The pragmatics of weeding

IF 1.7 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of Documentation Pub Date : 2021-05-17 DOI:10.1108/jd-01-2021-0003
Betsy Van der Veer Martens
{"title":"The pragmatics of weeding","authors":"Betsy Van der Veer Martens","doi":"10.1108/jd-01-2021-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this research is to investigate the language of “weeding” (library deselection) within public library collection development policies in order to examine whether such policies and practices can be usefully connected to library and information science (LIS) theory, specifically to “Deweyan pragmatic adaptation” as suggested by Buschman (2017) in the pages of this journal.Design/methodology/approachThis is a policy analysis of collection deselection policies from the 50 public libraries serving US state capitals, using Bacchi’s policy problem representation technique.Findings“Weeding” as described by these public library collection deselection policies is clearly pragmatic and oriented to increasing circulation to patrons, but the “Deweyan pragmatic adaptation” as reflected by many of those reviewed might better be defined as the pragmatism of Melvil Dewey rather than that of John Dewey.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough this work reviewed policies from a very small sample of US public libraries, collection, selection and deselection language as shown in the policies studied appear to be consistent with neoliberal priorities and values in terms of prioritizing “circulation” and “customers,” which may have additional implications for the current transition from print to electronic materials in public librariesOriginality/valueJohn Dewey’s political philosophy and Carol Bacchi’s policy problem representation technique have not been widely used in policy analysis by LIS researchers, and this paper offers a number of suggestions for similar public library policy investigations.","PeriodicalId":47969,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Documentation","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Documentation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jd-01-2021-0003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this research is to investigate the language of “weeding” (library deselection) within public library collection development policies in order to examine whether such policies and practices can be usefully connected to library and information science (LIS) theory, specifically to “Deweyan pragmatic adaptation” as suggested by Buschman (2017) in the pages of this journal.Design/methodology/approachThis is a policy analysis of collection deselection policies from the 50 public libraries serving US state capitals, using Bacchi’s policy problem representation technique.Findings“Weeding” as described by these public library collection deselection policies is clearly pragmatic and oriented to increasing circulation to patrons, but the “Deweyan pragmatic adaptation” as reflected by many of those reviewed might better be defined as the pragmatism of Melvil Dewey rather than that of John Dewey.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough this work reviewed policies from a very small sample of US public libraries, collection, selection and deselection language as shown in the policies studied appear to be consistent with neoliberal priorities and values in terms of prioritizing “circulation” and “customers,” which may have additional implications for the current transition from print to electronic materials in public librariesOriginality/valueJohn Dewey’s political philosophy and Carol Bacchi’s policy problem representation technique have not been widely used in policy analysis by LIS researchers, and this paper offers a number of suggestions for similar public library policy investigations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
除草的语用学
本研究的目的是调查公共图书馆馆藏发展政策中“除草”(图书馆去选择)的语言,以检验这些政策和实践是否可以有效地与图书馆情报学(LIS)理论联系起来,特别是与Buschman(2017)在本刊中提出的“杜威言语用适应”联系起来。设计/方法/方法这是对50家为美国各州首府服务的公共图书馆的藏书取消政策的政策分析,使用了Bacchi的政策问题表示技术。这些公共图书馆馆藏取消政策所描述的“除草”显然是务实的,并以增加读者的流通量为导向,但许多评论所反映的“杜威实用主义适应”可能更好地被定义为梅尔维尔·杜威的实用主义,而不是约翰·杜威的实用主义。研究的局限性/意义虽然这项工作从美国公共图书馆的一个非常小的样本中审查了政策,但所研究的政策中显示的收集,选择和取消选择语言似乎与新自由主义的优先事项和价值观一致,优先考虑“流通”和“客户”。原创性/价值约翰·杜威的政治哲学和卡罗尔·巴奇的政策问题表征技术尚未被美国研究者广泛应用于政策分析,本文为类似的公共图书馆政策调查提供了一些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Documentation
Journal of Documentation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: The scope of the Journal of Documentation is broadly information sciences, encompassing all of the academic and professional disciplines which deal with recorded information. These include, but are certainly not limited to: ■Information science, librarianship and related disciplines ■Information and knowledge management ■Information and knowledge organisation ■Information seeking and retrieval, and human information behaviour ■Information and digital literacies
期刊最新文献
Dancing with the devil: the use and perceptions of academic journal ranking lists in the management field From amused to : enriching mood metadata by mapping textual descriptors to emojis for fiction reading The in-between: information experience within human-companion animal living environments Influence of Dervin’s sensemaking methodology determined through citation context analysis, content analysis and bibliometrics Toward an extended metadata standard for digital art
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1