with every performance (see the wonderful Singer of Tales by Albert Lord.)

Manuscript culture was equally unbashful about its “theft.” I don’t have the quote in front of me, but Seneca encouraged his readers to be like bees: to gather all of the best of from the finest flowers, and mix those words together into a sweet honey so no single source could be discerned from the rest. Students in medieval monasteries would be responsible for copying texts as their magisters read them out in class. To graduate one had to present all the books one had copied.

And we all know where the Internet is going. There is one simple fact on the Internet: to read, view, watch or listen to is to make a copy. That copy is perfect and in exact fidelity to the original. The on the Internet there are no auras.

So, my argument is that, along with all the other goodness that print brought, it also brought along a notion of intellectual “property.” I am not original in this, McLuhan said it long ago. Many of you will have read that my department is making the transition from an Information Science school to a school of Information Studies. And it is clear that this topic I have in mind falls in the realm of the latter.

Yet, being steeped in Information Science theory, I presented a proposal in the best of positivist traditions, studying the independent variable of information behaviors of various scholarly disciplines and its effects on the dependent variable of OA knowledge and uptake.

And I was basically told it was crap. Or that I could do better, judged from the work I had already done in the course. It was suggested that I look at Discourse Analysis and apply some of my humanities background on designing something to research.

Of course I missed the class discussing Discourse Analysis, so it didn’t really occur to me. And I was confused, because I felt that the Social Science methods we were learning in the class were closer to the science then the social–derived from psychology and other such experimental milieus. I am basically interested in media theory and its relation to political economies of information.

So, discourse analysis is a good choice, except I know nothing about it. It is somewhat antithetical to the way things are done in Philosophy–while it may treat the same ideas, the method is not exactly the same. Philosophy is more about logical consistency, discourse analysis more about what is said and what is unsaid in a text, and power structures. So I am teaching myself. I have just over a week to do it.

How does one present a research proposal saying that one is going to study a text? Why do they not just do it? How do I write about ethical considerations. Or validity and reliability? Watching some other master’s theses published on the Internet in LIS, they don’t even tough on these theoretical considerations.

Any help?