Classificatory structures: Concepts, relations and representation: by Hemalata Iyer. Frankfurt/Main:...
1
which they compare the concept of mentoring among a variety of professions. Two authors tackle the real challenges of defining and pro- viding robust reference services in these times of change. Rob- ert R. Burkhardt, “A Role Transformed? Technology’s Challenge for Job Responsibilities of the Reference Librarian,” and Marilyn Lary, “Academic Reference Staffing for the Twenty-First Century,” suggest ways in which libraries can reinvent front-line client-oriented services. Essays by Onadell Bly, “Academic Libraries, Academic Computer Centers, and Information Technology,” and Rashelle Karp, “The Literature of Joint-Use Libraries,” conclude the volume. The editors embarked upon their task from a realistic point of view, examining the forces pushing, pulling, and shaping corpo- rate America. It is not entirely clear that they understand why library administrators are keeping pace in the implementation or adaptation of organizational cur- rents including the emphasis on teams, the viewing of the library as a learning organization, the renewed emphasis on customer orientation and total quality management, and the practice of business process reengineering. (p. viii) Although each essay is perfectly adequate on its own, the total corpus does not provide the reader with either an overarch- ing view of the problem or with a set of solutions that build on each other or on a common foundation. This volume is more akin to a journal issue than to a thematic approach to a set of issues.-Paula T. Kaufman, Dean of Libraries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996-1000 [email protected]>. Classificatory Structures: Concepts, Relations and Representation, by Hemalata Iyer. Frankfurt/Main: INDEKS Verlag,1995. 225 p. $30.00. ISBN 3-88672-501-4. (Textbooks for Knowledge Organization, ISSN 0944-8 152; vol. 2.) According to the author, the goal of this book is to introduce knowledge structures as they are represented in: (1) human minds, (2) classification schemes, thesauri, and indexing sys- tems, and (3) artificial intelligence systems. In surveying the structures used for organizing knowledge in these contexts, Iyer puts the greatest emphasis on the classificatory tools of library and information science (LIS), an emphasis represented by seven of the book’s 11 chapters. The remaining four chapters are devoted to the inter-disciplinary nature of recorded knowl- edge, cognitive approaches to categorization (i.e., knowledge structures in the human mind), artificial intelligence, and uni- versal knowledge structures, especially as evident in language. As one who teaches classification theory, I have long felt the need for a text that examines the classification subliteratures of cognitive science and knowledge representation and their appli- cation to: (1) the analysis of current knowledge organization tools, and (2) the creation of better future tools. Being unaware of such a text, I have used as a course text George Lakoff’s Women, Fire, und Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal ubout the Mind (University of Chicago Press, 1987), despite its lack of direct relevance to the LIS. I had hoped that Clussifica- tory Structures would fill this gap. However, its treatment of knowledge structures in cognitive science and knowledge rep- resentation and their application to LIS is both limited and more descriptive than analytical. Therefore, it fails to represent any particular forward thrust for LIS classification. The text that analytically applies the principles of knowledge structures in cognitive science and knowledge representation to LIS has yet to be written. The greatest strength of Clus.s$cato~ Structures is the breadth of its coverage (which as an LIS text makes it fairly unique) and its copious illustrations and examples. The text itself is clear in its explanations, although many of the concepts of classification are relatively abstract. The book contains numerous bibliographical references and includes exercises for most chapters as well. It succeeds at providing a broad survey of knowledge structures, but two caveats should be remem- bered: (1) breadth is not synonymous with exhaustivity, and (2) breadth mitigates against depth. The review would be incomplete without noting that the text suffers from a lack of editorial attention. For example, there are numerous inconsistencies in style of citation as well as mis- spellings (e.g., “Minski” for “Minsky” and “Bhattarachyya” for “Bhattacharyya” within a few lines of each other [p. 1781). The figures lack crispness. And in a style unfamiliar to most Amer- icans, paragraphs are neither indented nor preceded by a blank line. Its shortcomings notwithstanding, Class$catory Structures belongs in all but the smallest library school collections. It is also inexpensive enough to warrant consideration for purchase by/for library professionals who are personally interested or involved in classification and who wish an introduction to the treatment of knowledge structures in allied disciplines or in a broad survey of knowledge organization techniques within their own.-Rebecca Green, College of Library and Information Services, University of Maryland, Hornbake Building (So. Wing), Room 4105, College Park, MD 20742-4345 <[email protected]>. Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching, by K. Patricia Cross and Mimi Harris Steadman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. 264~. $32.95 (softcover). ISBN O-7879-0288-8. In my experience teachers come in two types: those who consider themselves artists and those who consider themselves craftspeople. The artists see their classes as inspired perfor- mances-moments in which the muse speaks through them. The craftspeople see their classes as raw material-shaped by the various tools they consciously bring to bear on that material. It is this “chasm” between types of teachers that Clas.sroom Research is intended to bridge. Patricia Cross and Mimi Harris Steadman have written this engaging book to encourage college instructors to implement “the scholarship of teaching.” They start with the assumption that university teachers are primarily what I have called “artists.” As such, they resist any impulse to do research into what constitutes effective teaching. Com- pounding the problem, as the authors note, is the fact that on many campuses such a move signals an admission that one’s own teaching is somehow “deficient.” The authors set out to remedy this classic situation by writing a book that closes the gap between current educational research and the higher education classroom. They aim to perform this feat by introducing a concept called “Classroom Research,” a concept which grows out of trends that have been developing since the 1960s. These trends include the Faculty Development movement, the Classroom Assessment movement, and the Learner Centered movement. According to the authors, CZus.s- room Research is both a continuation of these movements and a critique of them. Put in the most simple terms, Clu.s.sroom 240 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
-
Upload
rebecca-green -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Classificatory structures: Concepts, relations and representation: by Hemalata Iyer. Frankfurt/Main:...
which they compare the concept of mentoring among a variety of professions.
Two authors tackle the real challenges of defining and pro- viding robust reference services in these times of change. Rob- ert R. Burkhardt, “A Role Transformed? Technology’s Challenge for Job Responsibilities of the Reference Librarian,” and Marilyn Lary, “Academic Reference Staffing for the Twenty-First Century,” suggest ways in which libraries can reinvent front-line client-oriented services. Essays by Onadell Bly, “Academic Libraries, Academic Computer Centers, and Information Technology,” and Rashelle Karp, “The Literature of Joint-Use Libraries,” conclude the volume.
The editors embarked upon their task from a realistic point of view, examining the forces pushing, pulling, and shaping corpo- rate America. It is not entirely clear that they understand why library administrators are keeping
pace in the implementation or adaptation of organizational cur- rents including the emphasis on teams, the viewing of the library as a learning organization, the renewed emphasis on customer orientation and total quality management, and the practice of business process reengineering. (p. viii)
Although each essay is perfectly adequate on its own, the total corpus does not provide the reader with either an overarch- ing view of the problem or with a set of solutions that build on each other or on a common foundation. This volume is more akin to a journal issue than to a thematic approach to a set of issues.-Paula T. Kaufman, Dean of Libraries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996-1000 [email protected]>.
Classificatory Structures: Concepts, Relations and Representation, by Hemalata Iyer. Frankfurt/Main: INDEKS Verlag,1995. 225 p. $30.00. ISBN 3-88672-501-4. (Textbooks for Knowledge Organization, ISSN 0944-8 152; vol. 2.)
According to the author, the goal of this book is to introduce knowledge structures as they are represented in: (1) human minds, (2) classification schemes, thesauri, and indexing sys- tems, and (3) artificial intelligence systems. In surveying the structures used for organizing knowledge in these contexts, Iyer puts the greatest emphasis on the classificatory tools of library and information science (LIS), an emphasis represented by seven of the book’s 11 chapters. The remaining four chapters are devoted to the inter-disciplinary nature of recorded knowl- edge, cognitive approaches to categorization (i.e., knowledge structures in the human mind), artificial intelligence, and uni- versal knowledge structures, especially as evident in language.
As one who teaches classification theory, I have long felt the need for a text that examines the classification subliteratures of cognitive science and knowledge representation and their appli- cation to: (1) the analysis of current knowledge organization tools, and (2) the creation of better future tools. Being unaware of such a text, I have used as a course text George Lakoff’s Women, Fire, und Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal ubout the Mind (University of Chicago Press, 1987), despite its lack of direct relevance to the LIS. I had hoped that Clussifica- tory Structures would fill this gap. However, its treatment of knowledge structures in cognitive science and knowledge rep- resentation and their application to LIS is both limited and more descriptive than analytical. Therefore, it fails to represent any particular forward thrust for LIS classification. The text that analytically applies the principles of knowledge structures in
cognitive science and knowledge representation to LIS has yet to be written.
The greatest strength of Clus.s$cato~ Structures is the breadth of its coverage (which as an LIS text makes it fairly unique) and its copious illustrations and examples. The text itself is clear in its explanations, although many of the concepts of classification are relatively abstract. The book contains numerous bibliographical references and includes exercises for most chapters as well. It succeeds at providing a broad survey of knowledge structures, but two caveats should be remem- bered: (1) breadth is not synonymous with exhaustivity, and (2) breadth mitigates against depth.
The review would be incomplete without noting that the text suffers from a lack of editorial attention. For example, there are numerous inconsistencies in style of citation as well as mis- spellings (e.g., “Minski” for “Minsky” and “Bhattarachyya” for “Bhattacharyya” within a few lines of each other [p. 1781). The figures lack crispness. And in a style unfamiliar to most Amer- icans, paragraphs are neither indented nor preceded by a blank line.
Its shortcomings notwithstanding, Class$catory Structures belongs in all but the smallest library school collections. It is also inexpensive enough to warrant consideration for purchase by/for library professionals who are personally interested or involved in classification and who wish an introduction to the treatment of knowledge structures in allied disciplines or in a broad survey of knowledge organization techniques within their own.-Rebecca Green, College of Library and Information Services, University of Maryland, Hornbake Building (So. Wing), Room 4105, College Park, MD 20742-4345 <[email protected]>.
Classroom Research: Implementing the Scholarship of Teaching, by K. Patricia Cross and Mimi Harris Steadman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. 264~. $32.95 (softcover). ISBN O-7879-0288-8.
In my experience teachers come in two types: those who consider themselves artists and those who consider themselves craftspeople. The artists see their classes as inspired perfor- mances-moments in which the muse speaks through them. The craftspeople see their classes as raw material-shaped by the various tools they consciously bring to bear on that material. It is this “chasm” between types of teachers that Clas.sroom Research is intended to bridge. Patricia Cross and Mimi Harris Steadman have written this engaging book to encourage college instructors to implement “the scholarship of teaching.” They start with the assumption that university teachers are primarily what I have called “artists.” As such, they resist any impulse to do research into what constitutes effective teaching. Com- pounding the problem, as the authors note, is the fact that on many campuses such a move signals an admission that one’s own teaching is somehow “deficient.”
The authors set out to remedy this classic situation by writing a book that closes the gap between current educational research and the higher education classroom. They aim to perform this feat by introducing a concept called “Classroom Research,” a concept which grows out of trends that have been developing since the 1960s. These trends include the Faculty Development movement, the Classroom Assessment movement, and the Learner Centered movement. According to the authors, CZus.s- room Research is both a continuation of these movements and a critique of them. Put in the most simple terms, Clu.s.sroom
240 The Journal of Academic Librarianship
