Growth is a slow, constant process, punctuated by short periods of extraordinary change.
How the PC has affected the face of America is one of the questions that have been rolling around inside of my head for over two decades. Most people would agree that the computer revolution has created a brave, new world; however, few may recognize that the availability of personalized, individualized data processing has not only altered our patterns of common behavior, but more so, our expectations of the availability to and delivery of data.
Business professionals speak of information processing; however, computers, even personal computers, are actually a data processing tool. The bits (electrical signals of computerized minutia) are actually data: facts, figures, recorded portions of human activity. Information is an ephemeral evaluation, a cognitive judgment that the human mind creates when data are read and understood. Information exists solely as a mental construct.
I am a university faculty member. I facilitate adult academic classes, in both face-to-face (onground) and computer-mediated (online) classrooms. Some of my students are pursuing the Bachelor of Science in information technology (BS/IT) degree. These students are generally highly competent in the use of technology, both for personal and commercial applications. One recent evening, while teaching a course in critical thinking to a class of about two dozen BS/IT majors, I asked the cohort to describe the distinction between data and information. Most students quickly used their notebook computers to search an online dictionary for the words’ definitions. They were surprised to find the two words define one another: the distinction is not clear in a descriptive dictionary, the most common type of dictionary available online. A commonly used tool offered no help; the students would have to evaluate the distinction themselves.
I frequently consider the distinction: data are the digital products stored, processed, and produced by a computer; information is the conceptualized outcome of the data processing. To me, it is patently clear that data and computer are paired, as are information and the human cognitive process. Why did the students not intuitively recognize this distinction? Not a few of the students were equally competent at many computer applications as I.
Most people seem to be taking their personal computers for granted: relegating the devices to the status of personal household or office appliance. Consumers purchase computers at mass-market retailers, like so many microwave ovens and toasters, rather than at specialty retailers that offer knowledgeable advice and guidance. However, a personal computer has the potential, in properly trained hands, to effect life-altering outcomes: cancer research, protein folding, financial evaluations, and yes, electronic mail and instant messaging. Try any of those tasks with the kitchen toaster!
I recently talked with an academic colleague about the development and application of digital computer technology, especially toward the data retrieval and classification process. Our conversation started following George’s lamenting that much of the peer-reviewed academic literature that he uses in his research is available only in hardcopy, print form. The cream of the published research was not yet available to internet users. While I enjoyed our discussion immensely and I look forward to each of my discussions with George, I disagree, or at least our initial comments lead me to question, how much value we can be found in computer-mediated data that are archived and retrieved, especially regarding the crass referencing systems of multi disciplinary academic literature.
We agreed that PC databases of formatted data—address lists and the like—work well and are sufficiently mature to allow storage and retrieval of desire data in a reasonable timeframe. However, unformatted data, such as a corpus of literature or multidisciplinary scholarship cannot be stored in a computer system without significant expertise in both the subject area and storage system, nor can the literary data be retrieve, except by one with similar skills.
I do not disagree with George on all points; however, I judge that most researchers must acquire requisite skills, prior to successfully conducting data searches, at least with any significant measure of accuracy. Scholarly research has, traditionally, required specialized cataloging and search skills: knowing the alphabet in which the data is cataloged, the library’s cataloging system, Boolean logic, and the grammar of the search engine.
Skills have developed to compensate for the changing requirements of technology. Digital search skills are, in principle, if not in practice, not substantively different.
? Have the requisite skills changed—substantively—in the face of digital data storage?
? Do people, today, react differently to digital data storage than those who faced previous storage systems?
Peer-reviewed journals are available online, there is no longer need a need to visit, physically, a university graduate library. The cost of purchasing the digital copies of literature can be compared to the cost of travel and photocopies, when visiting a physical library. Digital access grants flexibility, both in time and space.
