Search

Purpose – This paper aims to examine Patrick Wilson’s 1977 essay, Public Knowledge, Private Ignorance, which emphasizes practice rooted in theory. Modern reference work ought to look back to this 35-year-old essay to be reminded of the intent of reference practice by considering Wilson’s discussion. Design/methodology/approach – This paper examines Wilson’s decades-old thesis and applies it to reference work and reference resources for today’s information professionals. Findings – The crux of Wilson’s essay remains relevant today when applied to reference work and information-seeking. Originality/value – This essay leaves readers with practical tips for reference work rooted in theory, and also expands on Wilson’s 1977 essay from a contemporary viewpoint, providing guidance for modern reference librarianship.

Though the system will not permit it, our abstract is an out-of-focus photograph of ducks at 1900 pixels wide and black and white, which is approximately 20% the size of the original color photograph we use for our title. By most technical standards, it is a bad picture. Straightening the horizon, cropping the image to emphasize the two foremost ducks, brightening the image to highlight the feet, and adding a caption that indicates activity might yield a “better” picture for some viewers. This piece captures nearly 20 years of conversations about good and bad pictures, and continues the conversation from the 2016 Proceedings about bad words.

PurposeArchivists and Librarians are subjected to social stereotypes by those outside and within the field of library and information science. Many of these role descriptions come from within the LIS professions themselves; the differences between information responsibilities of Archivists and Librarians are not clearly defined. The purpose of this paper is to dispel myths of distinguishable differences in information role responsibilities of Archivists and Librarians.Design/methodology/approachA simple survey was developed and completed by Archivists and Librarians who volunteered to express, in their own words, up to three descriptions of what their information responsibilities are. Responses were recorded in the respondents' own words, and so, the responses were necessarily compared, reduced, and categorized into nine recognizable categories of synonymous and qualifying terms for comparison.FindingsResults of the survey demonstrate that both Archivists and Librarians list access most often as their information responsibility. Similarly, preserve and process are listed as second and third, in reverse order; and collect and evaluate are listed fourth and fifth, in reverse order. Results indicate the major differences as Archivists naming collect more often, and Librarians listing teach more often.Originality/valueArchivists and Librarians usually both receive their education and training in schools of library and information science. Other than collection types and patrons served, which vary significantly among libraries and archives themselves, this exploratory study indicates no major differences in personally expressed information responsibilities of those within the fields of practice, and debunks the misconceptions that Archivists and Librarians have distinct, observable differences in their approaches to information.

PurposeThis paper seeks to urge academic writers to restructure their scholarly writing to reflect the depth of their intellectual message rather than conforming to the structurally simplistic hegemony of the mundane.Design/methodology/approachThe authors of this paper represent interdisciplinary perspectives in research. Each has grown increasingly disillusioned by dwindling consideration given to the structural integrity of scholarly thoughts in academic writing. This paper does not suggest a solution of strict adherence to some style manual or single format, nor does it suggest a privilege to any particular constraint. Indeed, the authors suggest that the digital environment enables unimagined communication possibilities, and hence a counterpoise to any single rigid structure. New formats require attention to the engineering of message structure. Using historical examples and modern applications from their disciplines, the authors offer provocations on the structures of scholarly writing. They pay particular attention to modern applications of Claude Shannon's information theory and to the introduction of models for understanding the audiences of academic writing.FindingsScholarly writing warrants a deep investment of intellectual, personal, and communicative effort. Readers will have different requirements for any individual piece of scholarly writing, but all will be served by the fullest expression of the logic, care, tenacity, and passion that drove the research to fruition. Engineering the scholarly document to contribute to audiences of differing interests and abilities requires careful consideration rather than mere assumption of a generic reader.Originality/valueResearch for this paper yielded few preceding studies that considered document structures for scholarship. Authors of this paper intend to provoke academes to engage in active and intentional reconsiderations of how they choose to say what they have to say, by following the presented examples of writing and tools for measuring structural elements of documents.