June 26, 2007
Librarians Find a Place in a 'Web 2.0' World
With the success of Google, Wikipedia, and the various ventures that fall under the big tent of Web 2.0, it would be easy for researchers to feel that they've entered the era of do-it-yourself scholarly searching. But there are chinks in the armor of even the most sophisticated search engines and folksonomies, writes Thomas Mann, author of The Oxford Guide to Library Research.
In a lengthy essay (available online in PDF), Mr. Mann demonstrates how a fairly straightforward request for information -- in this case, a query on the system of tribute payments among Greek city-states during the Peloponnesian War -- can expose the shortcomings of Web searching. Google's search engine can furnish a list of some 78,400 Web sites that include the terms "Peloponnesian" and "tribute," and its Book Search service can find nearly 700 books containing the same words.
But only a human guide or a classification system controlled by librarians can effectively sort the wheat from the chaff, Mr. Mann writes. Google "hides the existence and the extent of relevant sources on most topics" by "burying the good sources that it does find within massive and incomprehensible retrievals," he says.
Mr. Mann is not an anti-technology activist: He argues that much of the Web is well suited to the "inexpensive indexing methods" used by Google and Web aggregators. But academic work is still grounded in books, not Web sites, and his essay is a reminder that scholars still benefit from librarians' ability to organize those books in a fashion that rigorous researchers will find useful. (Thanks to David Weinberger for the link.) --Brock Read
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Public Policies for Virtual Worlds
Next: IBM Unleashes a More-Powerful BlueGene
My experience with librarians, at least in scientific university libraries (I’m a scientist) is that they are basically incapable of anything beyond using the keywords in their database.
The reason is that they have absolutely no idea about what they are cataloguing.
If I walk to a librarian and I say “I’d like a book discussing the various definitions of computable reals”, I’m sure she’ll pull a face and input “computable reals” in her database. If the books were not tagged in this precise way, she’ll find nothing.
I’m unsure how humanities libraries are staffed, but the current situation of science libraries is that librarians offer no additional knowledge over the database that they use.
— Oh really? Jun 26, 04:34 PM #
Librarians are not incapable of “anything beyond using the keywords in their database.” But they are not above using them either. Keywords are merely one weapon in a whole arsenal.
And if you think it’s because they don’t know what they’re cataloging, you’re right. The librarians you deal with don’t do any cataloging. You don’t see the librarians who do the cataloging. They have special training and they don’t often sit at the reference desk to answer your questions.
If you know what terminology is going to find your “computable reals,” then do share. Don’t waste your time and the librarian’s. If you don’t know, why would the librarian know offhand, since s/he probably has a background in English or history? That’s why they start with keywords. When they “find nothing,” they move on and try something else. They don’t look at you blankly and say “we don’t have that.” If they do, you’re probably not dealing with trained librarians, you’re dealing with support staff or student assistants who haven’t been completely training in reference work.
Librarians don’t know your subject matter. They know how to get around in their databases and catalogs. It’s up to you to provide enough information for them to do their jobs. It’s up to them to navigate through the glut of information to help you find what you need.
— Carlo Jun 26, 05:15 PM #
Personally I’d like to see the face YOU “pulled” when you asked the question of your librarian. In the meantime, although unable to ask you the various questions that would clarify the parts of your question I may not fully understand — as would any good reference librarian — I find that Wikipedia (GASP!) appears to present an acceptable if perhaps not thorough introduction to “computable reals”, complete with four useful references — Turing, for instance. Only two of the references are books, though, so if you’re format-dependent, you may be limiting your opportunity to expand your horizons. Wikipedia actually performed better in this particular case than did AccessScience, INSPEC, MathSciNet, CRC MATHnetBASE, or Science Citation Index — none of which, may I point out, are “my databases”. Of course, I’m only a humanities librarian, so someone with your exacting standards might find this answer incomplete and unacceptable.
— Suzanne the Humanist Jun 26, 06:15 PM #
“And if you think it’s because they don’t know what they’re cataloging, you’re right. The librarians you deal with don’t do any cataloging. You don’t see the librarians who do the cataloging. They have special training and they don’t often sit at the reference desk to answer your questions.”
Yeah, right. I’ve been called several time by the librarians that do the cataloguing to help them input the keywords in the database, because they had no idea what the books dealt with. :-)
“find that Wikipedia (GASP!) appears to present an acceptable if perhaps not thorough introduction to “computable reals””
Which I wrote to some extent.
Wikipedia 1 – Librarians 0:
Wikipedia is becoming the reference desk, because it actually provides lists of relevant materials instead of dropping users in front of databases.
— Oh really? Jun 27, 01:59 AM #
I think what Mann’s research is telling us is something librarians have been trying to communicate to their user communities for about two years now (maybe more). It’s not a good idea to use search engines or wikipedia for all research projects. There’s a wide spectrum of different research resources on the net and some work better than others for a particular type of research – and the availability or lack of a controlled vocabularly can make a difference. Sometimes you need it and sometimes you don’t. The goal is to provide some user education so that the end users can effectively match appropriate resources to their information needs.
With respect to the discussion going on here, sometimes librarians do use databases as a crutch to just give the end user something to work with, but more often than not the help you get from a reference librarian (and you may need to go beyond the reference desk – try visiting a librarian’s office) will go beyond just trying to push off the user to a database. It should be about first understanding the user’s needs – what he is she is trying to accomplish and not just the subject matter – and then developing a strategy to get the information that resolves the need.
— stevenb Jun 27, 08:40 AM #
Sneers 1 — Librarians 0. I’m one of those catalogers who has called teaching faculty to ask for clarification on subject terms when cataloging theses and dissertations. No, I don’t have half a clue about why you’re giving a rat cannabinoids and then using HPLC to measure the amount of DOPAC in its striatum. I end up reading these things first, then getting online and using whatever’s out there to learn what I can. It’s when I’m just totally STUMPED that I suck it up and call you folks. We’re trying to use a standardized list of search terms so that anyone anywhere (in the English-speaking world), with any level of knowledge, can find an item. While that list is growing (so far), it doesn’t contain all the specific terms used by every branch of science. That’s why we ask for help. Wikipedia’s fine as far as it goes but it shouldn’t be held as the main source for reference. I’ll continue to ask for help; I’d just appreciate not being sneered at when I do.
— Are too.Am not.Are too.Am not Jun 27, 08:47 AM #
I’m sorry that “Oh really?” had a bad experience in a Library. It fascinates me that this person then goes on to make unfounded, broad generalizations about libraries and librarians. Then again, I haven’t been to a bakery since that time 15 years ago when I got a stale bagel. All bakers must be incompetent, right?
Last time I checked, most specialized science libraries demand that applicants for reference positions hold degrees in scientific disciplines – it’s common for science librarians to hold graduate and professional degrees in biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, etc. Good reference librarians bring a lot of subject knowledge to their work, are highly skilled in the advanced features of research databases, never stop learning, and are not in the habit of dumping people in front of databases and abadoning them. They don’t sneer at questions, either.
In any case, this is taking us away from the very important and valid points that Mann presents in his paper and in the wonderful Oxford Guide to Library Research, one of the best recent discussions of the research process that thoroughly reckons with the world the web has wrought.
Mann’s arguments ask us to consider the real value brought to information by the various methods of organization and indexing, those structures and practices that make intellectual access possible. Nowhere does he suggest that information organization and indexing (and reference service!) can’t be improved. But what is the point of holding false beliefs about the nature, quality and scope of web search engine indexing if one is serious about research and scholarship?
Mann’s book may not be anyone’s idea of beach reading this summer, but for anyone who has some interest or responsibility in educating people about research in the here and now it is chock full of good ideas and judicious insights.
I wouldn’t want to close without actually providing a list of relevant materials, so here you go (see the bottom of the article for the lists):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library
Cheers!
— Richard Kearney Jun 27, 09:05 AM #
As a librarian with a Ph.D. in my subject area, I deeply resent comments that disparage reference librarians’ subject knowledge. I know more about my subject than many teaching faculty in my area. Oh, and I DO catalog.
— Librarian Jun 27, 09:11 AM #
I’m not interested in the p—sing contest in the comments field (you academics have fun, y’hear?) but I am intrigued by Mann once again positing books versus the Web. Is he saying that there is no scholarly digital information and that retrieval methods for real scholarly work should be book-based? This would go well with his earlier shill work for unions at LC, but as general advice for searchers it’s pretty weak.
— K.G. Schneider Jun 27, 09:24 AM #
The problem I have with Google, Yahoo, Live, etc. being used for academic searches is that they are not made for that sort of thing at all.
They are businesses that rely on advertising and keeping the user searching through tons of pages to acquire more pageviews for the ads on them.
Why does it come as a surprise to anyone that it is hard to find relevant, in-depth information on any topic using any of these services?
Your best bet, as the author suggests, is to either go back to books or if you prefer electronic databases, use strictly-educational or perhaps subscription-based academic search sites where their intent is to help you find information and NOT make fractions of a penny of dozens off all pageviews you’ll be forced to endure.
— Scott Carmichael Jun 27, 09:26 AM #
^^^ Excuse my grammar errors above… :)
— Scott Carmichael Jun 27, 09:28 AM #
The problem “Oh really” may have had is that often libraries, to save money, put students or poorly trained non-librarians at the desk, because “everything is online now”. Administrators love that reasoning because it saves them money, and because it stops the “problem” of librarians, like Tom Mann, from pointing out that finding useful and relevant material isn’t always easy. Did “Oh really” complain to someone in the library about the service he received? If not, it will never improve.
— Librarian Jun 27, 09:54 AM #
Librarians tend to be generalists. In reality, more of us come from humanities and social science backgrounds —which helps us become very adept at using words and analyzing statistics, useful skills for the beginning of any research process. True science librarians are somewhat rare, and should be highly esteemed!
In my opinion, the reference librarian who is likely to be most helpful in any discipline is one who has background in that discipline. Knowing the field well, knowing not only the most current and influential scholarship in an area, but also the indexes and databases that apply to that area, lets the informed reference librarian suggest topics and find resources that are helpful. It makes it much easier to see the implications of a reference question when you know more about the topic. I can be tremendously useful to college students who come in with questions in my broad areas of expertise.
However, when the question is outside my area of expertise, I have to gain background and perspective on the subject before I can conduct a good search. The most convenient way to do that is through the reference interview: “Tell me, Prof. X, which scholars in this field have you found most useful?” Then we can hone in on finding what you want, if not in this library, then in some other. Other ways of finding information in an area outside my ken would include basic reference works, of which Wikipedia is among the most convenient and least authoritative.
If Prof. X is interested in generating more light than heat on the subject, he might consider working with the librarian to determine which books, journals, databases, etc. are most useful for his discipline. It could be that obtaining those specific items could be valuable to himself (as well as the library). If, however, a patron comes in with a general question, such as the definition of computable reals, a general answer, such as is found in a reference book or online equivalent, is an appropriate answer. Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. Ask a more involved question, and we will harness our expertise in search strategies and knowledge of sources in your service. There are times when only the researcher can determine which articles are truly relevant to his/her needs, particularly when the subject area is very specialized and narrow. Those cases call for close cooperation, not to mention respect, if and when help is desired.
— SusanB Jun 27, 10:03 AM #
Did Mr. Scientist in Ohreally let his ego and his own subject knowledge shortcomings get in his way? Sure, probably most librarians, catalogers or non-catalogers are not knowledgeable in scientific or technical fields (there are exceptions), but if Mr. Scientist would have given Mrs. Pullaface a little help and answered a few questions about what computable reals are and where they specifically fit in the scientific world, and what GENERAL terms (subject areas) do they fall under, and who are some of the people that have written about them previously; Mrs. P…could have probably given him enough that he would have Pulled-a-Face. If I asked a librarian for information on a “Speed Sensor with 4rpm pulse”, and I got the “Face”, and I said, “Oh, sorry, that’s a part for a CLUTCH on an automobile…” Reference help is a two-way street that requires cooperation and humility.
— Jim Kennedy Jun 27, 10:21 AM #
K.G. Schneider said:
“Is he saying that there is no scholarly digital information and that retrieval methods for real scholarly work should be book-based? This would go well with his earlier shill work for unions at LC, but as general advice for searchers it’s pretty weak.”
Karen, you should read Mann’s article. He is definitely not saying there is no scholarly digital information – he talks about electronic databases and recommends cataloging select web sites. I am not sure what you mean by asking whether retrieval methods for real scholarly work should be book-based Library catalogs deal with many, many non-book materials as well though the predominant mode of discourse in the humanities and social sciences at least tends to be book-based.
— Nathan Jun 27, 10:33 AM #
Google scholar?
— Anakin Jun 27, 10:57 AM #
I did read Mann’s article, and the point is that scholarly electronic information goes far beyond databases and (please, can this be any more 1990s-esque) cataloging “select web sites.”
Also, to #12, I can’t speak to the actual incident in question, but since we do have competition, we can’t task our users to register complaints; they’ll just go elsewhere, and who can blame them. Regular QA for our own services is important.
(Is it just me or is this comment box the size of a postage stamp?)
— K.G. Schneider Jun 27, 11:20 AM #
As an academic science librarian I am shocked by the number of faculty members in the sciences who lack basic information literacy, such as knowing the difference between a web site and a journal that we get online. Others are not even aware that the library provides access to all those online journals on their desktop. (How can the publishers afford to give away all their content for free online, he asked me) So they send their graduate students to the library seeking print versions of articles they can get online, we see undergraduates doing scavenger hunt assignments using old print indexes from the 1950s because the profs don’t know any other method, and we see undergraduates rejecting electronic journals because their prof told them they could not use the web for their research. Our task of teaching information literacy to students is made more difficult by the need to drag many faculty members into the 1990s.
— coal_train Jun 27, 11:23 AM #
I think the brilliance of Mann’s article is that he is arguing for a fundamentally different way to organize and search books vs organizing and searching databases. Something like Google Book Search may blur the distinctions between books and databases, but the strengths of the library profession have been in the organization and utilization of print resources. I believe that we are also developing facility at the utilization of online resources, organization largely being out of our hands as at present we license rather than own most of our online data. The danger which I believe Mann is trying to address is that online paradigms are detracting from the traditional organization of print resources so essential for the humanities and any historical research. His article is a good “don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater” argument — just because there are better ways to search the Internet does not mean that we should abandon traditional subject headings and classification for our print collections.
— Blake Walter Jun 27, 11:38 AM #
As I scanned this discussion, I did not come across a description of the reference interview that preceded the librarian’s search for “computable reals,” which most librarians are trained to conduct even when they do have experience with the topic in question. Most librarians will ask a general question or two to discern what his or her patron’s point of view is on the topic, or what aspect the patron is most interested in. If that interview did not take place, I am sorry. Librarians, like other people, sometimes take short cuts, which can negatively affect the interchange.
— Pat Pederson Jun 27, 11:42 AM #
K.G. Schneider:
“[Is Thomas Mann saying] that retrieval methods for real scholarly work should be book-based?”
OK Karen – I am open. What is the alternative you have in mind? Can you point me to an article or something? In any case, I am puzzled to learn that cataloging select web sites is so pointless, passe, etc. Going along with Mann’s whole article, it seems to make perfect sense.
— Nathan Jun 27, 12:38 PM #
I entered < “Peloponnesian War” “tribute payments” > into Google and the results seemed quite relevant. Topping the list was the link to Dr. Mann’s article.
— Rod Kirk Jun 27, 12:56 PM #
I have little patience with academics who imply that anyone unfamiliar with their area of expertise is ignorant, or that those who do cataloguing or any other academic support service are peons. If you feel that way, do it your self & let the rest of us use the services.
The reference and cataloguing librarians I have known and with whom I’ve had the pleasure to work have been outstanding.
Let’s see: there was one at Cornell who managed to find the author and title of a poem that had been quoted in a book in a related discipline. The quote was of an inner line, with no citation. And the poem had not been in print for over a century. Oh, and it was in German.
Then there was the one in Munich who found a manuscript of a piece from the 1700s that had somehow not been catalogued, but tracked it down because a source from the 19th century said the library owned it.
Then there’s the cataloguing librarian here in Hawaii who emails me every time she comes across a source related to my area.
Need I go on? I suspect scholars all over have similar stories. Advice to “Oh, really?”: try treating your librarians as colleagues & you might get more help.
I go to librarians when I’ve exhausted all the tricks I know (and yes, that includes Googling, as well as a slew of other search media, paper and electronic). They take over from there, and yes, they often begin by retracing what I’ve tried, just to see if I’ve missed anything. Believe me, I’m not offended — I’m thrilled when they can find something I can’t.
— ROBingham Jun 27, 02:16 PM #
Wikipedia is certainly not peer reviewed and neither it nor Google replace robust search techniques; but they are good starting points to look for other subject headings or keywords that might help find the appropriate information.
An extensive reference interview with a professional librarian would also ellict what Ohreally really wanted to know or needed.
Then the appropriate databases or journal can be searched.
Those without the patience for the hunt may give up the search too soon.
— Dee Jun 27, 03:35 PM #
Why is that some seem to be (mis)interpreting Mann’s position as “books versus the Web”? When I read the article I saw things specifically mentioned about differences between those kinds of resources and about the “open Internet alone“ (my emphasis) being inadequate for scholarly research. Nothing I have read by Mann here or elsewhere presents this as an either/or choice.
Mike
— Mike Jun 27, 05:56 PM #
I regret if “Oh, really/” received inadequate effort from the librarian or student assistant at the science library. OTOH I appreciate the examples given by ROBingham of extra effort from librarians with whom he/she has worked. As an undergraduate library assistant in the late 60’s I remember an agricultural professor who thought I could be of no help whatsoever to him because I was not familiar with his subject area. However, I saw him blindly searching dozens of periodicals for a topic and showed him how he could use the appropriate indices (print at that time—not electronic) to find specific issues with articles on his topic. I was ignorant of agricultural science; he was ignorant of basic library research methods and periodical indices.
— Jane Jun 28, 08:40 AM #
Anyone who’s worked in an academic library setting knows the likes of “Oh really?” well; they’re the faculty that like to play “stump the librarian” for a cheap ego boost before returning to their cubicle and splitting their time between nitpicking flamewars with rival Wikipedia editors and efforts to persuade their department heads that they shouldn’t be replaced with young adjunct instructors with considerably more up to date knowledge of their field. At least they have more in-depth knowledge of one little niche in their field—computable reals, say—than the librarian whose knowledge has to be considerably broader, and you can’t take that away from them.
— Librarian X Jun 29, 09:59 AM #