I’m pretty sure every instruction librarian has struggled with students who simply want to Google or search Wikipedia to find “research” for their course assignments. This is nothing new. Students tend to gravitate toward the familiar, and toward what they think is the easiest route. In fact, I received an email from a student that said “I just ended up looking it up on Google. Google knows all.” (Granted it was very early in the semester, before I had gotten into their class to do any IL instruction, but still). So when I saw “Searching where for what: A comparison of use of the library catalogue, Google and Wikipedia” I was intrigued. We all turn to different resources for different research needs. Let’s be honest, I won’t turn to the library’s catalog or databases to figure out when Beyonce announced her pregnancy (2011 VMAs, Aug. 28th) or whether Jason Segel is married (Single! But I knew that from a Letterman interview...I digress); Wikipedia is just fine for that. But, if I’m looking to write a paper for a grade (hint hint, students), I should use something more credible. So as part of my instruction, we discuss web quality. I share fun examples of less-than-stellar websites, and then have the “Come to Jesus” moment when it comes to using Wikipedia. (See slide four below.)
Searching and Evaluating the Web (General)
View more presentations from stonca01
I don’t know if you can see it, but the Wikipedia entry for Newton, IA shows the nickname to be “The Armpit of America,” the motto as “Too lazy to commute. Let’s go on title 19,” and the population is made up of “15,579 Smiling toothless methheads” (keepin’ it classy, Wikipedia). That usually gets a chuckle out of the students, and opens their eyes to just how easily this information can be manipulated. I tell them that I went back just one hour after I took the screenshot, and the information had been changed back to something less controversial—so not only can Wikipedia be ridiculously incorrect, it’s also not a stable, constant resource.
While reading the article “Searching where for what: A comparison of use of the library catalogue, Google and Wikipedia” I was interested in seeing what might be implied about user behaviors and the reasoning behind it. Waller examines the catalogue (yes, spelled the British way) searches in the State Library of Victoria (Australia) as compared to the searches done in Google and Wikipedia. The researcher looked at the following categories: popular culture, ecommerce, business-related, cultural practice, computing/web, health, history, science (including math), place/building, contemporary issues (news, government information), books/authors, high culture, adult (XXX or dating sites), genealogy, unknown, and other. Waller used transaction logs to gather data from the library/internet users without impacting their behavior. The findings showed that 20% of catalogue users were researching contemporary issues, wherein only 5% of Google searches were seeking information on contemporary issues. Quite the opposite was the case when researchers examined the results for pop culture; 29% of Google queries and 40% of searches that took users to Wikipedia. The article contains more information about the nitty-gritty results, but in the end, I wasn’t surprised by the user behaviors.
While not Earth-shattering, it was eye-opening to hear concrete numbers regarding Google use versus library catalog use. According to Waller, “Google is used approximately one hundred times more often than the State Library catalogue to look up information on contemporary issues. Similarly for every five library catalogue searches, there are in the order of 500 searches conducted in Victoria using Wikipedia…Wikipedia is used approximately twenty five times more often than the State Library catalogue to look up information on contemporary issues.”
I encourage my students who are working on research papers to ask “So what?” or “What’s the big deal; why should I care?” Waller’s “so what?” suggests that libraries should monitor the catalogue query subjects to better understand how their collections are being used (or where there are gaps in the collection that should be filled with new purchases). This approach would still leave gaps in the data, not allowing researchers to understand users’ reasoning behind their searching habits. Perhaps patrons are simply unaware of the depth of the library’s collection regarding their topic so, instead of searching the library catalog, they search online elsewhere. The issue then becomes educating library users about the collection, as opposed to modifying holdings. I like that Waller points out the advantages of using library resources over (possibly sketchy) web resources: difficult to find “authentic meaning when using a search engine,” most users don’t dig deeply enough into the search results (past the first page of results), you get all of the bibliographic information you need to properly cite your sources when using library resources, and information on like topics is grouped together (making students’ research easier). Waller failed to mention that when you use library resources, you’re likely to have at least one librarian you can contact when you have questions, need help sifting through and interpreting information, or need help remembering to breathe because your paper is due tomorrow and you know you should have started it sooner but you didn’t and you realize now that you kind of screwed yourself over but really you just need to get it done and just survive until the end of the semester (where’s the closest cup of coffee?). (Not that I’ve seen students do this or anything…)
In the end, the article didn’t necessarily address user motivations, but it did reinforce that, as an instruction librarian, I need to continue to educate my students about the need to dig deeper—especially when they think they already know how to search and find quality information.
No comments:
Post a Comment