“Good researchers are very curious people: they want to KNOW stuff. But to write a thesis you have to learn to channel your curiosity in productively narrow ways. Many students and academics find the narrowing process hard. Curiosity, once unleashed, can be relentless. A person who can’t finish a literature review might have a curiosity problem, not a project management problem.”¹
I’m still reading (and it’s never, ever going to stop).
“The five laws lend themselves to a technology based-analysis (is technology studies a thing? He hasn’t used capital letters there but I know there are particular strains of technology studies and he’s not being specific, maybe he will later on, I hope so because otherwise how am I going to know what he’s talking about in order to critique it?) owing to Raganathan’s tendency to situate libraries as a kind of technology. (What does he mean by ‘technology’ here? I feel like it’s a loaded term, it means something that is implied? It’s not being spelled out? I will have to find out all about ‘technology’ in this sense. I’ll look it up). This tendency is demonstrated in the overall orientation of the laws toward the application of the library as a tool. (A tool? Is he equating ‘technology’ with ‘tool’? Is that a thing? Does technology have to be a tool? How does “tool” relate to “technology” in technology studies? I am going to have to look that up so I know. There must be a whole lot of stuff on who defined technology as a ‘tool’ and why and when). ²
I’m getting into trouble.