When I first caught wind of
The Atlas of New Librarianship, I was so excited that I think I peed my pants a little bit. According to the press releases, the author, R. David Lankes, had created a monumental survey of the theoretical foundations of librarianship. He was going to advocate “a new librarianship based not on books and artifacts but on knowledge and learning.” Early reviews by assorted library luminaries were glowing, and ACRL was making a big to-do about the book’s release. All in all, this book is a BIG DEAL. So, imagine my excitement when my copy arrived. Here I am, keenly interested in the philosophical foundations of librarianship (and information science) and I finally get to read the book that promises to set it all straight!My initial reaction after reading this hefty tome can be summed up in seven words:
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.
Allow me to explain…
Topography
In his introduction, Lankes offers this statement of intent:
The Atlas before you is an attempt to…look to the history of the field for the core and constant while looking to even deeper theory of how people know to help shape the future. (p. 3)
So, with an eye towards epistemology, Lankes offers a field-wide mission statement for librarianship. Something to guide the discipline into the future, come what may. And, here it is:
Knowledge is a set of agreements in relation to one another through a memory that is derived from language exchange between conversants. (p. 32)
“So if two men having a conversation about a topic they know little about, can we truly say that knowledge is created?” “Yes,” I said. “For those two people, if they are willing to act on the agreements they have developed, it is knowledge.” “But what if they are idiots?” “It is still knowledge, although I would imagine that their knowledge would change if they tried out their agreement and it didn’t work.” OK, I realize I have just lost most of the positivists in the crowd, but please give me a moment to explain… (p. 117-118) [The subsequent explanation is question-begging.]
But, I want to be clear here and avoid creating a straw-man. Lankes is advocating epistemic relativism, but he does not explicitly say that facts are socially constructed. For example, in his discussion of
source amnesia he discusses the importance of avoiding factual error and even points to mind-independent, objective facts as epistemically relevant (“I [made an error] based on a set of agreements I attributed to an artifact, not what was in the artifact” (p. 42)). However, he is inconsistent throughout the book and there are points where he implicitlyappeals to a base fact-constuctivism. I know it’s an over-simplification, but fact-constructivism is a member of those relativistic theories to the effect that all truth is socially constructed, or that there is no objective reality independent of contingent human agreements. Given the well-established incoherence of this sort of straight-forward relativistic thinking, I can’t in good conscience attribute it to Lankes. [For a short introduction to the lunacy of relativism/constructivism, see Paul Boghossian’s Fear of Knowledge]Relatively speaking, I’m no expert
So, Lankes doesn’t advocate a relativist position about facts, but he does advocate relativism about what justifies our beliefs. The epistemic relativism inherent in Conversation Theory manifests itself in the way the theory insists that our beliefs about the world are justified through a process of negotiation. Sure, there may be an external reality, but there is no privileged way of accessing that world: all we have are our conversations and agreements. We become justified in believing this or that because we have come to a “shared understanding” about the object of our belief. Our knowledge is not shaped by an external reality; in fact, we don’t even have access to any external reality. It’s internalized social agreements all the way down.
If this sounds postmodern, it is. But, it’s hard to tell if Lankes understands this. True, he does have an agreement supplement for “Postmodernism”, but it doesn’t add anything to his Atlas. He claims that postmodernism “reinforces the idea of constant change and adaptation” (p. 344), which is nice, but not particularly unique to postmodernism. So, how does postmodern thought influence new librarianship? Lankes picks out the reference interview as a particularly good exemplar of postmodern librarianship. He writes:
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, two main roles in postmodernism are the “expert” and the “philosopher,” both of which serve roles in the reference interview…by seeking to better understand these roles the librarian can become more comfortable and adept in the reference process.” (p. 344)
Lankes’ approach leads inevitably to the conclusion that knowledge is causally distinct from any external reality or facts. There may be facts, but they don’t adjudicate between knowledge and other belief states. He even goes so far as to admit that this is the case. And his response?
There are critics of constructivism. They argue that it denies the existence of a true reality–that philosophically there are issues with creating a worldview of complete relativism…[but] in the context of new librarianship, we do not necessarily have to enter into the philosophical debate about constructivism because we are looking more narrowly at its concrete applications as a learning theory and at its application within the cosmos of librarianship. (p. 216-17)
Straw librarianship
The annoyed librarians of the world who seek the status quo and see their mission as recorded knowledge, the collection of artifacts, and the maintenance of organizations labeled libraries…They will cry foul against relativism and new age ideas (p. 172)
The fact is that there are alternatives to Conversation Theory and there are alternative knowledge-based missions for librarianship. Lankes paints librarianship in an either/or situation. Those who look to librarianship in terms of collecting and making available information are referred to as “traditional”, “conservative”, “fundamentalist”. Those who adopt his theory (he’s addicted to the rhetorical “we”) are “enlightened” and “fight against ignorance and intolerance” (p. 185). And no other options exist! What happened to pragmatism, empiricism, rationalism, critical idealism, existentialism, Marxism, or other philosophical theories?
No compelling reason to accept social constructivism or Conversation Theory is to be found in the entire Atlas, you’re just “an annoyed librarian” if you disagree.Next time
Summing up, The Atlas of New Librarianship is pretty much a let-down. It adopts a relativist world-view, it is philosophically sloppy and it ignores the existence of any competing philosophy of librarianship. Of course, I realize that there are a few librarians who don’t see that there is anything wrong with relativism. So, in the next post, I’ll try to provide both arguments and examples of the dangers of relativistic thinking in library science. From impeding learning to reinforcing social divisions, epistemological constructivism is not the path we as librarians want to be taking. We need a better map.
Thank you for saving me some angst. Since I'm (a) retired and (b) not really a librarian, I don't think I'd have purchased TANL anyway–but I might have wondered what I was missing. Since I've nudged at Lankes on the whole "everything's conversation" thing before, and felt like I was pushing at a wall of Jello, I'll just avoid it this time.
waltc: Actually, from a practical standpoint, the book is worth reading as it offers a lot of great advice for librarianship. It's just the theoretical, philosophical parts that need to be avoided.
"like"
I'm disappointed that Lankes gets the philosophy so wrong, but I'm more concerned about what great advice Lankes has for librarianship. I'd be happy to strip away the bogus philosophical underpinning to get to the good advice. (Though if the good advice grew out of a coherent theoretical view of librarianship, even better.) Does Lankes offer anything new or revolutionary as far as how librarians should think about their future, or is it just a rehash? (By the way, I think Paul Boghossian is still alive, though you might be privy to some very recent news that I'm not.)
Paul H.: I'm working on a post summarizing the good parts of Lankes' theory, but I'm afraid it's slim pickings. Most of what he writes is more theoretical than practical. Indeed, most of his book hangs its hat on Conversation Theory. As to the new or revolutionary, again, there isn't very much; it is in fact a rehash. Perhaps librarians who haven't changed their worldviews in a few decades will find something new, but for librarians who follow the trends, it's not a terribly original work. I'll try to get a more positive post up soon.(And that Boghossian thing was a gross error on my part. I was going to recommend something by the late Bertrand Russell, then changed my mind in favor of the newer book. Professor Boghossian is, indeed, alive and kicking!)
Sounds good, Lane. I'm looking forward to your next post. It seems that Lankes has a lot invested in Conversation Theory, which is too bad; I think it's a loser. He should cut it loose.
As someone who really enjoys Lankes's lectures, the day after I got this book though ILL I had to send it back. While I do agree with your philosophical arguments against the content (from the short sections I read), those diagrams and maps in the book are impossible to read. 3 point font, maybe? I'm in my 20s with perfect near-sighted vision and I couldn't read the smallest print without my nose being an inch from the page. I honestly think it's the only time that a book's design has offended me.
NewLibrarian: I know what you mean; it's especially bad that the full-size, fold-out map in the back seems to be even more illegible. In any event, the map itself is a distraction and you can safely ignore it.
[…] enthielt nicht nur eine ausführliche, sehr kritische Besprechung von Lankes’ Buch, sondern in anderen Beiträgen faszinierende Auseinandersetzungen mit grundsätzlichen […]
[…] Today’s class made me want to add one or two observations to my discussion of the “knowledge creation thread.” In particular I was intrigued by a blog post Prof. Lankes brought to the attention of the class. The blog post, written by Lane Wilkinson, expressed enthusiasm for the scope of the The Atlas, but ultimately rejected the Atlas for it’s “relativist world view.” A link to the blog post can be found here. […]
[…] New Librarianship a very problematic framework for the profession. At the time the book came out, I criticized it for it’s social constructionism and I argued that the “Conversation Theory” of […]
[…] I approached the masterclass in a practical fashion. As a newbie in the field I am, pardon the expression, a bit of a ‘blank slate’ since I have yet to complete any formal librarianship training and had only my own learning as a starting point. The philosophical discussion at the beginning of the masterclass on worldview, Conversation Theory and constructivism was important. I agree that a solid worldview and values, whether stated or unstated, underpin our thinking and the way we approach the world and librarianship. However the constructivist idea that knowledge and truth are created and agreed on by individuals and the community is one I’m not entirely comfortable with. Lane Wilkinson discusses this much more intelligently in his blog. […]
[…] There was quite a bit of theoretical discussion but I definitely approached the masterclass in a practical fashion. As a newbie in the field I am, pardon the expression, a bit of a ‘blank slate’ since I have yet to complete any formal librarianship training and had only my own learning as a starting point. The discussions of worldview, Conversation Theory and constructivism were important and I agree that a solid worldview and values, whether stated or unstated, underpin our thinking and the way we approach the world and librarianship. However the constructivist idea that knowledge and truth are created and agreed on by individuals and the community is one I’m not entirely comfortable with. Lane Wilkinson discusses this much more intelligently in his blog. […]
[…] Lane Wilkenson’s Review of the Atlas https://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/the-atlas-of-new-librarianship-essential-readings-… […]
[…] The Atlas of New Librarianship (Essential Readings in the Philosophy of LIS) by Lane Wilkinson (Sense and Reference, May 13, 2011) […]