SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: IA/HCI Education (summary)
Re: SIGIA-L: IA/HCI Education (summary)
From: Laura Norvig (lauran_at_etr.org)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 12:26:37 EST
Your remarks are astute but IMHO you overgeneralize. It really just
depends where you go to school, what classes you take, what you focus
on.
There are LIS-ers who study Information Retrieval who focus almost
exclusively on design (granted, this occurs more when folks get to
the PhD level).
While getting my MLIS, I was able to find enough classes on HTML,
javascript, XML, web design, user interface design, and information
retrieval systems design to satisfy my budding interest in
Information Architecture.
LIS programs are becoming more interdisciplinary every year.
-Laura
At 9:06 PM -0600 2/5/02, karl fast wrote:
> > most of the people on this list....are mongrels of one kind of
>> another. They have degrees in English or Anthro or Journalism or
>> Poli Sci, not HCI or cognitive psych.
>
>In my case it's Engineering Physics. I finish my MLIS in April and
>worked for Argus (albeit briefly; at the end). This background has
>made me an odd duck in the MLIS program.
>
>From this perspective, I have two things I'd like to note:
>
>1. For most people in my class their knowledge stops when they get
> to the computer. The MLIS doesn't help them overcome this.
>
> Most of my classmates have weak mental models of what is
> happening inside the machine. They can use the machine just fine
> and learn new skills, but they don't have any real understanding
> of what happens inside that box. In many courses, though not all,
> this is a serious hindrance.
>
> Their mental model doesn't need to be perfect (mine sure isn't),
> but it should be much better.
>
> Based on my experience, an LIS school is a poor place to develop
> a good mental model of the machine.
>
>
>2. LIS schools do not talk about DESIGN. But they could. And if they
> did, it would dramatically change the value of the degree (IMHO).
>
> The big concepts that underly all courses in LIS are
> (a) management (b) organization (c) service (d) evaluation, and
> (e) control. Design is either not there, severaly muted, or
> limited to handful of classes.
>
> Example. In cataloguing you learn to cataloguing resources
> according to AACR2. The problem is how to catalogue things, but
> the solution is provided in a thick book called AACR2. You are
> simply learning to work within a existing framework. You are not
> designing anything--AACR2 has been designed for you (although if
> you know much about AACR2 you might argue that saying AACR2 was
> designed is being generous).
>
> The point is that cataloguing *could* be about design. You learn
> AACR2 cataloguing. Fine. Then you take the basic theory and
> principles and apply it to the design of new cataloguing schemes
> (of course today it's fashionable to call them metadata schemes).
>
> I've taken a few classes in which design and the design process
> are important. Friends have remarked how different these classes
> are. Yet they are where I feel most at home and most satisfied
> with the course material. It's clear to me that this concept of
> design is the sticker. It's foreign to most people in LIS, not
> because they can't do it, but because the concept of design is
> largely ignored.
>
> In my mind, LIS would benefit a great deal by rethinking many of
> their courses in terms of design. Instead of ignoring the
> concepts, make it clear that design and the design process are
> important. If you overlay the concept of design on top of the
> existing concepts (manage, evaluate, organize, service, and
> control) I think great things would happen in LIS.
>
>
>
>Does this make any sense? Does this resonate with anyone?
>
>--karl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:55:01 EST
|
