"The long tail refers to a graph of a power law distribution, emphasizing the trailing length of data
points representing idiosyncrasies and edge cases rather than the leading 'short trunk' of
common occurrences (Mossman, 2006; Sonderegger, 2005).... Similar power law distributions describe a variety of natural and social phenomena. Examples range from genetic properties, power system failures, and epidemics to languages spoken and word use within languages, population distribution and social networks, publications and citations, web server log activity and the structure of the World Wide Web (Andriani and McKelvey, 2007; Clingingsmith, 2017; Wichmann, 2005; Cohen and Small, 1998; Sonderegger, 2005). Such power laws describe not only human behaviors, but also the real-world conditions that shape them. This diversity of lived experience poses implications for individuals’ sense of reality, or ontology, as well as their search for truth, or epistemology."
This approach involves so much more patience than hyper-political people typically have. They want to frame reality around mass will and group belief (enough to impact electoral affairs) which is the exact opposite of truly seeking understanding of and perhaps even respect for “long tail realities.” The irony is that for many of them, they would condition the “power trunk” of whichever portion of the electorate they would like to stake out to flash-interpret ideological correctness based on which sympathetic dot(s) out along the far reaches of the power tail they feel good about claiming as mascots, something like “transgender person vs. billionaire.”
Interesting post. I tend to agree with most of your philosophical positions and agree that they support a pluralist/neutral approach to librarianship. But ... I wonder if you are asking for too much philosophical agreement as a precondition for achieving your vision of librarianship. I think that we could find a more minimal set of agreements that would still allow for neutral/pluralist librarianship. I guess that I am especially concerned by your rejection of Utopianism & Idealism. These are popular and coherent (at least in some forms) beliefs. Would you say that anyone who holds them can't be a good librarian?
Thanks. But no, not at all. As I said, there's nothing wrong with idealism and utopianism on the part of individuals, I'm just concerned with their adoption by libraries as institutions, or by the entire library profession.
Thank you for this! Very thoughtful. I had just watched a TED talk on motivated reasoning versus the scout mindset this week https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong. I was also intrigued by the statement you wrote that read "For controversies over speakers and events, I believe this framework instructs us to prioritize a Meiklejohnian conception of free speech: that its principal value lies in its ability to empower listeners to fulfill their part in the “electoral branch” of government, rather than in solely providing a speaker with the right to a venue, and that the burden of proof to the contrary would rest with those who would seek to oppose or abrogate that right. " A private venue in Port Alberni, BC recently was rented by a private group and community members harassed the owner of the private venue until she capitulated and cancelled the contract. It doesn't seem right for bullying to depict business decisions and to disallow community members to hear the speakers and make up their own minds. I fear this leads to extremism as the people denied their right to participate in discussion and debate will likely feel harmed and identify with the speaker more due to this shared experience of censorship. It seems to actually tilt the people in favor of controversial opinions instead of encouraging them to engage and make up their own minds independent of control and interference.
Of late there are plenty of articles and postings available describing how to advance socially just public library services in progressive communities. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of published advice on how to advance or defend inclusive progress in conservative municipalities, counties, and states. In such locales, even the best-intentioned actions can result in firings, changes in the composition of a library board, and even the transfer of a public library’s administration to a private corporation. This communication is a effort to provide such advice.
On Friday I received the following notice of publication:
Your submission "When Librarians Talk with Conservatives about Libraries" has been posted to Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal).
With end of semester time pressures now developing, I am sure that you have more than enough to read. This is why I am providing the abstract.
Abstract
The article addresses the possibility of minimizing instances of book banning, program protest, director firing, and library defunding in conservative Republican communities. The aim is to suggest ways of reducing strife while preserving the maximum possible local access to socially just public library collections and services. It begins with an exploration of the causes of the present day’s seemingly irreconcilable confrontations in conservative communities over the socially just services of many public libraries. The influence of contemporary versions of the “library faith” and religiously inspired “callings” on disputes over children’s books and programming is examined. Finally, the article goes beyond the library and information literature to explore the effectiveness of pre-dispute, or early dispute, informal and formal negotiations as a means of avoiding deep divisions over the role of the public library. In conservative communities and states such an approach might develop acceptable, albeit sometimes imperfect, resolutions of problems that are tolerated by both library professionals and conservative critics. In too many instances the perceived alternative to negotiation is likely to be a public library caught up in censorship clashes with unpredictable results for socially just service.
I appreciate the intent -- to emphasize dialogue and conflict resolution techniques -- but the problem still remains that the author assumes that everyone will agree on what is meant by "socially just...collections and services."
This was sent to the LIS faculty list today (may 500 people?) I went to see if anyone had read it. It has had 19 downloads. Crowley is on of a very small number of LIS faculty even talking about dialog.
I also applaud any attempts at dialogue within the field about these apparently irreconcilable differences, these clashing worldviews about appropriateness of collections and services. Agree with Michael about the definitional quagmire of "socially just" . . . . . applied to almost anything these days. In my view, "socially just" is a signaling catchphrase that many in our field adopt to say, we have the correct, and only acceptable views. In my recent experience, I'm also seeing the same use of "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" applied to professional practices. The former has the cachet much of the time now, and "liberal" is seen as compromised and not pure enough. This distinction extends well beyond LIS and librarianship, of course.
Post-positivism encapsulates the case I made for embracing long tail metaphysics!
https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/resources/1cfe3ac0-fbdb-4a26-9ec3-d2e3339830f8
"The long tail refers to a graph of a power law distribution, emphasizing the trailing length of data
points representing idiosyncrasies and edge cases rather than the leading 'short trunk' of
common occurrences (Mossman, 2006; Sonderegger, 2005).... Similar power law distributions describe a variety of natural and social phenomena. Examples range from genetic properties, power system failures, and epidemics to languages spoken and word use within languages, population distribution and social networks, publications and citations, web server log activity and the structure of the World Wide Web (Andriani and McKelvey, 2007; Clingingsmith, 2017; Wichmann, 2005; Cohen and Small, 1998; Sonderegger, 2005). Such power laws describe not only human behaviors, but also the real-world conditions that shape them. This diversity of lived experience poses implications for individuals’ sense of reality, or ontology, as well as their search for truth, or epistemology."
This approach involves so much more patience than hyper-political people typically have. They want to frame reality around mass will and group belief (enough to impact electoral affairs) which is the exact opposite of truly seeking understanding of and perhaps even respect for “long tail realities.” The irony is that for many of them, they would condition the “power trunk” of whichever portion of the electorate they would like to stake out to flash-interpret ideological correctness based on which sympathetic dot(s) out along the far reaches of the power tail they feel good about claiming as mascots, something like “transgender person vs. billionaire.”
Interesting post. I tend to agree with most of your philosophical positions and agree that they support a pluralist/neutral approach to librarianship. But ... I wonder if you are asking for too much philosophical agreement as a precondition for achieving your vision of librarianship. I think that we could find a more minimal set of agreements that would still allow for neutral/pluralist librarianship. I guess that I am especially concerned by your rejection of Utopianism & Idealism. These are popular and coherent (at least in some forms) beliefs. Would you say that anyone who holds them can't be a good librarian?
Thanks. But no, not at all. As I said, there's nothing wrong with idealism and utopianism on the part of individuals, I'm just concerned with their adoption by libraries as institutions, or by the entire library profession.
Thank you for this! Very thoughtful. I had just watched a TED talk on motivated reasoning versus the scout mindset this week https://www.ted.com/talks/julia_galef_why_you_think_you_re_right_even_if_you_re_wrong. I was also intrigued by the statement you wrote that read "For controversies over speakers and events, I believe this framework instructs us to prioritize a Meiklejohnian conception of free speech: that its principal value lies in its ability to empower listeners to fulfill their part in the “electoral branch” of government, rather than in solely providing a speaker with the right to a venue, and that the burden of proof to the contrary would rest with those who would seek to oppose or abrogate that right. " A private venue in Port Alberni, BC recently was rented by a private group and community members harassed the owner of the private venue until she capitulated and cancelled the contract. It doesn't seem right for bullying to depict business decisions and to disallow community members to hear the speakers and make up their own minds. I fear this leads to extremism as the people denied their right to participate in discussion and debate will likely feel harmed and identify with the speaker more due to this shared experience of censorship. It seems to actually tilt the people in favor of controversial opinions instead of encouraging them to engage and make up their own minds independent of control and interference.
Of interest--
Greetings Colleagues:
Of late there are plenty of articles and postings available describing how to advance socially just public library services in progressive communities. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack of published advice on how to advance or defend inclusive progress in conservative municipalities, counties, and states. In such locales, even the best-intentioned actions can result in firings, changes in the composition of a library board, and even the transfer of a public library’s administration to a private corporation. This communication is a effort to provide such advice.
On Friday I received the following notice of publication:
Your submission "When Librarians Talk with Conservatives about Libraries" has been posted to Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal).
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/7944 >
With end of semester time pressures now developing, I am sure that you have more than enough to read. This is why I am providing the abstract.
Abstract
The article addresses the possibility of minimizing instances of book banning, program protest, director firing, and library defunding in conservative Republican communities. The aim is to suggest ways of reducing strife while preserving the maximum possible local access to socially just public library collections and services. It begins with an exploration of the causes of the present day’s seemingly irreconcilable confrontations in conservative communities over the socially just services of many public libraries. The influence of contemporary versions of the “library faith” and religiously inspired “callings” on disputes over children’s books and programming is examined. Finally, the article goes beyond the library and information literature to explore the effectiveness of pre-dispute, or early dispute, informal and formal negotiations as a means of avoiding deep divisions over the role of the public library. In conservative communities and states such an approach might develop acceptable, albeit sometimes imperfect, resolutions of problems that are tolerated by both library professionals and conservative critics. In too many instances the perceived alternative to negotiation is likely to be a public library caught up in censorship clashes with unpredictable results for socially just service.
Best,
Bill
Bill Crowley, Ph.D.
Professor
School of Information Studies
Dominican University
7900 West Division Street
River Forest, IL 60305
773 704-9749 (cell)
crowbill@dom.edu
I appreciate the intent -- to emphasize dialogue and conflict resolution techniques -- but the problem still remains that the author assumes that everyone will agree on what is meant by "socially just...collections and services."
This was sent to the LIS faculty list today (may 500 people?) I went to see if anyone had read it. It has had 19 downloads. Crowley is on of a very small number of LIS faculty even talking about dialog.
I also applaud any attempts at dialogue within the field about these apparently irreconcilable differences, these clashing worldviews about appropriateness of collections and services. Agree with Michael about the definitional quagmire of "socially just" . . . . . applied to almost anything these days. In my view, "socially just" is a signaling catchphrase that many in our field adopt to say, we have the correct, and only acceptable views. In my recent experience, I'm also seeing the same use of "progressive" as opposed to "liberal" applied to professional practices. The former has the cachet much of the time now, and "liberal" is seen as compromised and not pure enough. This distinction extends well beyond LIS and librarianship, of course.