[13468] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Re: Reference Librarians vs. Search Engines
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lloyd Davidson)
Mon Aug 7 20:24:12 2000
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 21:16:39 -0500
From: Lloyd Davidson <ldavids@NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <20000803.212931.-262107.0.c-sundell@juno.com>
To: PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU>
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000804194056.00a63ab0@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 21:29 8/3/00 -0400, Carl H Sundell wrote:
>Dear Lloyd,
>
>What are you talking about? Windows 95 insults us
>every day with its bug-filled, dim witted, half baked
>program!
>
>Carl H. Sundell
And still users prefer machines over people. What does that tell
you? Actually, I use Windows 98. Not much of an improvement over 95, but
each generation does get slightly better (almost in spite of Microsoft).
Even my latest video recorder is less difficult to use than my last one,
although I still miss some programs. Unfortunately, no such improvement is
seen with generations of people, as many commentators have pointed
out. How else can one explain the Bush phenomenon, or Bill
Clinton? Societal changes (I hesitate to call them advances) lag far
behind our technical advances, which raises some concern about our ability
to adequately control these powerful new tools for our mutual benefit. Our
technology is being imposed on a psychology and basic behavioral patterns
that evolved or developed 500,000 years or more ago under conditions at
least slightly removed from those we now find ourselves in, although some
of these differences are more superficial than real.
Any fair study of reference assistance would show a definite decline in
substantive aid as more and more users come to depend on computers for the
vast majority of their information needs, whether for research or other
purposes. It is certainly true in my academic research library. Typically
the library is populated by at least 20 active researchers, mostly sitting
in front of computer screens. It is my experience, and that of many
others, that reference librarians today primarily deal with holdings
questions, questions about why the printer is jammed, or other such
trivial, though essential, matters. I received exactly one question of
substance this week, and that from a librarian from another institution.
(And even that was pretty trivial: What is the thermal expansion
coefficient of glass?). There are plenty of things to do in my job, but
helping with detailed reference questions has become less and less a
primary activity. Now that so many of the answers are online, people
believe - sometimes correctly, sometimes not - that they can retrieve them
themselves without assistance. Indeed, most of my answers to those rare
questions of research merit that I do receive are obtained by searching
online databases and as these get easier to use and more "intuitive" (i.e.
use conventions that people are generally familiar with from other
contexts), the need for users to ask us complex questions becomes
increasingly diminished.
This whole issue is certainly worthy of a research project, but the
conclusions that would be derived from such a study are not likely ones
that would increase our optimism much about the probable future prospects
for our profession. Disintermediation, for example, from new players like
Ebrary and other such services, will probably further undermine our
relevance over the next several years, as ebooks replace paper and preprint
servers perhaps replace commercial journal publishers.
Well, it's an interesting time, and mostly fun, at least for those that are
adaptable.
L..
