what is LIS?

[Ole Valdemar Gosvig Olesen]

Coming from a very big institution of Library and Information Science, the one in Copenhagen, my possibilities in this field are very broad. We treat LIS-related subjects in humanities, social sciences and science.

I have the impression that this is not true for many of my fellow european stundents. So, given this fantastic forum, I would like to ask the few that has already signed in: What is Libarary and Information Science, as you see it?
What is most important? Why? Does it correspond with the orientation of your institute/department?

Maybe, later on, this could be an international paper participation for a future Bobcatsss conference.

And,
I would very much like to get to know all of you!

[Dace Ūdre]

As I see it, LIS is the way how to make information and people closer together, how to reduce the gap. Every single detail is important - information science, library science, communication... All things are connected! So, all kind of studies are needed to see the whole picture.

I am interested in studies of human behaviour, search strategies and other related researches.

[Jon Kjaer Amundsen]

"How to make information and people come closer together" - I like that formulation.
It shows that information is not just a thing you can take and pour into your brain, but is a thing that must be taken seriously, as it can also be overwhelming, misinforming or just plain incomprehensible. Here I'm thinking along the line of of Gregory Batesons notion of information as a difference that makes a difference - a notion that is being used more and more in the field of LIS (A little late I would say, since it was coined in 1979 but what; better late than never).
I think this is vital to bear in mind; that information is dependent on the eyes that see, that what is information for one, is not for the other.

This brings me on to a parallel field of study - that of knowledge.
It seems to me that in some circles of LIS, the area of knowledge studies is rather ill covered. This paradigm would like to see information as the one (and only) center of LIS, and sees information as a thing that can be described and defined in universal terms. Thus, for them, the task of LIS is to develop better and better ways to let the information float freely in from machine to man, man to man and man to machine.

I for one strongly oppose this image of the world and seems to be a rather simplistic way of thinking.
To cut it short my question is:

How do you see the area of knowledge theory and knowledge studies?
- Is it a field totally unrelated to LIS or is it crucial to to take into account, the knowledge creation and knowledge diversity of man?

[Matti Stöhr]

Hi there,

there are many questions and they are not easily answered I think, because the fields of LIS are getting broader in the age of the internet and digitalisation. In this case a common definition of Library and Information Science seem to be very difficult and it would e great to get in a lively discussion to find a modern one. For now I just want to pick out the ability that is in my eyes most important: It's information literacy. Learning and teaching how information can be searched, valued and organised is very essential. I think it's a core competence that should be included in every curriculum in our studies.

Greetings

Matti

[Ole Valdemar Gosvig Olesen]

Well matti, I agree with you to a certain extent. But tell me, are there any ways not to search information? And do we, LIS-professionals, deliver what you would consider to be the best ways of searching? What would be our future, if all acheived our level of information literacy? I think, speaking of digitalisation, that we have to consider that perspective, as being realistic.

I think that valuing and organising information has much more future than just being capable of finding it again.
I am persuaded that people would circulate much more in libraries, if we accepted that information, at least very soon, can be found by anyone.
The loans at virtual libraries in Denmark are tremendous. Im sure its the same for your country, am I right?

And I think that we have to consider if we could maybe make nonpermanent organisations. wikipedia is an evergrowing, everchanging thing. why cant we make physical libraries that way? it would be great! A new picture of the world, every time you enter!

[Matti Stöhr]

Ole, I want to ask back: Are their absolut best ways to searching? I'm sure that depends on the different user needs and it's outcome. I've no fear that we as librarians and information professionals have a future, even in the field of (re-)searching. And I don't want to exclude valuing and organising information. They fit together. Just have a look on the popularity and success of reference work in the USA. Concerning this I see much potentials here in Germany or even Europe. (Would be interesting to read and discuss more about it, do you know some good european papers? I mostly found anglo-american stuff)

Librarians and libraries will never be useless when they do high-quality work and can react flexible and competent on new inventions in publishing etc. I know it's a bit idealistic and somehow it's blue-eyed when we recognize library closure. But on the other hand they're so many good web-projects libraries are involved. A bit controversial example: Google Book Search, just one of the countless digitalisation projects.

And: What do you have against teaching information literacy? Libraries would be stupid, If they wouldn't be engaged there and hand on their know how. We're studying library and information science many years. Is it really possible then to achieve our level in the profession just through some training courses in information literacy? Does a doctor have an analog fear about the existence of his profession concerning the first aid, all people should handle?

I'm sure the work of librarians and libraries isn't mostly bad and out of fashion. They're through the involvement in more and more accepted open access movement on the right way. It's a matter of prestige, marketing and lobbying in my point of view.

[Ole Valdemar Gosvig Olesen]

Matti, I find your opinions very interesting.

You ask me, if there exist any absolut best ways of searching. I believe there isn't. It is a mathematical proof that we cannot find everything of relevance to our query. thus, we cannot, with logical precision, claim to have the best way of searching.

You compare the skills of information literacy with the doctors fear of people knowing first aid. Maybe my institutions curriculum differs from yours, but tell me, honestly, do you believe that searching information is more than just first aid? I have not been introduced to any system, tecnique or strategy, regarding information seeking, that takes more than one day, maximum, to master. You could claim, that knowing them all, is a masters competence. But then again, we must see the relevance. If I work for company/library X, then why should I know how you master company Y s database? For sure, I would with my background know its functionality, but if operating your query must start with "s1?" or "fmt!" is of no real importance. I , like anybody else, can learn that in an afternoon.

so tell me, does a theory of truely advanced practical information seeking exist?

this isn't an attempt to provoque :-)

I for one do not fear our future. Mankind will always need systems to store their thoughts. And that system will always, thats the beauty of it, reflect the culture that created it. The question is, what will be the role of our profession. I think it will be much more oriented towards creating these systems, and keeping them fit for purpose (and therefore understanding information seeking habits of users), than simply retreiving in them.