Dec 28

Follow-up: Transliteracy, Theory, and Scholarly Language

I was bit surprised at the response to my post about Libraries and Transliteracy.

As long as I’m spouting off opinions on topics that have little substance other than opinion, I may as well go whole-hog and respond to some of the reponses.

Marcus Banks writes:

“…David goes too far in his highly conservative defense of the English language…this idea that we need to keep a tight lid on the language, or even that this is possible, is foolhardy.”

I’m not attempting to defend the English language.  A beast as powerful as the English language doesn’t need me to defend it. Besides, I happily torture the language when it suits me. I use silly semi-words like ‘geekery’ and ‘libraryfolk.’Though you’ll note not a single person has ever asked what either of those words mean.

This comment from Marcus, though, underlines a problem I saw in the post shortly after I published it.

It isn’t the word, it’s the way the word is used

I didn’t intend to say that the word “transliteracy” has no place in the worldIt might, it might not. As it is pure theory with no apparent practical implications, I can’t bring myself to care enough to read more than the four articles on the the topic I’ve read., just that I have yet to see libraryfolk using it in a way that adds something previously missing from discussions in librarianship and LISI’m willing to buy that the former is a profession and the latter is an academic field. Thus far, it seems to me that the (admittedly cool-sounding) term is thrown around by libraryfolk who (1)admit that they can’t define it, (2)define it so vaguely and variously that it fails to have any coherent meaning, or (3)define it in a way that makes it redundant to a wide assortment of existing terms.

What I find baffling is that librarians would use words they cannot define. I had thought (perhaps mistakenly) that librarians tended to be lovably pedantic and semantic nitpickers.

I’d like to see some clear indication that libraryfolk are talking about this word for any reason other than novelty or self-promotion. I have nothing against self-promotion per se, but some of the libraryfolk advocates of this term are telling us there’s a revolution going on. I don’t see a revolution, just an evolution. If they’re going to cry ‘wolf’, I want to see some fur and teeth. Or at least, for pity’s sake, some wolf footprints. So far, though? Nothing.

Marcus goes on to explain what he sees as the problem with ‘information literacy.’

“I’d argue that our conceptual notion of information literacy remains stuck in time. Sometimes we come dangerously close to suggesting that people blow the 1/2 inch of dust off the top of the Britannica and then read it, because this, dear students, is an ‘authoritative resource.’

Yes, I jest. And yes, I exaggerate. But not by as much as I’d like. We still lionize peer reviewed articles despite their manifold flaws, and keep an arms length view of Wikipedia and communally developed resources in general. Of course I support sharp and incisive critique of Wikipedia entries. But I don’t support the idea that Wikipedia is something other, alien or foreign.”

I agree that some libraryfolk are not adapting as fast as we might hope. That demonstrates a problem with some libraryfolk, not that ‘information literacy’ has ceased to be a useful term. As information changes (it always has, always does, and always will), information professionals need to adapt to keep their skills up-to-date and maintain their information literacy (and their value…and their jobs). Again, where’s the need for a new word?

Marcus continues:

“In that light, it seems to me that transliteracy, as a concept, is an attempt to label what we are already doing–linking up traditional notions of authority with the realities of how people obtain information today. This is valuable, and much less overblown than the Library 2.0 hooha back in the day.”

Right! “…an attempt to label what we are already doing.” As we already have labels for this, why slap on a new one?

Diane Cordell writes:

“Medical librarian David Rothman questions whether this concept is any more than a new buzzword for the same type of information literacy with which librarians have always been concerned.”

No. What I said was that the definition of information literacy is easily flexible enough to continue to serve nicely as technology changes. I did not say that changes in technology don’t matter. I’m pretty well on record stating my belief that little should matter more to libraryfolk than the changes technology is making in our world.I’m sort of put off by Diane’s clumsy straw man, though- so I thought I’d to mention here the excellent example she povides of irrational enthusiasm for technology. She has a QR code for the link to her Flickr stream on the sidebar of her blog. Let’s assume that someone visiting her blog WANTS to see her Flickr stream. Which is more likely to be convenient for the visitor? To whip out his/her smartphone, turn on the scan/photo function and take a snap…or to CLICK A LINK? What purpose does the QR code serve here? None. Its presence suggests that Diane is the sort who embraces a new technology even if it offers the user nothing useful. I am, however, amused by Diane’s repeated implications that I am somehow change-resistant or that I threaten the future of libraries because of my rejection of this buzzword. Remind anyone else of the “Library 2.0″ hysteria?

So you just don’t like buzzwords?

I have to admit that I feel similarly (though less strongly) about EBLIP and ‘Blended Librarianship’.

Here’s a definition for EBLIP that I think summarizes well how most people think of it:

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) seeks to improve library andinformation services and practice by bringing together the best available evidence and insights derived from working experience, moderated by user needs and preferences. EBLIP involves asking answerable questions, finding, critically appraising and then utilising research evidence from relevant disciplines in daily practice. It thus attempts to integrate user-reported, practitioner-observed and research-derived evidence as an explicit basis for decision-making.

That’s great. Libraries SHOULD apply the best available evidence in making decisions about the practice of their profession- but don’t good libraries already do this? Is the purpose of the term just to underline the importance of these activities? Collecting usage data, tracking reference encounters, doing needs analyses, keeping up with the literature of librarianship…these things were all a part of good practice long before “EBLIP” was talked about, weren’t they?See also: Marcus Banks’ remarks on evidence based librarianship

As for Blended Librarianship, I love the idea of communities of learning and I agree that technology skills and instructional design are essential (especially for instruction librarians). But learning communities (online or offline) aren’t new ideas and incorporating technology skills and instructional design into one’s work is what any good instruction librarian should be doing. Unless it is just for the purpose of naming an online community (which is perfectly sensible), why make up a new term for what good instruction librarians should obviously be doing?

Theoretically Speaking

John Jackson writes:

“Great post, David! But I was sorry to see that you concluded by writing off theory in lieu of practical concerns for libraries. I know this doesn’t apply for all libraries, but for academic librarians, having a concise definition and theoretical framework is necessary not only for the work they do on a daily basis, but in the scholarly activities that they try to pursue both through publishing and through on-campus research… not to mention it can serve as a legitimizing factor when working with faculty.”

Sure, academic librarians may need to understand theoretical frameworks of particular topics if they support programs that rely heavily on critical theory.Though my impression from the academics I know is that critical theory began its domination of the humanities in the 60s, peaked in the 80s, and is now (thankfully) in decline. After all, I can’t imagine a Women’s Studies department that doesn’t rely heavily on critical theory and the subject specialist that serves that program’s needs should understand that body of theory and be able to speak in the terms that are familiar to scholars of that discipline.

To paraphrase a librarian friend, theories from other academic fields can be (and are) applied to information services…and librarianship/LIS can be said to have a set of values/ethics/principles that is different from other professions, but there’s no unified/unifying theoretical framework for library practice that I can see.

I agree with Neil Postman that “social sciences” (including Postman’s own field of Media Ecology) are not sciences.From the same 1988 article: “…[T]he purpose of media ecology is to tell stories about the consequences of technology; to tell how media environments create contexts that may change the way we think or organize our social life, or make us better or worse, or smarter or dumber, or freer or more enslaved. I feel sure the reader will pardon a touch of bias when I say that the stories media ecologists have to tell are rather more important than those of other academic story tellers—because the power of communication technology to give shape to people’s lives is not a matter that comes easily to the forefront of people’s consciousness, though we live in an age when our lives—whether we like it or not—have been submitted to the demanding sovereignty of new media. And so we are obliged, in the interest of a humane survival, to tell tales about what sort of paradise may be gained, and what sort lost. We will not have been the first to tell such tales. But unless our stories ring true, we may be the last.” Talk about there being nothing new under the sun.

“To put it plainly, all of the so-called social sciences are merely subdivisions of moral theology. It is true, of course, that social researchers rarely base their claims to knowledge on the indisputability of sacred texts, and even less so on revelation. But you must not be dazzled or deluded by differences in method between preachers and scholars.”

I can only guess how maddening scholars find this statement, but even just guessing makes me smile.

Insufficiently Academic

Maybe I’m insufficiently educated and don’t properly understand the academic world of LIS, but I think that theories outside of the hard sciences are, at best, interesting ideas with which to think. I think that Very Smart People are most valuable (and most valued) when they solve problems, not when they wax intellectually about them.

Changes in technology create all kinds of new and interesting challenges for libraries. All comers who have something coherent to say about how to go about tackling these challenges should be welcomed- but while matters of epistemology (like learning theory, neuroscience, or media ecology) should be important to libraryfolk, let’s not pretend to be scholars of those disciplinesUnless the individual librarian actually *is* a scholar of one of these disciplines…in which case I suggest getting out of librarianship and back in a profession with a few more potential rewards..

‘Scholarly’ Language

Kudos and full credit to Lane Wilkinson for blowing off his previous “academic” style of writing and writing a post describing his perspective in English, but I think Stephen Francoeur nails exactly what is lacking about it:.

“I’m with you on the need to be more expansive in what we teach and how we teach in our information literacy efforts, but I’m not sure this merits a new term for the effort. It seems like transliteracy so narrowly focused in your blog post that it can be defined simply as ‘doing information literacy instruction really well.’There are many reasons I like Stephen Francoeur. This is only the most recent. Meredith Farkas, by the way, reaches the very same conclusion: “I figure what you describe is just good engaging information literacy instruction incorporating (possibly) instructional tech and active learning.”

Wilkinson admits that this is a fair summary for his definition of ‘transliteracy’ but defends the use of the term as a ‘placeholder’.

Why use a ‘placeholder’ when we could say ‘do information literacy instruction really well’?

Check out this response post from John Jackson in which he takes seven paragraphs (625 words!) to say pretty much what I said in my first two paragraphs (60 words) – albeit in a much more ‘scholarly’ manner.

I’ve often wondered why so many self-described academics use language seemingly intended to make the ideas harder to access through an obtuse vocabulary or tortured phrasing. I was kvetching about this once to a friend who offered a theory. “Perhaps,” said my friend, “the value that academics offer in a market economy is the value of their ideas…and by making it harder to access their ideas, the market value of what they’re selling is driven up.”

That’s as good an explanation as any I’ve ever seen.

I encourage people (especially information professionals) to avoid this sort of writing at all times. It doesn’t matter if academics in other disciplines embrace the practice. *Our* profession is about removing obstacles between the user and the information that user seeks. I’m going to repeat that in a larger font now. Feel free to imagine me yelling this:

Our profession is about removing obstacles between the user and the information that user seeks.

This includes obstacles like obtuse, redundant, or vague language.

No arguments

Among all the response posts is not a whiff of an actual response.

Bobbi Newman writes:

“Transliteracy is a new concept in general and we are working to apply it and I’m ok with it being a work in progress (the blog is less than a year old). I understand that many people aren’t. They want clear rules, definitions guidelines, and measures and pie charts, but I’m not sure I am able to help them at this point. I’m ok with that too. Not in a mean way but in a I-can’t-do-everything-at-once sort of way.”

Here’s how I read that:

Transliteracy is a newish scholarly buzzword and we are working on milking it for publication purposes in the LIS world (we’ve been working on it for a year so far). I understand that many people want to know what the word means. They think that librarians should probably avoid using words they can’t define. I can’t help them there because I’m too busy. I did have time to create a blog based on the concept, but I don’t have time to define it.

Really, Bobbi. That’s how it reads to me.

The nonsense continues

I have no illusions that my comments will stop anyone from using terms foolishly, but I can hope that it may spare a few individuals from the anxieties associated with fears that they’re not on top of this ‘new thing.’

Meanwhile, the nonsense continues unabated. Check out Buffy Hamilton’s presentation “Participatory Librarianship: Creating Possibilities Through Transliteracy, Learning, and Linchpins”

Here’s the text of slide #51- try reading it aloud.

“transliteracy provides us a way of theorizing how these literacies transact with each other for meaning making”

Here’s the text of slide #52. Again, try reading it aloud.

“transliteracy is the conceptualization of how we use these literacies than the tools or containers although certainly the ways we access information, share, and create it have taken on new forms”

Text of slide #54 (you know what to do).

“as sponsors of transliteracy, libraries can close the participation gap.”

Try to get past the syntactical problems with these statements and tell me what they mean. Tell me that ‘transliteracy’ is used here in a meaningful way. I’d enjoy being proven wrong.

Dec 22

Pedantic: Liquor for Librarians

Louise Alcorn and I originally came up with these for one of the LSW ‘zines, but I just remembered that I’d never posted them here. Hope they amuse.

Click the thumbnails for the full-sized images. :)

Posted in Fun
Dec 19

Commensurable Nonsense (Transliteracy)

It is entirely possible that I’m just dense, but everything I’ve read recently about libraries and “transliteracy” seems like nonsense to me. Here’s how I’ve been thinking about it.

Literacy

Very briefly, the term literacyDictionary entries: Oxford, American Heritage / Webster’s New World College, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Encarta refers to either:

1. The ability to read and write

or

2. Knowledge of, skill in, or competence in an specific area or subject.

The former is a very real concern if the university professors and academic librarians I know are to be believed.It appears that one can be admitted to many American colleges despite being barely able to string together a coherent written sentence and that a lot of resources are spent on remedial English education, both formal and informal (like vast amounts of time spent by teaching assistants), for freshmen. (While we’re on the topic, the innumeracy I see in the world every day may actually alarm me more.)

Still, I think we’re mostly concerned with the latter.

Sorts of Literacies:

My wife and I frequently talk about our aspirations for the cultural literacy of our children. We think that they need to hear stories from Mother Goose, the Brothers Grimm, Aesop’s Fables, and (to the surprise of some who know us) both the Hebrew and Christian bibles. We’re atheists, but we know that stories from the bible(s) are frequently referenced in literature and in life- and that knowledge of these stories will enhance their understanding of the world around them.

Plenty of people tell me that they need help with something because they are not computer literate. I don’t know that I much like this term (I think that lack of confidence is a more frequent problem than actual incapability), but the popularity of its use can’t be denied. People know that to be “computer illiterate” is to be unskilled in the use of computers.

Then there’s the literacy that librarians, of course, care a whole lot about, Information literacyI just remembered that the topic of ‘information literacy’ has been important enough for me to be a category on this blog.

Information Literacy

I like the 1989 ALA definition:

“To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information”

I also like this one from the Association of College and Research Libraries:

“Information Literacy is the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information.”

These are simple, clear definitions that are broad enough to incorporate any tools. Some years ago, information literacy included the ability to thumb through an index of periodicals- I remember doing this in elementary school. Today, the elementary school student might search a database of indices. Regardless of the changes in technology, the above definitions of information literacy continue to be good and useful.

Technologies change and tools change, but the definition of information literacy doesn’t need to.

Here’s where I start to get a bit confused. What’s the point of terms like “digital literacy“?

The Wikipedia definition of digital literacy is as follows:

“Digital literacy is the ability to locate, organize, understand, evaluate, and analyze information using digital technology. It involves a working knowledge of current high-technology, and an understanding of how it can be used. Digitally literate people can communicate and work more efficiently, especially with those who possess the same knowledge and skills.”

So…it’s information literacy with computers. In our world, don’t you have to be “digitally literate” (and “computer literate”) if you’re going to claim information literacy? If so, “digital literacy” is just an aspect (a huge and important aspect) of information literacy.

Isn’t health literacy just a specialized kind of information literacy? How hard is it to take the above definitions of information literacy and make a couple of small edits to make them good for health literacy?

Information Health literacy is the set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use Health information.

To be information health literate, a person must be able to recognize when health information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed health information.

So, not hard.

Now we’ll remove the “health” from a definition of health literacy from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and make it about information literacy generally.

HealthInformation literacy includes the ability to understand instructions on prescription drug bottles, appointment slips, medical education brochures, doctor’s directions and consent forms, and the ability to negotiate complex health care systems. HealthInformation literacy is not simply the ability to read. It requires a complex group of reading, listening, analytical, and decision-making skills, and the ability to apply these skills to health important situations.”

You could do the same thing with “media literacy,” or “financial literacy.” Sure, they’re specialized subsets, but it’s all information literacy. Are terms like electracy really useful in any way? I don’t think so.If you DO think that this term has some usefulness, please explain it to me?

Okay. So what’s “transliteracy”?

Wikipedia uses a definition from PART (Production and Research in Transliteracy):

Transliteracy is the ability to read, write and interact across a range of platforms, tools and media from signing and orality through handwriting, print, TV, radio and film, to digital social networks.

Of course, PART’s own site calls this a “working definition.” So…the group providing the definition notes that it isn’t really thoroughly defined yet.

Has there been another time that a bunch of librarians were excited about another buzzword that was, at best, vaguely defined? I keep thinking back to T. Scott’s take on “Library 2.0″:

“My problem with the term is the same as ever — it is simply incoherent. People who use the term refer continually to the “Library 2.0 concept” but I’ll be damned if I can figure out what that “concept” is. Everyone who uses it has their own intention for it, and one knows that it has something to do with social networking software and with making libraries better, but is there really any more to it than that? It’s a very sloppy use of language, and I’m a firm believer in the concept that a sloppy use of language betrays sloppy thinking.”

Anyone else see the parallel?

Libraries and Transliteracy

In my seeking to understand what transliteracy is and why it should matter to libraries, I came across a number of references to this presentation by Bobbi Newman.

Bolded lines below are the text from her slides.

Slide #12: Soon people will need to be transliterate in order to be involved in and contribute to society.
Slide #13: It is already happening.

People who aren’t transliterate can’t participate in society? That sounds important. Where are they being prevented by the absence of their transliteracy from being a part of society?

Slide #14: Facebook privacy settings are complex and change frequently.

I don’t think a thorough understanding of Facebook privacy settings (or Facebook generally) is required to be involved in and to contribute to society, do you? Even if they were, knowing how to use social networks and other online tools could just as easily be defined as digital literacy or information literacy. Where’s the need for the new term “transliteracy”?

Slide #15: It is not just on the fun sites.

But you’re limiting the discussion here to computers and Web sites.

Slide #16: Government agencies are no longer issuing print forms.

Aside from the fact that this statement is patently untrue…or maybe just badly written. Maybe she meant to say that some agencies no longer provide paper copies of some forms., it seems again to point to the use of internet tools.

Slide #17: Banks are sending alerts and account balance information via text messages.

For those who want them, yes. Is texting now required to be a part of society?

Slide #18: Your health insurance plan has a website and you have an account.
Slide #19: The price of computers is dropping allowing more people to own one.
Slide #20: Free WiFi access points are increasing, allowing more people internet access.

More and more people are using computers and the internet, yes. What does this have to do with “transliteracy”?

Slide #21: For many people these are new experiences.
Slide #22: Experiences they can have with no training, no supervision and no support.

(How DARE people have new experiences without supervison!)

Yes, they CAN have them that way if they want. They can also check Consumer Reports or do other research to help them decide what computer to buy. They can ask at the library/McDonald’s/coffee shop how to connect to their WiFi. They can call the insurance company and be walked through how to use the Web site.

Again, what does this have to do with “transliteracy”?

Slide #22: If we only focus on literacy we are failing our patrons.

If libraries only supported readin’ and writin’ on slips of thin, dead tree, they WOULD be failing their patrons- but that’s not the case. Libraries have been working hard for years at providing computers, connectivity, and instruction. Libraries care quite a lot about information literacy and expend a great deal of effort helping patrons build information literacy skills.

So, given that libraries are NOT just focusing on words that are printed on dead-tree paper and given that they ARE providing instruction in information literacy…what here is new and different, meriting a new term?

Slide #23: In order to best serve our patrons we need to move from literacy to transliteracy.

It seems from these slides that Bobbi is saying she thinks “transliteracy” means “inclusion of online stuff and other newish technologies.” If that’s the case, libraries have already made this transition.

Slide #24: How do we shift our focus to transliteracy?
Slide #25: Talk with your coworkers and colleagues about it.
Slide #26: Talk with your patrons about it.
Slide #27: Add it to your strategic plan, mission statement and goals.

So, what would these conversations sound like?

Librarian 1: Hey, I read that we should be talking about transliteracy.
Librarian 2: Okay. What’s transliteracy?
Librarian 1: I don’t know, but if we don’t mention it in our strategic plan, we’ll seem unhip. If we suggest it to our director, though, she might think we’re really on top of new trends.
Librarian 2: I’m game. What part of the strategic plan should this transliteracy stuff be added to?

[pause]

Librarian 1: Um…Do a find-and-replace for “library 2.0?”

Librarian 2: Nice.

That’s not the end of the unappealing similarities between the libraries-and-transliteracy-stuff and the library-2.0-stuff.

One of the worst things about “Library 2.0″ was the way its advocates (who now don’t talk about it at all) seemed to talk mostly only to each other in language which (usually unintentionally) excluded and alienated others from participating in the conversation. Still, I never saw a post about Library 2.0 that was as bad in this regard as Transliteracy and Incommensurability, posted by Lane Wilkinson at Libraries and Transliteracy.A screen capture of the post is also saved here.

At first, I was convinced this post was pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook. After several aborted attempts, I finally read it in the right frame of mind and discovered that it made a few good points. These points have repeatedly been made much more clearly elsewhere, but Wilkinson is definitely not a charlatan. It’s not gobbledygook.

My complaint is that his dense use of jargon and needlessly specialized language makes his post almost totally inaccessible.

What would happen if people discussed his post the same way he wrote it?

Seriously.

Rothman, what’s your problem? Why are you picking on those nice transliteracy people?

I’m not. I’m picking on their ideas and their writing. Their writing because it is awful and their ideas because…well…I think they have no new ideas.

The world changes as technology changes. Education and libraries adapt (well or poorly, but they adapt). There’s nothing new here. There’s no need for a new movement, a new term, or so much discussion about nothing.

Look at this post by Tom Ipri:

“One thing which excites me about Transliteracy is, because of its newness, the skills involved are not well-defined.”

I’d like to ask Tom: Aside from the term, what exactly is new about transliteracy? Like “Library 2.0,” the term is being used without really being defined. That makes it awfully convenient to write about, because it can mean anything you want it to.

“Of course, Transliteracy involves a whole swath of cognitive skills that transcend navigating new technology.”

Skills which, of course, Tom doesn’t describe.

“To a certain extent, trust is a teachable skill and librarians invest a great deal of effort in instilling notions of trust. How do we trust that a web site is reliable? But beyond that, individuals need to learn how and when other individuals are trustworthy.”

Oooookay. I’ll agree that the ability to identify who is trustworthy is a good ability to have. What is your point in bringing up this bit of common sense? What is new here? Where is the need for the term “transliteracy” and why should libraryfolk care?

I don’t think critical theory is as important to libraries right now as practical matters. That said, critical theory has things to offer libraries and librarians- but this isn’t critical theory. This is nonsense. Further, it is a kind of nonsense we’ve seen before in the “library 2.0″ silliness- so it really is Commensurable Nonsense.

Dec 01

Social Media and the Medical Profession

“A guide to online professionalism for medical practitioners and medical students”

http://www.ama.com.au/socialmedia

The Australian Medical Association Council of Doctors-in-Training (AMACDT), the New Zealand Medical Association Doctors-in-Training Council (NZMADITC), the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association (NZMSA), and the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) are committed to upholding the principles of medical professionalism. As such, we have created some practical guidelines to assist doctors and medical students to continue to enjoy the online world, while maintaining professional standards.

Download PDF

Not a bad start. Not sufficient for the purposes of most, but not a bad start. Hope others will build on this.

UPDATE:
Ratcatcher’s comment below reminds me that I should also link to a similar attempt by the American Medical Association. I agree with Ratcatcher on the relative merits of these two efforts.

[via Ratcatcher]

Nov 30

Systematic Review Study

{Posted by request]

http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/services/reference/study

We are looking for volunteers to participate in a study to identify trends in conducting literature searches to support systematic reviews. Results will help systematic reviewers and information professionals to better plan resources to search and allow a more accurate estimation of time and effort required for the literature search portion of a systematic review. We hope to disseminate results of this study by presentation at a meeting and/or publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The study is a survey designed to prospectively collect data and will include questions regarding participants’ background, systematic review topic, and specifics on search strategies such as names of resources utilized and time spent searching. The information will be collected at two different time points over the course of several months.

The maximum time required to complete the survey may be 45 minutes. However, most of the information we are collecting is routinely documented during the process of conducting a systematic review. Specific details on the systematic review projects will be kept confidential and survey results will be kept in safe storage. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. Your participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw from this project at any time.

Prerequisites: To participate in the study you must currently be involved in a systematic review, or plan to in the near future. However, searching should not have taken place prior to enrollment.

If you are interested in participating, please send an email to Ahlam Saleh at saleha@pitt.edu. Questions regarding this study should be directed to either Ahlam Saleh or Melissa Ratajeski:

Ahlam Saleh, MD, MLS
Reference Librarian
University of Pittsburgh, Health Sciences Library System
saleha@pitt.edu
412-648-2166

Melissa Ratajeski, MLIS, RLAT
Reference Librarian
University of Pittsburgh, Health Sciences Library System
mar@pitt.edu
412-648-1971

Nov 05

#Adobe Customer Support Stinks

This is an actual transcript.

Thank you for choosing Adobe. A representative will be with you shortly. Your estimated wait time is 0 minute(s) and 24 second(s) or longer as there are 1 customer(s) in line ahead of you.

[5 Minutes pass]

You are now chatting with Shankar.

Shankar: Hello! Welcome to Adobe Customer Service.

Shankar: May I please have your email address registered with Adobe while I review your request?

David: david@[mpow].org

David: I’m end-user support for my organization. As far as I can tell, our organization never registered this copy of RoboHelp and I don’t have the packaging, so I haven’t been able to determine the serial number. (Without the serial, I cannot register for technical support)

Shankar: As I understand that you are using Robohelp 8 and you have issue with the search tab, Is that correct?

David: correct.

David: Using WebHelp layout.

[Minutes pass]

Shankar: Thank you for waiting. One moment please.

Shankar: I’ll be right with you.

David: Thank you.

 [Minutes pass]

Shankar: Sorry for the wait. Please do stay online.

David: Will do.

[Five more minutes pass]

Shankar: Since this is a technical issue I am unable to assist you, I apolozise for the inconvenience. However, I will provide you with our contatct details of our Specialized technical support team and they would be able to resolve the issue.

David: Thank you. Awaiting contact details.

Shankar: Click here for the Technical support?

 [David confirms again that even accessing technical support requires a serial number]

David: That’s going to be difficult. I WANT to register the product, but cannot get the packaging to determine the serial.

 [Five minutes pass]

Shankar: Thank you for waiting. One moment please.

 [More time passes]

Shankar: I’ll be right with you.

[More time passes]

Shankar: May I know the serial number of the product please?

David: As I just said, I do not have the packaging for the product, so I don’t know how to FIND the serial nunmber.

[More waiting]

Shankar: Sorry for the wait. Please do stay online.

[Yet more waiting]

Shankar: You need serial number to register the product.

David: Yes. I JUST SAID THAT.

Shankar: Is there anything else I can help you with?

David: YES. I AM TRYING TO REGISTER THE PRODUCT OR DETERMINE IF IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN REGISTERED, BUT CANNOT BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL PACKAGING. HOW ELSE DO I FIGURE OUT MY SERIAL NUMBER?

Shankar: May I know the software is Box product or the download version please?

David: I wish I knew. I do not know.

Shankar: I checked in your registered email address the serial number is not registered.

David: Please advise how I can register?

 [More waiting]

Shankar: I’ll be right with you.

[More waiting]

Shankar: Thank you for waiting. One moment please.

[Far more than one moment passes]

Shankar: Please login into your Adobe account and click on the Register New Products to register the serial number.

Shankar: Is there anything else I can help you with?

David: YES. HOW DO I LOCATE THE SERIAL NUMBER WHEN I DON’T HAVE THE PACKAGING?

Shankar: May I know do you have proof of purchase please?

David: May I request that you please re-read the history of this chat before we proceed?

Shankar: I am sorry without the proof of purchase and the serial number I will not be able to assist you.

Shankar: Is there anything else I can help you with?

David: Please answer my question.  Without the packaging, is there any other way to find my serial number?

Shankar: If you registered the serial number, However I checked you have not registered the software in your Adobe account.

David: So there is no other way to determine the serial number?

 [More waiting]

David: hello?

Shankar: I am sorry to say that please contact the technical department of your company to know the product and the serial number.

David: Do you understand that you have wasted 30 minutes of my time in order to give me an answer I asked for in the first 60 seconds?

Shankar: Is there anything else I can help you with?

Good grief.  I’ve had bad customer service before, but this is ridiculous.

First, the inept service rep seems to be trying to manage a number of chat sessions simultaneously and can’t remember what we discussed 5 lines before.

Second, I don’t believe that this software (which must be activated before it can be used) does not store the serial somewhere on the computer where it is installed.

Just awful.

Oct 30

Slides: NAHSL 2010

Thanks again to the organizers and participants of NAHSL 2010 for inviting me to speak! Newport is lovely and I had a very nice time.

[Slides embedded below]

[Slides embedded above]

As usual, my favorite thing about the event was the people I got to meet. FINALLY met Margo Coletti. I got to meet and chat with Lee Rainie (from whom I learned the word “tweckle”). I was delighted to meet Barbara Davis, who made this trip so delightfully easy and pleasant.

Another memorable moment was meeting Jeanie Vander Pyl of the Cape Cod Hospital Library. We had a brief correspondence in April 2009 that gave me a lasting case of warm fuzzies and reminded me how much I like the cooperative habits of so many librarians. It was a real treat to meet her in person and thank her for that.

Oct 26

Mocking Snake Oil: Alternative Therapy Flowchart

Crispian Jago writes:

“Believe it or not, I don’t really have a particular interest in alternative therapies, I just can’t help picking at the scabs of alt-med credulity.

However, if perchance you are a little disillusioned with allopathy, here’s a handy little flowchart to help you find the ideal alternative therapy to meet your needs.”


(Click for full-size image)

Oct 22

Melissa Rethlefsen’s Continued Awesomeness

I’d have given anything to see this presentation given. It may not interest you if you’re not a medlib person interested in publishing (or if you don’t know me or Melissa), but I grinned my way through the slides as they show the path to the creation of the book.

Then there’s this recent presentation of Melissa’s on mobile health tech for the Midwest Chapter of the Medical Library Association in Madison, WI in September that contains lots of consumer applications I know nothing about:

That’s especially timely, given Pew’s recent report.

Melissa is awesome. She even let me come to her wedding, where we took these photobooth shots:
David and Melissa
(Click for larger version)

Oct 12

MCMLA 2010 slides

Thanks so very, very much to MCMLA for inviting me to speak at their annual meeting last week- it was loads of fun.

Attendees: If you would like more information on the topics covered that are not addressed in the slides below, please email me- my email address is in the sidebar of this blog.

It was especially great to meet fun people like Cam Gentry, Kristin Sen, and Lynne Fox- and I got to pester T. Scott Plutchak with questions about his views on publishing until I finally think I understand where he’s coming from. I think I understand now why he says:

“Open access week is coming up. Here’s what I wish librarians would do — if you really care about advancing the openness of scholarship, make a commitment to go to at least one publishers conference or meeting in the next year. Introduce yourself to somebody other than your sales rep. Go have a cup of coffee or a drink. Ask them about what they see as the future of scholarly publishing. And then listen.”

Oct 09

SpamWars: Update on Ashley Julian / Trent and Company

You may remember this post in which I complained about excessive spam from Cision (and it worked), or this post about Ashley Julian at Trent and Company.

Got an email from Ashley today (23 days after my post went up and months after I sent her multiple polite emails asking her to stop spamming me):

From: Ashley Julian [ashleynjulian@gmail.com]
Date: Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Subject: Emails
To: David Rothman

Dear Mr. Rothman -

I am writing from my personal email to let you know that I have removed you from all of my contact lists. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you and I assure you that you will never hear from me again. I would like to ask if it would be possible for you to remove your entry about me from your blog. As I am sure you can understand, I do not want this to be something that immediately comes up when my name or my company is Googled.

Again, my sincerest apologies.
Ashley

Ashley, if you don’t want to be called out in public for rude behavior…maybe you should end the behavior. I DO understand why you don’t want people stumbling across the post. Do YOU understand that your practices are rude and unacceptable?

No, I will not remove the post.

I will, however, vow not to send repeated, unsolicited emails to your personal email account and ignore your polite requests that I stop.

THAT, I think, is fair.

Oct 06

Are you going to the MCMLA 2010 Annual Meeting?

I’m speaking at MCMLA 2010 this weekend and just now realizing that I’m not sure I’ll know a soul there.

So that I don’t feel like the new kid at school who has nowhere to sit in the cafeteria at lunch, drop me an email if you’re going to be there? I’d also like to pick your brain a bit as I finish polishing my presentation. My email address is shown in the sidebar of this blog.

Thanks!

Oct 04

Toss out your answering machine

(This may be seen as off-topic for some readers, but I’m writing about it as an example of technology simplifying my life.)

I’ve been slowing realizing over the last several months that neither Liz nor I religiously check our home answering machine. This is bad, because there may be important messages.

We both, however, check our email religiously. I was convinced there was a better way for us to manage the calls to our home that we missed. Eventually, I realized that Google Voice would work quite nicely. Here’s what I did:

In Google services:

1. Set up a new Gmail account.

2. Signed up for Google Voice and chose a number that is local for us.

3. In Settings > Phones, I turned OFF all phones (DEselected the check boxes)…so that none of the phones associated with the account would ring when this number was called. This means that all calls to this number would, by default, go straight to voicemail.

4. In Settings > Voicemail & Text, I recorded a new greeting appropriate for our home phone and set it as the default greeting for all calls.

5. In Settings > Voicemail & Text >Voicemail Notifications, I set notifications to be sent to the account’s Gmail address.

6. I also elected on this screen to have voicemails transcribed. These transcriptions are far from perfect, but they often provide enough information to let us know what should be done with the message.

With my home phone service provider:
(Our home phone provider is Time Warner Cable- they have a VoiceZone service you can sign into to manage these settings yourself. Your provider may or may not have something similar- call them and ask!)

I set calls to forward to my new Google Voice number if we did not answer after four rings:

Back to the new Gmail account:

7. Now that this new Gmail account was receiving emails from Gvoice with the date/time, number, the machine transcription of the message and a link to play the audio, it was time to make sure that Liz and I both got them.

First, I set up all emails from this account to be forwarded to my main email account. Next, I set up a filter to make sure all such emails were forwarded to Liz’s main email account.

So now we were each getting the email when someone called our home phone and left a message.

8. Lastly, I wanted to make sure that neither Liz nor I would accidentally overlook such voicemail-containing emails when we received them, so I made one more filter for each of us that slaps on a big red label:

lastfilter

So here’s what it looks like in my inbox when someone calls our home phone number and leaves a message:
inboxview

The email contains a link to a Web-based audio player through which either one of us can listen to the message if the machine-transcription is insufficient (as it often is).

Results:

1. We can’t fail to notice that we have messages (as we sometimes do now with the little blinking red light on our answering machine).

2. We no longer have to worry about whether one of us or the other has heard a particular message and wonder if it can safely be deleted. We can manage our own listening as we would our own reading. It is as if we are both “cc’d” on voicemails left on our home phone.

3. Neither of us can accidentally delete old messages.

4. We can both easily access our messages anywhere.

5. We’re throwing out our answering machine without having to pay anyone for voicemail service.

:)

Sep 26

Frankie Dolan at Health 2.0

This shows how far behind I am in my blogging:

My friend (and LibWorm co-creator) Frankie Dolan spoke at Health 2.0 in Paris about MedWorm and I haven’t even posted the video of her talk until now. BAD David. Video is embedded below.

Frankie’s bit starts at about 10m 25s if you’d like to skip up to it.

:)