This is a copy of a message posted to the Listserv called JESSE, (in honour of Jesse Shera). It is part of a discussion about the nature of information. I think it can be read on its own.

 

Subject: An attempt to address the objections raised so far

 

I appreciate very much the comments made regarding the "proposal" posted last week to Jesse. Here, then, is a more comprehensive outline, which I hope addresses some of the concerns raised so far.

 

In a recent posting to the Jesse mailing list, Kris Unsworth reminded colleagues of “the Social Informatics work being done at Indiana and social informatics in general as well as much knowledge organization work.” Jesse Shera's characterization of librarianship as "social epistemology",  appears to align fairly well with the modern conception of social informatics. Here, then, is a proposal for the resolution of differences between librarianship and information science, in the form of a set of premises about information, knowledge, and the practical role of librarianship.

 

1) Information itself must have a bona fide ontological status, and its 'behaviour' must be as real as the “behaviour” of  genes, molecules, electronic signals, or quarks. Otherwise, claims to study it scientifically would be meaningless.

 

2) There are many sorts of information, but the special domain of LIS is recorded knowledge, through which individual and collective [human] learning can transcend space and time, leading to the generation of yet more knowledge.

 

3) The various forms in which that knowledge is recorded, whether in books or memory chips, are relatively unimportant to LIS' overall endeavor, which is the understanding of the process of knowledge transfer, through theory formation, and its facilitation and fostering through professional practice.

 

In the latter, an ethical or “service” dimension arises, and from a belief in those ethics, emerges the duty of the profession to promote not just the effective use of recorded knowledge, but its own perpetuation as a discipline through advocacy.

 

Not just scientific knowledge, but also children's literature, genre fiction, novels and plays, musical compositions, audio-visual presentations, any sorts of recorded human utterances, in whatever medium they might be stored (books, memory chips, etc.), fit very nicely into this umbrella definition.

 

This definition makes some assumptions about the roles of individuals within societies.  It assumes that these recorded utterances emerge at specific times in specific cultures, and the body of knowledge (including poetic, religious, fictive, etc. not just scientific knowledge), passed on from one place to another contemporaneously, and to subsequent generations over time, makes possible the development of new knowledge.

 

Without insulting other species, humans have this unique ability to pass on the things we learn - both to other people alive at the same time, and to succeeding generations. While there is evidence that members of other species convey acquired knowledge to one another immediately, through gesture, example, vocalizations, and so forth, we do more than that by using recorded knowledge in the broadest sense. Librarians seek to understand how that process works, and how to help people get the best use out of it.

 

As individuals, humans “stand on the shoulders of giants”... benefiting from the experience of all those humans who have gone before about whom we know because of the artifacts they have left us. This makes recorded knowledge different from genetically encoded information, which also forms such foundations, or the sorts of information dealt with by physicists.

 

This definition also assumes a very broad interpretation of the term “culture”, similar to this formulation:

 

"Culture may be defined as the organization of shared experience which includes values and standards of perceiving, judging and acting within a specific social milieu at a definite historical state. In other words, culture is the complex of material and spiritual goods and values created by human activity in the process of social development." (Jefkins and Ugboajah, 1986: 151).]

 

By reference to the last line of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit,  "From the cauldron of this world of spirits foams forth to Him His own infinitude", we might say, mutatis mutandis, that from this growing body of recorded knowledge springs forth new creativity.

 

[Hegel would have considered collective knowledge and wisdom part of the Weltgeist, the world spirit. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin talked about the "noosphere", a sort of shell of knowledge surrounding the planet. We can argue about the existence of the Geist, as something real instead of merely a useful concept, but there is observational evidence of the noosphere - there is an expanding envelope of electronic signals emanating from our planet, with a radius of about 90 light-years by now - and those signals exhibit complex modulations not typically found in natural radio sources.]

 

When I spoke of the "sorts of information dealt with  by physicists", I was not talking about the scientific literature we  find in databases. I was talking about the tendency of physicists like Stephen Hawking, to talk about information as an object of inquiry,  when they once talked about matter and energy.

 

 

[Hawking lost a bet on this, the wager being paid in the form of an encyclopedia of  baseball, a few years back. He now says that when objects fall into  black holes, their "information" is not lost. Thinking of quantum  level phenomena in terms of information rather than of matter or  energy may be the next wave, because it can, I think, get around some  thorny problems... like how particles seem to communicate with one  another when they shouldn't be able to do so.]

 

One possible metaphor for LIS would be a teeter-totter, with Jesse Shera (as a representative of the theorists) on one arm, and S.R. Ranganathan (as a representative of practitioners) on the other arm.

 

In summary,

 

Information must "exist" in some real sense, or people's claims to study it scientifically are meaningless.

 

That which exist "behaves" in relation to other things which exist, and science often studies things by examining their behaviour.

 

Information pure and simple, is co-eval with the universe. It is inherent in the big bang or the primordial singularity, although it appears to take on new orders of complexity over space and time.

 

Information is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, especially the law of entropy. Shannon and Weaver’s work with telegraph signals confirms this.

 

Following Shannon and Weaver, this argument assumes that the term “information” can also be taken to mean “the range of freedom in selecting meanings”.

 

Biological information evolves with the “primordial soup”, when molecules make the transition from inorganic to organic.

 

Recorded knowledge manifests itself in the form of books, films, CDs, machine-states, and so forth, and can be observed and in the form of an expanding shell of electronic signals emanating from the planet, now extending at least 80 or 90 light-years. This shell of knowledge surrounding the planet was called the “noosphere” by Pierre Teillard de Chardin. Arguably, those signals exhibit higher orders of organization and complexity than simpler forms of information. At minimum, they exhibit properties which are most unlikely to occur in “natural” radio sources.

 

While there are many sorts of information, and while knowledge can exist in individual minds, library and information science is primarily concerned with recorded knowledge. Librarians seek to understand how the process of the transmission and preservation of recorded knowledge works best, and how to help people get the best use out of it.

 

Those books are tangible, those signals are measurable, ergo, their information can be said to have existence (and essence). If in doubt, follow Hume, and drop a book on your toe, or erase your hard drive.

 

[It is a grave misconception that digitally recorded knowledge exists only “virtually”. If anyone truly believes that digital information has no physical substance, let them issue the UNIX command, “rm * - R” from the root directory of their machines. "Caution! This will erase your hard drive!"]

 

The facilitation of the process of society's [ethical and beneficial] use of information, and the fostering of said use, [through a range of educative and advocacy functions], is the special province of librarianship.

 

Numerous ancillary methods, like discourse analysis, ethnographic techniques, statistical methods, historical and sociological approaches, and many more, can be brought into service in this attempt to understand and to manage recorded knowledge.

 

The study of that specific subset of information, recorded knowledge, in its generation, dissemination, categorization, organization, and societal use, is the special province of LIS. Librarians seek to understand how that process works, and how to help people get the best use out of it. By whatever term we choose to describe it, LIS can be seen as a set of theories, techniques, standards, and practices directed to the understanding of the process of knowledge transfer, through theory formation, and its facilitation and fostering through professional practice.

 

Arbitrary divisions between Library science and Information science are possibly injurious to the overall endeavor, as they tend to  divert much scholarly attention from the problems at hand. One possible metaphor for librarianship could be a teeter-totter, with Jesse Shera on one arm, and S.R. Ranganathan on the other.

 

---

Christopher Brown-Syed PhD

Skype: cbrownsyed

 

"There can be no virtue in obeying the law of gravity." - J.E.McTaggart.