continued thinking about subtext or theory in LIS

“Some modes of coaching are useful mostly for creating receptors – frameworks and mental architecture – for subsequent experiential learning. On the other hand, the more experience-based the mode, the more likely that the protégé is recreating at least some of the tacit dimensions of knowledge that make the coach an expert.” ”While all modes of transfer can be useful, we will argue that the less interactive modes transfer much less real knowledge than do those involving interaction and guided experience (Leonard and Swap, 2005: 192-193) [emphasis theirs].” And, “[r]elating stories based on past experience can be an effective way of transferring lessons learned from experience, because such lessons are very likely to be remembered (Leonard and Swap, 2005: 196-197).”

I’ve talked about a lack of subtext or theory in the literature and, as we all know, there is a preponderance of “how I done it in my library” articles, designated as descriptive articles by Koufogiannakis et al (2004). The quote above says to me that there is room for both approaches, the subtext and descriptions of experiential learning, in the LIS field. The problem as I currently see it is the preponderance of examples of experiential learning without having created frameworks or mental architecture that will help us connect these experiences with each other and with a larger picture. Perhaps we in the LIS field are praying for a tipping point in experience (lets call each experience a micro theory) to achieve a macro theory based on shared experiences?

But please note a significant issue: the preponderance of shared experiences in articles is one-sided in that these usually only deliver the successes and not the experience of trial and error, along with what did NOT work. So the question becomes, how useful or good are these micro-theories? Especially if you believe in the tipping point approach noted above.

Why such a preponderance of descriptive articles? Is this because no subtext is taught within our library school programs? Is it because we are process driven? Do we not care about our theoretical context or such a thing is irrelevant? Also, what impact do values have on theory? What values do we coalesce around? Why is this important? Does meaningful change occur around these values (and beliefs), since these inform our conceptual/knowledge frameworks? Values and beliefs are not about where you are or where you want to be, but more about who you are?

Time to do more reading…

Leonard, D. and W. Swap. 2005. Deep Smarts. Boston: Harvard Business School