Ranganathan Thread

[Jerry_Stephens at ca10.uscourts.gov]

     The Ranganathan laws discussion seemed to be promising at first. Then 
     Pareto and Sturgeon popped in. That brought Weiner' Law of Libraries 
     to my own mind: "There are no answers, only cross references."
     
     But Jo Anne Ellis raised an important issue in her recent posting. In 
     that letter, she noted that she has a copy of Ranganathan's laws in 
     her office. She discusses these laws with her students. But, she goes 
     on to ask "who doesn't like using libraries ...."
     
     There's an article in today's "New York Times" that addresses student 
     use of libraries. The article tells us that many students prefer the 
     Web to the library and its seemingly overly-traditional ways. The 
     subheading puts it succinctly: "Many students prefer the chaos of the 
     Web to the drudgery of the library, but educators warn that study 
     habits are suffering."
     
     Perhaps our discussion can get back to Ranganathan, and we can then 
     ask whether his laws -- even when stated in the print context -- are 
     truly that relevant to today's information seekers. 
     
     Are there implications for the ways we acquire and organize our 
     information resources. If Pareto's right, then 20% of what we get is 
     actually used, and 80% sits gathering dust. That dust may even be only 
     metaphoric if we identify electronic resources that aren't used. 
     Perhaps Sturgeon's right that 90% of what we have is crud.
     
     Ranganathan says that "books are for use." What happens if a book 
     isn't used? Is the information in that book lost? Or, is the lack of 
     use conceptually similar to the internet site that is never found 
     because the search engines fail to index or identify the site? 
     
     It seems that we define our libraries in terms of "just in case." We 
     acquire materials "just in case" it might be needed, or even used, by 
     someone. Perhaps we ought to define our libraries in terms of "just in 
     time." Can we adopt the manufacturing concept that we acquire our 
     basic resources -- here information resources rather than 
     manufacturing raw materials -- that can be used when they are needed.
     
     
     But, maybe Weiner is right on point. The value of libraries may be 
     less in having the "correct" answer than in having useful ways to 
     cross reference the many answers that appear. 
     
     Maybe this is where Ranganath can be rewritten to be a little more 
     modern. Perhaps his fifth law -- "a library is a growing organism" -- 
     ought to be the first law. Then the library becomes to the information 
     world conceptually somewhat like the First Amendment is to the U.S. 
     Constitution: one of the bedrock principles that defines our 
     relationship with everything else.
     
     Jerry Stephens
     U.S. Court of Appeals
     Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
     
     email:     jerry_stephens at ca10.uscourts.gov
     voice:     405-231-4967
     fax:       405-231-5921