CCBC-Net Archives
Re: Wait, Stop, Halt
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Christine Taylor-Butler <kansascitymom_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:05:25 -0600
Marc,
Data, absent of qualitative information, leads to false results. That is all many of us are saying. And the fact that some of the conversations are going "off line" or that many aren't responding to those posts at all are an indicator of the frustration with the direction.
ALL views should be deemed valid. And if we, as a group, want to "collect" data, I'm all for it. What I'd like to happen here is less dismissal of qualitative data in favor of quantitative model which may have "false negatives or positives because of the collection method.
I know a lot of census workers who will vouch for the fact that people of color detest being polled and are often suspicious of the objectives.
I play devil's advocate. But can I be blunt? If we want to have balance, then those arguing for data crunching must stop shooting down the suggestions of those who actually work with the children and parents involved as "invalid" or born from our being too educated (etc) to understand the needs of the consumer. I would argue that if statistics were accurate that every book acquired (regardless of race). But that isn't true.
Because this business is not objective. It's subjective. And you won't capture that strictly in data points. That's the FIRST thing you learn about analysis at MIT.
And that book selling and acquisitions is heavily influenced by the initial purchase of new books before their first print run, hence numbers that may or may not accurately reflect the book buying public which is migrating to on-line sources. Or that inability to "find" a book may factor in lack of sales. Or proliferation of books featuring oppressive situations overshadow those that don't because the former is heavily marketed and the latter is not.
Intellectual curiosity is a good thing. But it must be shared and respected even when in opposition. And to crunch data - you must first understand what lies behind what you are crunching. You can't dismiss the people on this list - MANY of whom have grown up as and are serving the target audience - as unrepresentative. And even many who are white seem to "get" it because they are in touch with their constituents. My attempt to illustrate the differences in cultural nuances using videos was suggested by my husband - and African American male who also teaches at the graduate level and works with college bound students. Does he count? Or do we keep insisting that no one on the list is qualified to speak to the very kids who happen to be us, our family and the broader community we live in?
When someone points to statistical analyses that implies inferiority, or lack of market, or says - outright - that ideas posted on this discussion are unproductive - and those comments are often aimed at the very audience with a history of those assumptions impacting us in all aspects of our lives - what responses were you expecting? It's like shouting but asking everyone who doesn't agree to whisper.
Again, intellectual curiosity is a good thing. But responses in opposition should be respected as well.
Just saying……Christine (who is not a white person, btw)
On Feb 16, 2014, at 4:36 PM, bookmarch_at_aol.com wrote:
>
> Friends:
>
> I am disturbed by the responses to the post from Charles in which he raised questions about the divergence between the makeup and views of those on CCBC and the views of the broad US public. I had raised a similar question at the very beginning of this discussion and only one person replied -- to say that as a white, female librarian she was fully capable of supporting diversity. Of course she is, and of course that is the attitude we all support. But the issue I raised in broad sweeps and Charles broke down into specific categories is an important one: the world of K-12 librarianship in the US is extremely homogeneous. It is overwhelmingly female and white. CCBC I suspect is more diverse in ethnicity but not in gender.
> Is it possible for a homogeneous self-selected group to think outside of its boundaries? Yes. But there is a real and present danger that any such group will tend not to see its own blind spots, its own self-reference, its own limitations.(think "old boys club")
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 17:05:25 -0600
Marc,
Data, absent of qualitative information, leads to false results. That is all many of us are saying. And the fact that some of the conversations are going "off line" or that many aren't responding to those posts at all are an indicator of the frustration with the direction.
ALL views should be deemed valid. And if we, as a group, want to "collect" data, I'm all for it. What I'd like to happen here is less dismissal of qualitative data in favor of quantitative model which may have "false negatives or positives because of the collection method.
I know a lot of census workers who will vouch for the fact that people of color detest being polled and are often suspicious of the objectives.
I play devil's advocate. But can I be blunt? If we want to have balance, then those arguing for data crunching must stop shooting down the suggestions of those who actually work with the children and parents involved as "invalid" or born from our being too educated (etc) to understand the needs of the consumer. I would argue that if statistics were accurate that every book acquired (regardless of race). But that isn't true.
Because this business is not objective. It's subjective. And you won't capture that strictly in data points. That's the FIRST thing you learn about analysis at MIT.
And that book selling and acquisitions is heavily influenced by the initial purchase of new books before their first print run, hence numbers that may or may not accurately reflect the book buying public which is migrating to on-line sources. Or that inability to "find" a book may factor in lack of sales. Or proliferation of books featuring oppressive situations overshadow those that don't because the former is heavily marketed and the latter is not.
Intellectual curiosity is a good thing. But it must be shared and respected even when in opposition. And to crunch data - you must first understand what lies behind what you are crunching. You can't dismiss the people on this list - MANY of whom have grown up as and are serving the target audience - as unrepresentative. And even many who are white seem to "get" it because they are in touch with their constituents. My attempt to illustrate the differences in cultural nuances using videos was suggested by my husband - and African American male who also teaches at the graduate level and works with college bound students. Does he count? Or do we keep insisting that no one on the list is qualified to speak to the very kids who happen to be us, our family and the broader community we live in?
When someone points to statistical analyses that implies inferiority, or lack of market, or says - outright - that ideas posted on this discussion are unproductive - and those comments are often aimed at the very audience with a history of those assumptions impacting us in all aspects of our lives - what responses were you expecting? It's like shouting but asking everyone who doesn't agree to whisper.
Again, intellectual curiosity is a good thing. But responses in opposition should be respected as well.
Just saying……Christine (who is not a white person, btw)
On Feb 16, 2014, at 4:36 PM, bookmarch_at_aol.com wrote:
>
> Friends:
>
> I am disturbed by the responses to the post from Charles in which he raised questions about the divergence between the makeup and views of those on CCBC and the views of the broad US public. I had raised a similar question at the very beginning of this discussion and only one person replied -- to say that as a white, female librarian she was fully capable of supporting diversity. Of course she is, and of course that is the attitude we all support. But the issue I raised in broad sweeps and Charles broke down into specific categories is an important one: the world of K-12 librarianship in the US is extremely homogeneous. It is overwhelmingly female and white. CCBC I suspect is more diverse in ethnicity but not in gender.
> Is it possible for a homogeneous self-selected group to think outside of its boundaries? Yes. But there is a real and present danger that any such group will tend not to see its own blind spots, its own self-reference, its own limitations.(think "old boys club")
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Sun 16 Feb 2014 05:05:53 PM CST
