Example of an Effective Memo

I attached the following memo, a proposal, to an email I sent to my superiors and peers at the Episcopal Church of the Advent.  A proposal is a complex argument, a combination of different types of arguments: definitional, categorical, evaluative and/or causal.  (For more information on argumentation, please refer to "Toulmin's Scheme for Argumentation" and "The Components of an Academic Argument.")  The introductory paragraph is a summary of the content.  In the succedent section, "Current System," I define the problem.  I respectively describe some consequences and evaluate some options in the next two sections.  I close the memo with a recommendation and an alternative.  To limit the length of the memo, I attached appendices of details for those who might have needed more information.

Rose Cornelson Montgomery Library 

Date: 31 August 2011 

To: Ned Morris, Ann Harken, Chris Lynn 

From: Stephen Tulloh 

Subject: Modernizing the Library 

The library must become more efficient--that is, easier to manage and easier to investigate--lest it return to a patronless storage area that it had come to be until a couple of weeks ago.  We have an extensive collection of religious information that could be useful to parishioners, students at local colleges, and patrons of the public library if only they knew more about our holdings.  An electronic management system, similar to the system by which the public library operates, will allow volunteers to direct the use of the library's information more effectively and will make the library's holdings more searchable, opening the library to more people.  If we shift to an electronic management system, it would differ from the public library's system in two major ways.  Our system would be free, and it would be adaptable. 

Current System 

There are three ways a patron can investigate the library's holdings, and each requires the patron to be in Satterlee Hall.  He/she can browse the shelves, leaf through the card catalog, or peruse a printout.  One problem is the library may not have what the person wants or needs, but he/she put forth effort to come to the library.  Although leafing through the card catalog is quicker than browsing the shelves, it is inconvenient because the cabinet occupies a corner of the library workroom, a space that accommodates one person.  To search for items via subject, one must stoop or squat.  Another problem is the organization of the printout, via call numbers, which is beneficial to librarians, not patrons. 

If a patron wants to borrow an item, he/she must complete a series of tasks to check out the item.  First, the patron must complete a registration card.  Second, he/she must file it.  Third, the patron must sign the check-out card and write the date on it.  Fourth, he/she must file that card. 

That process is not difficult.  Cataloging all the donations since 2005, however, will be difficult.  The database, if it remains, has not been updated for six years.  The library received hundreds of donations throughout that period.  If we do not shift to an electronic management system, volunteers will need--for each item--to determine the call number, to type three similar cards for the catalog, to enter the information into the database, and to type a check-out card.  Again, volunteers will need to do all the aforementioned for each item. 

Modernizing the Library             2                             31 August 2011 

New System 

Shifting to an electronic management system will not consume more time than maintaining the current system.  Such systems generate call numbers via International Standard Book Numbers (ISBN's), and they eliminate redundant tasks, such as typing three similar cards for a catalog.  They also produce all the relevant information a patron needs to determine whether an item meets his/her needs.  Furthermore, patrons can search for an item via author, title or subject, and they can do such remotely. 

Libraries have been shifting to electronic management systems because the systems are more efficient.  However, with respect to public and academic libraries, those systems are expensive to install and maintain.  For libraries with significantly fewer holdings, there are cost-effective choices, one being open-source, integrative software. 

Open-source software is available to the public for free.  The developers reason that those who use the source codes will modify them, ensuring the applications will be more useful and errorless than compiled applications, which tend to become outmoded sooner.  (For more information about open-source and compiled software, please refer to Appendix A).  Because users customize the codes, open-source software continuously evolves, and there are networks of users that provide technical support. 

Our Options 

There are six reputable providers of open-source, integrative library management software.  At one end of the range is Liblime Koha, which is appropriate for public and academic libraries.  It charges for a warranty and technical support.  Georgia's public library system developed and maintains Evergreen, but it, like SOPAC2, requires Apache, an internet service provider, and MySQL, open-source database software, both with which I am not familiar.  At the other end of the range is Library Thing, a community for individuals who want to catalog their books online.  In the middle of the range are OpenBiblio and BiblioteQ.  Both are for midsize libraries, but OpenBiblio lacks refinement. 

My Recommendation 

Windows supports BiblioteQ, and the code is in a language (C++) I understand.  The application will simplify the management of the library and will make it more serviceable.  Volunteers will be able to catalog books, periodicals, audiotapes, compact disks, videotapes, and digital versatile disks, and they will be able to do such without comprehensive knowledge of Dewey Decimal Classification, for the software will generate control, call and class numbers via ISBN's.  Thus, the classification of items will be less subjective.  The application also will produce images of covers by way of Amazon and will retrieve information--title, authors, publishers, et cetera--by way of Z39.50 queries.  (For more information about Z39.50, please refer to Appendix B.)  Because the software shortens the time to catalog items, volunteers will be able to focus on other administrative tasks--such as creating accounts; updating patrons' information; generating lists of overdue, requested and reserved items; and printing and interpreting statistics. 

Modernizing the Library             3                             31 August 2011 

Because BiblioteQ has uniform functionality across various platforms, courtesy of Z39.50, patrons will be able to access the library's holdings remotely.  And they will be able to query the library's holdings via author, title or subject.  They will be able to request an unavailable item, to reserve an item, or to communicate with a volunteer.  Furthermore, they will be able to gather more information through embedded hyperlinks to Amazon, the Library of Congress, or another website. 

An Alternative 

The library has a compiled application, ResourceMate, that Jaywil Software Development released in 2005.  The problem is the version, 2.0 Plus, does not have some of the essential features volunteers will need to manage the library efficiently.  For example, if we are unable to locate the database, an army of volunteers will have to spend hundreds of hours creating another catalog of the library's holdings.  To reduce the number of volunteers and the amount of time that would require, we need to upgrade from 2.0 Plus to 3.0 Plus, which will cost $129.00.  Then, we must upgrade the screen license from 2.0 to 3.0, and that will cost $10.00.  To generate information about an item via ISBN's and Z39.50 queries--the most essential features--we must register our version and pay for support, which is $70.00 per year.  Finally, to make the library's holdings searchable via the Web, we must pay $149.00.  To summarize: we initially will need to pay Jaywil $358, and that does not include taxes, for something we can get at no cost. 

The Future 

We also will need to pay Jaywil $70.00 every subsequent year for support.  On the other hand, with respect to BiblioteQ, volunteers will be able to change the graphics and information on the homepage, to update the software, and to seek help through BiblioteQ's national users' network.  An army of volunteers will not need to manage the library; several volunteers will be able to prevent the neglect that has befallen it.

Modernizing the Library             4                              31 August 2011

Appendix A: Compiled versus Open-Source Software

If you have bought or downloaded ready-to-run software, then it is likely that software was compiled, run through a compiler that translated and formatted the source (program) code so that your computer could understand it.  Few people can modify compiled versions of applications, and fewer can determine the ways developers created the parts of them.  Commercial software manufacturers compile their codes to prevent other manufacturers from copying and using them.  Compilation also allows manufacturers to control the quality and features of products.

In contrast to compiled software, open-source software includes the source code, for the developer wants the user to modify it, ensuring the usefulness and longevity of the product.  The software development industry regards software as open-source if it meets six criteria:

• The license must not exclude other software.
• The software must not interfere with the operation of other software.
• The distribution of the software must be free.
• The software must include the source code.
• Anybody can modify the source code.
• Custom versions can be redistributed.

A concern for users of open-source software is the lack of a warranty and technical support.  Because the license allows users to modify the application, it is difficult to support.  One reason Liblime is able to sell Koha's software is that it provides a warranty and technical support.  Red Hat is able to do the same with respect to Linux, an operating system.  Some additional examples of open-source software are Mozilla, an internet browser; Apache, a Web server; PERL, a Web scripting language; and PNG, a graphics file format. 

Modernizing the Library              5                             31 August 2011

Appendix B: What Is Z39.50?

Z39.50 is a standard for information retrieval.  It was developed to overcome the problems with searching multiple databases--problems such as knowledge of unique menus, command language, and search procedures.  Z39.50 simplifies the search process, making it possible for a searcher to use the interface of the local system to search both our library's holdings as well as other libraries' holdings.

Z39.50 corresponds to the client-server model of computing in which two computers interact in a peer-to-peer relationship with each computer having a specific functional task.  The local system is known as the origin, and it performs all the communicative functions relative to a search--that is, sending a query and requesting the return of records.  The Z39.50 part of the local system is known as the target, and it interfaces with the database in the remote system--for example, the Library of Congress--and responds to messages from the origin, providing records that correspond to the query.

One of the many advantages of Z39.50 is that the searcher does not need to know the details of the standard.  The origin module within the local system is responsible for establishing the connection to the target, formulating the query, interpreting the results, tracking the results, terminating a session, and so forth.  Thus, the searcher only needs to know one set of commands to search our library's holdings and other library's holdings.

The Z39.50 method of information retrieval is different from the traditional method, whereby a searcher uses a local terminal to log into a remote system and uses that system's unique menus, command language, and search procedures.  The implementation of Z39.50 will eliminate the need for expertise in the use of a large number of dissimilar systems. 

Regardless of the platform or software, systems are able to participate in an information retrieval session if both systems support the Z39.50 standard.  Our library needs a system that supports the Z39.50 standard so that volunteers and patrons can perform a wide range of tasks.    

Reader-Response Criticism

In this essay I discuss three approaches to reader-response criticism and present a method of interacting with a text.

There are two extremes of reader-response criticism.  At one end of the spectrum is the personal, subjective approach--Steven Lynn's "'associative'" approach.¹  From this perspective, what a work means and how well it succeeds depends on the reader.  The problem with this approach is that it leads to relativism because there is no one correct, or logical, interpretation.  Everybody's interpretation of a text is correct, according to subjectivists.  Clearly, however, there may be misinterpretations of a text.

At the other end of the spectrum is the purely objective approach, which Steven Lynn defines as "the 'receptive' version of reader-response criticism."²  From this perspective, there is an ideal response the author encoded in the text that an attentive and informed reader recovers.  The reader's response is not personal, subjective and unique; rather, the reader assumes the role of the implied reader (audience) the author envisioned as he/she wrote the text.  The problem with this approach is that it does not allow for multiple correct interpretations of a text.

When the culture in which the author wrote differs significantly from the reader's, it seems clear that a logical interpretation requires immersion in the author's world--that is in his/her text.  How can we know what response Shakespeare intended if we do not understand fully Shakespeare's culture?  Between the purely subjective and purely objective extremes is an approach that balances both subjectivity (emotions) and objectivity (reason): Steven Lynn's "'interactive' version."³  We respond as ourselves, but we also try to imagine how the author intended his/her readers to respond.  Thus, when reading and writing, we learn things about ourselves, and we learn about other times, places and people.

Reader-response critics of all theoretical persuasions agree to some degree that the meanings of a text are the production or creation of the individual reader.  Thus, there is no one correct meaning for all readers either of the linguistic parts or of the artistic whole.  Where these critics importantly differ is (a) in their views of the primary factors that shape a reader's responses, (b) in the places at which they draw the line between what is objectively given in a text and the subjective responses of an individual reader, and as a result of those differences, (c) in their conclusions about the extent, if any, to which a text controls or constrains a reader's responses, so as to authorize us to reject some interpretations and misreadings, even if,  as almost all reader-response critics assert, we are unable to demonstrate that any one interpretation is correct.

The contemporary German critic Wolfgang Iser believes that a literary text--as a product of the writer's intentional acts--in part controls the reader's responses but always contains a number of gaps or indeterminate elements--for example, figurative language.  The reader must fill in these gaps by way of creative participation with what is actually in the text.  The experience of reading is an evolving process of anticipation, frustration, retrospection, reconstruction and satisfaction.  Iser distinguishes between the implied reader, who is established by the text itself as one who is expected to respond in specific ways to the text, and the actual reader, whose responses are inevitably colored by his/her accumulated private experiences.  As a consequence literary texts permit a range of possible interpretations.  The fact, however, that the author's intentional acts establish limits to the reader's creative additions to a text allows us to reject some interpretations as misreadings.  Thus, Iser's philosophy supports the interactive approach.

To prevent any misreading of a text, you have to actively make meaning of the text.  In other words, the process of reading is what gives the text meaning.  The process includes (1) closely reading the text, (2) considering your responses as you read each part and after you have finished the whole, and (3) asking and answering the following questions.  What are my responses?  What literary techniques trigger these responses?  How do my experiences and expectations affect my reading?  Do my responses change after I have read the text again?  Regardless of your responses, you must balance your subjectivity with objectivity--that is, your interpretation must be valid.

A valid interpretation must make a claim--an assertion of truth open to question.  A valid interpretation must have grounds--reasons for and evidences of the claim.  A valid interpretation must have backing--justifications for the claim (specific references to the text and explications of those references).  To generate the aforementioned--that is, a claim, grounds and backing--you need to engage in the process of criticism.  First, freely write about the poem, focusing on the poem as a whole and on particular lines.  Second, closely read the poem, answering the questions in "Poetry Worksheet."  Third, organize your information.  Fourth, create a working thesis and write a draft.

_______________________________________________________

     ¹Steven Lynn, Literature: Reading and Writing with Critical Strategies (New York: Pearson Longman, 2004) 45.

     ²Ibidem, 45-46.

     ³Ibidem, 46.

Communication: The Basis of Life

Although it is difficult to define life--partly because animate objects are diverse and partly because inanimate objects are sometimes lifelike--one can describe some characteristics of living things that nonliving things do not share.  Two such qualities are the ability to respond to stimuli and the capacity to evolve.

Organisms detect and respond to external and internal stimuli from their environments.  Animals have complex sensory organs and muscular systems that allow them to perceive and react to light, sound, chemicals and other stimuli from their surroundings.  Furthermore, receptors in their brains perceive internal stimuli.  For example, when I feel hungry, I am perceiving contractions of my empty stomach and low levels of sugars and fats in my blood.  I react to external stimuli by choosing an appropriate object to eat, such as a piece of blackberry pie rather than a ceramic plate.

Animals, with their elaborate nervous systems and motile bodies, are not the only organisms to detect and respond to stimuli.  The plant in my kitchen grows toward a window, and the bacteria in my intestine manufacture different digestive enzymes, depending on whether I eat a piece of pie, drink a glass of milk, or do both.

If one argues that a stimulus is something that evokes a response, then the basis of the relationship between stimulus and organism is communication.  Minimally, communication requires a sender, a medium, and a receiver.  With respect to the plant in my kitchen, the sender is our sun, the medium is light, and the receiver is my plant, Fetus.  Internally the sender is a leaf, the medium is mesophyll, and the receiver is the leaf's chloroplasts.  We can continue to the subatomic level, but let us conclude with the fact that, biologically, communication is the transmission of information from one organism to another.

If nonverbal and verbal communication is the foundation of life, then without it species would become extinct.  Although the genetic makeup of a single organism remains the same in its lifetime, the genetic composition of a species as a whole changes over many lifetimes.  Mutations and variable offspring (Reproduction requires communication.) provide diversity in the genetic material of a species.  In other words, the species evolves.

The evolutionary process has led to our ability to question reality, which separates us from other species.  Furthermore, societies have been evolving because humans have been addressing such fundamental questions as: who are we, and why are we here?  The answers to those two questions are complex, and they vary from one society to another.  Simply, the answers help create a national or communal identity.  On an individual level (Who am I, and why am I here?), the answers help create a personal identity, a reason to live in a society.  For example, I am Stephen Anderson Tulloh, and I am a writer and an educator.

Creative people, such as writers, and critical people, such as educators, develop their minds via continual questioning.  It is important that you realize the extraordinary power of questions--who, what, when, where, why and how--their ability to elicit ideas and information.  Certainly people will disagree with your answers, for they have their own ideas and information.  Thus, you must logically, emotionally and ethically persuade them that your answers are worthy of careful consideration.

People walk and talk persuasively as much as they breathe.  All language--nonverbal and verbal, objective and symbolic--is persuasive, points in a direction and asks for a response.  From a nod to this morning's news, from the Blue Ridge Mountains to the American flag: texts everywhere beg for responses.  Everything is an argument.  Read me, texts claim.  To persuade, to argue is as natural and everyday as breathing.  It is something we do from the moment we are born; an infant's initial cry is a claim: I have arrived!

Toulmin's Scheme for Argumentation

A graphic representation of Stephen Toulmin's scheme for argumentation follows.
     Qualifiers                                                Reasons
                    \                                                /
                Claims                                   Grounds
                    /     \                                   /      \
     Rebuttals       \                                /      Evidence
                              \                            /
                                     Warrants
                                          /
                                    Backing

An example of an academic argument follows.  We must not choose Stephen as our chairperson (a claim) because he is too bossy (a reason).  His subordinates say such (evidence).  Bossy people are bad committee chairs (a warrant).  A study conducted in 2006 by psychologists from the University of South Carolina concludes that bossy people tend to bring out the worst, rather than the best, in those around them; that bossy people tend not to ask for advice; and that bossy people make bad decisions (backing, if provide documentation).  Although Stephen is bossy, he has been kind to those on the committee (a rebuttal).  Stephen may be kind to us, but some psychologists consider bossiness a sign of insecurity, which is a trait committee chairs should not have.  Thus, we must not choose Stephen as our chairperson because, in most cases, bossy people are bad committee chairs (a qualifier).  (Please refer to "The Components of an Academic Argument.")

Below are the five categories of arguments.

An example of a definitional claim (a question of definition) follows.  Pluto is a planet and not an asteroid.  (Is Pluto a planet or an asteroid?)  To construct a definitional argument, you must define the second term--in this case planet and asteroid--and argue whether the first term--Pluto--meets or does not meet the definition(s).

An example of a categorical claim (a question of fact) follows.  Constantly surfing the Internet is a new form of addiction.  (Is constantly surfing the Internet a new form of addiction?)  What makes it categorical, not definitional?  The writer or speaker and his/her audience agree on the meaning of addiction. 

An example of an evaluative claim (a question of evaluation) follows.  Acquiring a job between college and graduate school is a good career plan.  (Is acquiring a job between college and graduate school a good career plan?)  To construct an evaluative argument, you must establish your criteria for good, or bad, and explain the ways your first term meets, or does not meet, the criteria.

An example of a causal claim (a question of cause and effect) follows.  Legislative control of guns will reduce violent crimes.  (Will legislative control of guns reduce violent crimes?)  To construct a cause and consequence argument, you must describe the chain of events that lead from X to Y, from legislative control to a reduction in violent crimes.  If you cannot directly establish a causal chain, then argue indirectly, using inductive logic, statistical analyses, and/or analogies.

An example of a proposal (a question of policy) follows.  Homosexual marriage  must be made legal.  (Must homosexual marriage be legal?)  To construct a proposal, you must convince the audience that a problem exists.  Second, you must propose a solution.  Third, you must justify the solution by demonstrating that the benefits outweigh the costs or that the rightness of the solution, on moral grounds, compels action.