Saúl Schindler | Saúl's MLIS Info Portal (2024)

May 15, 2022 Saúl SchindlerLeave a comment

This past semester has been a very interesting experience, to say the least. Through the iterative process of investigating and researching my information community, I am in effect walking away with more questions as opposed to clear answers. In terms of LIS, and in terms of the scientific process itself, this bodes well for further discussion and investigation into how I can best serve the information community of musicians, or any other information community, for that matter. It seems only fitting that inquiry would beget curiosity, and vice versa, and my experiences in INFO 200 certainly followed that trajectory as well.

With regards to academic writing, the class readings and related course work have been effective tools in terms of strengthening my writing, and in increasing my familiarity and comfort level with scholarly peer-reviewed articles. However, I am beginning to see academic writing as its own subset of language, a regional dialect, if you will, not unlike a style of music with its own aesthetics and tropes. It seems to function as a vehicle of transporting abstract ideas, yet in terms of information professionals and their role in public service, it ultimately does not appear to be extraordinarily practical. That said, I feel it is important for one to have familiarity and skills with academic writing, yet I also view it as reflecting a cultural agenda that is not entirely inclusionary, not unlike Western European art music. Academic writing has its place and context, and should be recognized as such, but from my perspective, not over esteemed. My issues with academic writing notwithstanding, I am grateful for the repeated opportunities throughout the semester to focus on its craft, and as such, I would think it has improved as well. I feel most importantly, in terms of the practices I will bring forward as an information professional, curiosity and receptivity will undergird and inform their perennial development, as I continue moving forward on my path towards librarianship.

#Reflection (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

@slcschindler

May 6, 2022 Saúl SchindlerLeave a comment

Note: Click on individual slides to enlarge or click here to view original infographic.

@slcschindler

May 1, 2022 Saúl SchindlerLeave a comment

(CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

In previous blog posts and through my research thus far, I have defined musicians as those engaging in musical creative activities (e.g., composition, improvisation/performance, and listening/analysis), with the goal of producing musical creative products (e.g., music scores and recordings, recorded performances and improvisations, and written analyses) as outlined by Lavranos et al. (2015). Through information literacy and music information seeking, Lavranos et al. also posit musical creativity as a “means for cultural preservation, enrichment and growth as individuals become acquainted with their tradition and identity (or with other traditions and identities) through effective music information assimilation” (2015, p. 1087). Unfortunately, I have yet to find peer reviewed studies documenting specific instances of the library itself facilitating such exchanges through its programming, but I would like to highlight insights gleaned though Niknafs’ (2016) narrative inquiry of an Iranian rock musician, and propose that libraries be able to hold space for these types of exchanges to unfold as well.

Within and beyond the context of post-revolutionary Iran, Niknafs recounts music and music education’s tight control by state authorities. Through this lens, Niknafs documents his experiences with Raam, an underground Iranian rock musician, who along with fellow Iranian musicians, developed an underground music scene from an anarchist point of view, steeped in a do-it-yourself (DIY) ethic that “became one of Iran’s core music learning and teaching platforms where creativity, collaboration, and a sense of camaraderie set the tone for the movement, striving for change through self-expression” (2016, p. 351). This is particularly important, as this collaborative angle reflects a grassroots approach as opposed to the typical top-down model of music educational/information exchange, reflected in “the inherent hierarchies, methodologies and operations of music education” (Tan, 2021, p. 152). This anarchistic approach, as described by Niknafs necessitates a continual experimentation with ideas, temperaments, and situations with smaller local musician communities without fixed rules to abide by. Ultimately, Niknafs posits this approach as having “the power of transformation and hope” (2016, p. 361).

With regards to musicians, research corroborates the importance of information exchange through peer networks (Hunter, 2006; Lavranos et al., 2015; Lavranos et al., 2016), and Raam’s experience as documented by Niknafs’ ethnographic narrative reinforces this point all that much more. Raam’s story underscores the importance of education, information exchange, and learning from peers as opposed to learning from “expert musicians” whose backgrounds do not reflect the interests of those who have often been excluded in the discourse of music education (Niknafs, 2016, p. 362).

As demonstrated by Niknafs (2016) in Iran, our current point in time is an opportune moment to “think more critically about the ways music education [and music information exchange] can be defined and developed in other [emphasis in original] parts of the world that are not necessarily about a certain genre of music or style of music making, but rather a lifestyle or a survival act” (Niknafs, 2016, p. 362). With that in mind, the question I pose to information professionals is, can libraries facilitate these types of exchanges through their facilities’ open spaces and/or programming? My position is that they most certainly can, should we follow Raam’s example and become more attuned to the informational and cultural needs of local musicians.

References:

Hunter, B. (2006). A new breed of musicians: The information-seeking needs and behaviors of composers of electroacoustic music. Music Reference Services Quarterly, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/J116v10n01_01

Lavranos, C., Kostagiolas, P. A., Korfiatis, N., & Papadatos, J. (2016). Information seeking for musical creativity: A systematic literature review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2105–2117. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23534

Lavranos, C., Kostagiolas, P. A., Martzoukou, K., & Papadatos, J. (2015). Music information seeking behaviour as motivator for musical creativity: Conceptual analysis and literature review. Journal of Documentation, 71(5), 1070–1093. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2014-0139

Niknafs, N. (2016). In a box: A narrative of a/n (under)grounded Iranian musician. Music Education Research, 18(4), 351-363. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2016.1202222

Tan, S. E. (2021). Whose decolonisation? Checking for intersectionality, lane-policing and academic privilege from a transnational (Chinese) vantage point. Ethnomusicology Forum, 30(1), 140-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17411912.2021.1938447

(CC BY 2.0)

@slcschindler

April 24, 2022 Saúl Schindler4 Comments

(CC BY 2.0)

As noted in previous my blog posts, the information community of musicians is a diverse group of people, with varying information needs that display different information-seeking behavior. Given the library’s role in providing resources and learning opportunities for its users, it only seems a logical extension to have a wide variety of music-related programming geared specifically towards musicians. That said, apart from articles pertaining to library programming for children (Brown, 2009; McEwing, 2011), there seems to be an unfortunate dearth of peer reviewed literature with regards to addressing learning opportunities and programs for musicians. However, as discovered through a supplemental reconnaissance of the Internet, a handful of libraries are already tapping into creative and imaginative ways to provide their musician patrons with innovative learning opportunities (Jackson, 2016; Kroll, 2021).

An interesting exception within the peer reviewed literature I found was at the Oviatt Library, a part of California State University Northridge, that since February 2016 has implemented spoken word poetry and hip-hop music on several occasions to address the changing demographics of its student body (Williams and Stover, 2019). Despite initial resistance by CSUN’s administration, Williams and Stover argued that “cultural ignorance or ethnocentric elitism are no excuse for denying librarians the chance to engage library users with relevant artistic formats and cutting-edge presentations” (2019, p. 220). As one might imagine, surveys indicated the programming was enjoyed by its participants, and furthermore they “felt engaged and affirmed” (Williams and Stover, 2019, p. 219). Aside from providing a context for a musical creative activity that resulted in a musical creative product (e.g., improvisation and performance) (Lavranos et al., 2015), programming of this nature is an important step as it “represents a radical, though logical, change from the traditional academic library of the past” (Williams and Stover, p. 220).

Regarding the efforts of other libraries, at the Free Library of Philadelphia, several librarians with musical backgrounds have incorporated programming ranging from organizing concerts, virtual book discussions of musicians’ biographies (e.g., Billie Holiday, Thelonious Monk), drum circles, hip-hop/open mic poetry, Puerto Rican music (e.g., bomba, plena), guitar lessons, and music for children supporting early language development and early literacy skills (Kroll, 2021). Another example of innovative learning opportunities can be seen at the Sacramento Public Library, where patrons can access ArtistWorks (within Overdrive’s Libby), and obtain self-paced video music lessons from professional musicians, ranging from beginner to advanced levels, on a variety of popular band instruments and voice. Another program of note was Cincinnati Library’s “Little Bits Synthesizer Orchestra” where participants were able to build their own synthesizers “through Korg Little Bits Synth modules and concluded with a performance of the sounds made with their creation” (Jackson, 2016).

While these undoubtedly serve as prime examples of learning opportunities obtainable through library programming and information centers, I feel there is ample room for creative programming of a constructivist nature related to music theory (e.g., chords, scales, harmony, chord progressions), whereby amateur musicians can learn to analyze their preferred styles of music, thereby empowering them in further creative pursuits. As a counterpart to that, with social justice in mind, larger discussions regarding the historically problematic nature of Western music are continuing to unfold, ultimately calling for the “decolonization” of music (Attas and Walker, 2019; Robinson, 2019); as such, library programming could provide opportunities to engage with that dialogue as well. Fundamentally, music, musical creative activities, and musical creative products should be accessible and producible by all. Therefore, libraries have a responsibility to assist musicians in finding their own “voice through narrative” and develop “programming that is, at its essence, rooted in diverse… culture” (Williams and Stover, 2019, p. 219). Given the time we live in and the technological tools we have within reach, this seems entirely feasible and achievable through further innovation and development.

References:

Attas, R., & Walker, M. E. (2019). Exploring decolonization, music, and pedagogy: Editorial. Intersections, 39(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075339ar

Brown, A. (2009). Don’t stop the music! Creating tuneful times at your library. Children & Libraries, 7(2), 36-42. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/openview/9f60cd84854169bdc011e8423f286fd6/1?cbl=52910&pq-origsite=gscholar

How the Sacramento public library gives patrons world-class music instruction from master musicians. (2022, January 4). OverDrive. https://company.overdrive.com/2022/01/04/how-the-sacramento-public-library-gives-patrons-world-class-music-instruction-from-master-musicians/

Jackson, P. (2016, April 28). Music in the library. Public Libraries Online. http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2016/04/music-in-the-library/

Kroll, Y. (2021, May 30). Philly librarians bring music to the masses. WXPN. https://xpn.org/2021/05/30/philly-librarians-music/

McEwing, H. E. (2011). Music, movement, and early literacy: A best practices primer for “gotta move!”. Children & Libraries, 9(2), 29-35. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/scholarly-journals/music-movement-early-literacy-best-practices/docview/884340836/se-2?accountid=10361

Robinson, D. (2019). To all who should be concerned. Intersections, 39(1), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075347ar

Williams, D., & Stover, M. (2019). Front and center: Hip-hop and spoken word poetry in academic libraries. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 19(2), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2019.0012

(CC BY 2.0)

@slcschindler

ImageMarch 14, 2022 Saúl Schindler2 Comments

Regarding the four authors of this study: Charilaos Lavranos is a researcher at the Ionian University in Corfu, Greece. He holds a Ph.D. from the Department of Music Studies and an M.Sc. in “Management of Cultural Heritage Documents” from the Department of Archives, Library Science and Museology, Ionian University. According to researchgate.net, he has 29 publications, and has been cited 160 times. Petros A. Kostagiolas currently works at the Department of Archives, Library Science and Museum Studies at the Ionian University in Corfu, Greece. Known for his research in Information Science, Computing in Social Science, Arts and Humanities and Computer and Society, he is listed on researchgate.net as having 152 publications, and has been cited 891 times. Konstantina Martzoukou is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and holds a PhD in Information Seeking Behaviour and a Certificate in Leadership and Management (ILM L5). A member of the Department of Information Management, at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, U. K., her research covers several related areas of focus including information-seeking behavior, information literacy, and digital literacy with a focus on everyday life activities. Lastly, Joseph Papadatos is a Faculty Member of the Department of Music Studies at the Ionian University in Corfu, Greece, and as reported by researchgate.net, he has 11 publications and has been cited 115 times.

In this conceptual article by Lavranos et al., the correlation “between musicians’ information seeking behaviour and the creative process in music,” is examined while “providing a framework for understanding the role of information needs satisfaction in musical creativity (2015, p. 1070). According to Lavranos et al., although several studies have already investigated the multiple variables involved in music-related information seeking behavior (e.g., cognitive, affective, behavioral, contextual), relatively few have looked at musicians’ creative activities (e.g., composition, performance/improvisation, listening/analysis) through the lens of information seeking behavior (2015, p. 1070). Per Lavranos et al., their intention is to propose a structure by which information seeking behavior intended to fulfill the information needs of musical creative activities can be studied (2015). They execute this approach by coalescing Wilson’s (1999) nested information behavior model, and the conceptual speculations within Webster’s (2002) music creative thinking model (Lavranos et al., 2015).

Wilson’s nested information behaviour model

Webster’s model of creative thinking in music

The key elements from both theoretical angles form the basis of a combined framework for the information seeking behavior of musical creativity, subsequently supplemented by myriad research findings from the literature of both musical information seeking and musical creativity (Lavranos et al., 2015). The theoretical speculation proposed by Lavranos et al. illuminates an amalgamated form fused by “information needs, information resources and environmental/personal barriers, which enable musical creativity” (2015, p. 1084). From the perspective of Lavranos et al., “musical creativity” is viewed as the intention informing a musician’s motivation for expression, additionally impacted by the way the musician seeks information, and furthermore influenced by accessible information resources and the effectiveness of the musician’s information seeking abilities (2015, p. 1084).

Source: Lavranos, et al. (2015)

A conceptual information seeking behaviour model for musical creativity

Lavranos et al. acknowledge the limitations of the paper’s conceptual nature in that it does not allow space for detailed analysis, however they do mark three notable findings as the result of their research (2015, p. 1084). First off, considering the varied intentions informing diverse musical creative needs among musicians (e.g., composition, performance/improvisation, listening/analysis), and the multiple sources of information (e.g., conventional, digital, etc.), information services could be better formulated to “take into account the musicians’ information behaviour patterns and thus explicitly [emphasis added] support musical creativity” (Lavranos et al., 2015, p. 1085). Second, Lavranos et al. stress the importance of appropriate intervention to foster information literacy skills among musicians, a key component in stimulating the oscillation between divergent and convergent thinking (Webster, 2002) as musicians generate their musical creative products (e.g., compositions, recordings, analyses, etc.) (2015, pp. 1085-1086). This is significant with regards to musical creativity, as information literacy empowers musicians to remove the personal and environmental obstacles they face during their creative processes (Lavranos et al., 2015, p. 1086). Lastly, Lavranos et al. suggest that music information seeking and information literacy for creative activities engender a form of “cultural preservation,” as the development and growth of musicians become familiar with “their tradition and identity (or with other traditions and identities) through effective music information assimilation” (2015, p. 1087). In the end, Lavranos et al. emphasized the need for additional qualitative and quantitative research and acknowledged the likelihood of unveiling additional relational factors between them. But according to the awareness of the authors, as of 2015, their research was the first of its kind to analyze the relationship between musical creativity and information seeking behavior.

I felt this article validated my experience as a musician, and the observations I’ve made regarding other musicians. The reality is that we come in many different forms and guises, with contrasting ambitions and goals, requiring divergent information needs, furthermore spawning assorted information behaviors in hopes of executing our visions. While numerous readings come to mind in terms of the ways in which information seeking has been described, what strongly resonates with me regarding the recommendations made by Lavranos et al., is Kuhlthau’s (2009) “zone of intervention,” particularly when it comes to aiding musicians in the development of information literacy skills, satisfying their information needs, and ultimately aiding them in the development and expression of their identity. This article was an exceptional find while researching my information community, not only for its conceptual information seeking behavior model for musical creativity, but its references and sources have been yielding dividends as well in terms of further research.

References:

Kuhlthau, C.C., (2009). Information Search Process (ISP) Model. In M. J. Bates, & M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3^rd ed., pp. 2586-2591). Taylor and Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120043229

Webster, P. (2002), Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In Sullivan, T. and Willingham, L. (Eds.), Creativity and Music Education, (pp. 16-34). Britannia Printers. http://www.peterrwebster.com/pubs/WillinghamBook.pdf

Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007145

@slcschindler

March 7, 2022 Saúl Schindler1 Comment

CC BY-SA2.0

As mentioned in my previous Blog Post, the information community of musicians is multi-faceted and diverse, comprised of varying music-related roles including, but not limited to: students, educators, amateurs, professionals and hobbyists. In my research thus far, what has emerged as a crucial factor when examining them is the context in which they operate. Context in information needs and seeking research (INS) “refers to any factors or variables that are seen to affect individuals’ information seeking behavior” (Talja et al., 1999, p. 752). Considering the assortment of musician-types, their needs and behaviors will therefore differ depending on their respective roles and situations.

In essence, within the realm of musicians, varying information needs necessitate varying resources from which musical creativity and creative activities transpire (Lavranos, et al., 2016). Research methods revealed three groupings of musician-related information needs and information resources: (i) those for Music Composition activities, (ii) those for Music Performance and Improvisation activities, and (iii) those for Music Listening and Analysis activities (Lavranos, et al., 2016). Consequently, these three themes of activities begat three sets of information needs, calling for three categories of information resources (Lavranos, et al., 2016). For the sake of brevity, I will group examples of information needs and information resources cumulatively. Information needs include, but are not limited to, knowledge regarding digital signal processing (Hunter, 2006), aesthetic qualities, properties of musical instruments, musical scores (both digital and physical), audio/visual recordings, musical styles, genres, entertainment, etc. In short, the information needs of musicians range from the utilitarian to the hedonic (Lavranos, et al., 2016). In turn, these information needs are fulfilled through information resources ranging from, but without limitation to, books, periodicals, discographies, Internet-related networks and resources, libraries (both public and academic), archives, music stores, music identification software (e.g., Shazam), cloud-based music services (e.g., Spotify), and video-sharing sites (e.g., YouTube) (Lavranos, et al., 2016). It should also be noted that considerable amounts of information resources are acquired and disseminated through personal connections (e.g., colleagues, social networks, performers, professors, and friends) (Lavranos, et al., 2016). In a separate, related study, a framework for examining the cumulative information-seeking behaviors of musicians was developed using Wilson’s nested ISB model (1999), combined with Webster’s model of creative thinking in music (2002) (Lavranos, et al., 2015). These studies offer a glimpse into the multi-layered nature of musical creativity within different environments and roles, further emphasizing the various contexts within the overall information community of musicians.

Additionally, due to the variety of information needs and information-seeking behaviors of musicians, Bates’ concept of “berrypicking” (1989) is certainly worth bearing in mind with regards to addressing these numerous factors, mainly due to the nonlinear nature of the deportment of musicians. Divergent contexts aside, another significant study by Hartel et al. (2016) presents a different angle from which the information community of musicians can be viewed; that being through Hektor’s model of information behavior combined with the serious leisure perspective with regards to amateur musicians. Through their research, Hartel et al. (2016) explicate the ways in which amateur musicians exemplify the eight information activities (Search and Retrieve, Browse, Monitor, Unfold, Exchange, Dress, Instruct, and Publish) named by Hektor. Ultimately, what is clear when regarding the information needs and information-seeking behavior of musicians is that they evidently vary, and in tandem, so do the models and theories within LIS literature used in consideration of their information community.

References:

Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024320

Hartel, J., Cox, A.M. & Griffin, B.L. (2016). Information activity in serious leisure. Information Research, 21(4), paper728. Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/21-4/paper728.html

Talja, S., Keso, H., & Pietiläinen, T. (1999). The production of “context” in information seeking research: A metatheoretical view. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00024-2

Webster, P. (2002), Creative thinking in music: Advancing a model. In Sullivan, T. and Willingham, L. (Eds.), Creativity and Music Education, (pp. 16-34). Britannia Printers.

Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007145

@slcschindler

February 28, 2022 Saúl Schindler1 Comment

As the omnipotence of the digital world increasingly interweaves into virtually every aspect of our lives, automated systems have been incorporated into facilitating and managing certain social services for some time now. These technological tools are the central focus of Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (2018), by Virginia Eubanks. Eubanks posits that these technological advancements implemented in the name of cost-efficiency have disproportionally and unjustly affected thousands upon thousands of people experiencing poverty in the United States. Through her informative, research-based narrative, she denotes how these automated systems are not impartial or objective at all. On the contrary, these systemic machinations are modern iterations of tools reinforcing the biases and contempt held towards poor people endemic in American history. Eubanks states the use of these technologies not only add to the disadvantages faced by the poor and working-class, they also negatively alter the nature of democracy for everyone (2018, p. 16). Yet, Eubanks’ work does not dwell in despair, she ultimately advocates for a world informed by liberty, equity, and inclusion (2018, p. 138). At the book’s conclusion, she states, “To build instead a world of justice and abundance, we will need to design for equity, on purpose, brick by brick and byte by byte” (2018, p. 159). Eubanks places a firm emphasis on our collective humanity, the shared responsibility we have toward one another, and that it’s beyond time for our ethical evolution to catch up to the pace of the digital revolution (2018, p. 154).

By 2014, Eubanks’ community-based research into the effects of technology on marginalized groups had dated back approximately 20 years. But she became particularly inspired in writing the book after facing repeated challenges in the aftermath of her partner’s recovery from a horrific, violent attack. The obstacles they faced pointed towards having been algorithmically flagged for potential medical claim fraud due to the immense costs incurred by her partner’s recovery. Knowing others wouldn’t have fared as well as they had based on the support they received, not to mention their socio-economic status, Eubanks forged ahead into researching and writing about the damaging effects of algorithms, databases, and surveillance technology; what she refers to as “digital poorhouses” (2018, p. 17). She accomplishes this by examining three different disadvantaged communities in three different parts of America. These stories were chosen as diverse regional samples demonstrating how quickly the ethical and technical complexity of automated decision making has increased in the last decade. Prior to the case-studies, Eubanks outlines a historical context denoting the evolution of the poorhouses from the 1820s, to the progress of increased rights obtained by the poor and working-class through organized protest, to the post-New Deal backlash against these advancements in the 1970s, to our current situation in America. What becomes apparent is an ongoing debate between those who want to mitigate and/or eradicate poverty and those who want to “blame, imprison, and punish the poor.” (Eubanks, 2018, p. 20) Eubanks stresses it is in everyone’s best interest to focus on the former, as opposed the latter in that perennial debate.

Eubanks starts off in the state of Indiana, explicating a computer system designed to weed out “free-loaders” and “chiselers” that denied approximately one million applications over the course of three years for cash benefits, food stamps, and health care. Human caseworkers versed in the nuances of peoples’ unique situations were removed from the application process, and any perceived error in the automated system was deemed as a “failure to cooperate;” thereby rendering many desperately in need of assistance ineligible. Next, in Los Angeles, Eubanks chronicled an algorithm calculating the perceived vulnerability of tens of thousands of people experiencing homelessness from a very limited pool of available housing. Interestingly, the algorithm often overlooked those who would have benefitted most, and ill-equipped those it did help, placing them in a precarious position, whereby returning to homelessness was a real possibility. Lastly, Eubanks investigated a child welfare organization in Allegheny, Pennsylvania where a statistical-risk model attempted to prognosticate which children would become future victims of abuse or neglect. Paradoxically, parents seeking assistance to improve their situation in life were given help at the expense of having it held against them, thereby increasing the odds of their children being removed from their households. From the three scenarios, it becomes abundantly clear that tweaks in technology will not rectify centuries-in-the-making, deep seated, systemic inequity. Eubanks writes, “It will take profound changes to culture, politics, and personal ethics… The most important step in dismantling the digital poorhouse is changing how we think, talk, and feel about poverty” (2018, p. 146).

While the path forward is not entirely clear, I can’t fault Eubanks for lacking a prescriptive vision, as that would be antithetical to the agency of poor and working-class communities, progressive allies, and others cooperatively fighting for equity and social justice. Instead, she poses several important questions while referencing other key elements of notable historical movements, emphasizing their utility in the pathway forward. Ultimately, as Eubanks notes, “A true revolution will start where people are” (2018, p. 154).

Reflecting on Eubanks’ work, and those involved in the fight for social justice, I see clear correlations between people working towards shared interests and the kinship of solidarity in sharing deeply held beliefs, to the affinity and primordial angles of information communities, as described by Christensen and Levinson (2003). Furthermore, with regards to the larger conversation of liberty, equity, and inclusion, as information professionals I feel we have a moral and ethical duty to reflect upon the ways in which libraries have (in)directly contributed to structural inequities as well. Despite our best intentions, there is much work to be done, so we may live up to the ideals we espouse, while aiding others in their quest to achieve their own ideals through their own agency.

References:

Christensen, K., & Levinson, D. (2003). Introduction & reader’s guide. In K. Christensen, & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world, xxi-xxiiii. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference. http://dx.doi.org.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/10.4135/9781412952583.n248

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. Picador E-Books. (Original work published 2017)

Saúl Schindler | Saúl's MLIS Info Portal (16)

ImageFebruary 20, 2022 Saúl Schindler4 Comments

Musicians Guitar CC0 BY 1.0

This semester, I’m electing to investigate the information-seeking behavior and information needs within the larger information community of musicians. As you might imagine, musicians come in many different shapes and forms; be they students, educators, amateurs, professionals, hobbyists, or myriad other guises. But at its core, the larger musician community is certainly viewable through the four lenses provided by Christensen and Levinson (2003) in their introduction to Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World:

Affinity: Musicians typically have common interests, but most notably, they share an interest in the multi-faceted dimensions of music itself.
Instrumental: Musicians are often involved in similar goal-oriented tasks (i.e., improving their technical abilities, imparting musical knowledge, performance, songwriting, etc.).
Primordial: The community of musicians can be formed by ethnic or cultural traditions, an educational institution, preferred musical genres, or a specific aspect of music (i.e., specific instrument played, composition, analysis, etc.).
Proximate: A community of musicians can form geographically along the lines of a church choir, a local music scene, or a local music school, etc.

As Fisher and Bishop note, the ways in which a musician community can be viewed “are not mutually exclusive,” and furthermore, they can superimpose one another (2015). It should also be noted the advent of the Internet has significantly altered the degree to which these angles further interrelate.

Additionally, musicians seem to share the five common characteristics of information communities as described by Fisher and Durrance (2003):

As mentioned above, by means of the Internet, musicians can “exploit the information sharing qualities of technology” through social media platforms (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.)
Musicians “emphasize collaboration” in the form of bands, ensembles, through their peers, or other information sharing avenues on and beyond the scope of the Internet.
Musician communities develop repositories of information such as Open Music Theory, and IMSLP formed “around people’s needs to access and use information in ways that people perceive as helpful.”
Musicians “remove barriers to information” through the transmission of knowledge amongst themselves, and through peer-based networks.
Musicians, also “foster social connectedness within the larger community.” Thereby facilitating the dissemination of music practice and theory to others within and beyond the realms of musicians themselves.

Despite the wide variety of musicians, and the many ways they interact and present themselves, they ultimately seem to conform to Fisher and Bishop’s definition of an information community as they “share a commonality and work together toward sharing information in support of that commonality in an optimal way” (2015). Yet, as one might expect due to disparate types of musicians, some of my preliminary research indicates their information-seeking processes vary considerably, and most certainly will not abide by a one-size-fits-all model (Hunter, 2006). Asymmetry aside, previous LIS models by Bates, Ellis, Hektor, Kuhlthau, and Wilson look promising with regards to further research on this topic.

References:

Fisher, K. E., & Bishop, A. P. (2015). Information communities: Defining the focus of information service. In S. Hirsh (Ed.). Information services today: An introduction, 20-26. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/lib/sjsu/reader.action?docID=2032756&ppg=53

Hartel, J., Cox, A. M., & Griffin, B. L. (2016). Information activity in serious leisure. Information Research, 21(4), 1-16. https://csu-sjsu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CALS_SJO/1nj5q0c/cdi_eric_primary_EJ1123254

Hands Music CC0 BY 1.0

February 18, 2022 Saúl Schindler1 Comment

Greetings, all! My name is Saúl, I was born and raised in San Francisco, CA, and I’m very fortunate to still reside here. Having grown up in an urban, multicultural environment, I’ve had the opportunity to interact with people from myriad backgrounds, cultures, and traditions. As such, I very much relate to the experience of a chameleon, so narrowing my focus to one information community initially felt challenging. However, my passion for music has remained an undeniable constant throughout. So, with that in mind, please allow me to give you a bit further background.

When I was younger, I played clarinet in elementary school, and alto saxophone in middle and high school. While I enjoyed these group experiences, I fell under the electric guitar’s alluring spell when I was thirteen upon discovering hard rock and heavy metal. In my early twenties, I studied with a pupil of Joe Satriani’s, which was undoubtedly transformative, but my passion for music ultimately transcends “shredding” on the guitar. Nowadays, I identify less as a guitar player and more as a student of music who happens to play guitar. I’m more interested in music as a means by which the ineffable can be understood and expressed, and in the universal commonalities and differences of music across disparate cultures, styles, and traditions.

It just so happens that my life’s non-linear journey towards librarianship still enabled me the chance to study music as an Undergraduate at San Francisco State University. Studying music in a formal setting is something I wanted to do more than twenty years ago, yet paradoxically, it seems to be for the best that I didn’t get to it until later in life.

Through my course work and experiences at SFSU, it became apparent that music is not about power, virtuosity, elitism, exclusivity, or some other claim to esoteric knowledge. On the contrary, it seems quite the opposite. Music is intrinsically linked to the human experience as a vehicle to express one’s identity, both personal and cultural; it is inherently interwoven into the fabric of our lives and communities. At the most basic level, it’s an activity that all humans participate in, to some degree or another.

This inevitably resulted in the basis of my senior thesis, which advocated for a decolonization of music curriculum and pedagogy at the university level. So essentially, I plan to shift that focus to the information community of music academia reimagining what equity-based, social justice-oriented music education can look like. It’s my contention that this information community exemplifies a group “united by a common interest in creating and increasing access to a set of dynamic, linked, and varying information sources” (Christensen & Levinson, 2003). Suffice to say, more will be revealed as the semester unfolds.

Notes:

Christensen, K., & Levinson D. (2003). Information Communities. In Christensen, K., & Levinson D. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World (pp. 658-660). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952583.n248

February 18, 2022 Saúl SchindlerLeave a comment

Hello, my name is Saúl Schindler, and this Spring semester of 2022 marks the beginning of my journey towards earning myMaster’s in Library and Information Sciencesfrom San José State University. Although I don’t intend to limit myself to other possibilities, my current goal upon completing the program is to work as a librarian within the San Francisco Public Library system, where I’ve been working as circulation staff for the last four years. I have a B.A. in Music from San Francisco State University, and I’d love to develop equity-based music related library programming for our diverse array of patrons. Aside from music, my interests include (but aren’t limited to) reading, storytelling, exercising, history, film, and meditation.

Music Library, by David Fulmer, June 17, 2007, Flickr

(https://flic.kr/p/RHWEP). CC BY 2.0.