Pete Coco’s recent post on the ACRLog discusses the ups and downs of discovery projects like EBSCO Discovery Service, a tool recently implemented at the IU Libraries as OneSearch@IU. Coco writes that these tools may look like Google, with their sleek white single search bars and straightforward interfaces. They may even act a little like Google, crawling through thousands upon thousands of resources to bring you only the most relevant, most perfect source you could possibly imagine. Right? Well, not quite. According to Coco, who is a humanities liaison and library instructor at Wheaton College, although his students are usually able to find something using these discovery tools, they are not always able to find the thing. One reason for that could, of course, be unreasonable student expectations. Students often suppose that their sources must iterate their perspective verbatim, or cover the exact parameters of their research question. Of course they’re not going to find a source comparing the ironic symbolism in Franz Kafka’s Before the Law with J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Some things just don’t exist. That said, student misconceptions about scholarship might not be the only issue at play. While discovery services, acting as a sort of hybrid between Google and academic databases, are good for getting students into the research pool, often it leaves them in the shallow end. Once students understand the scope of what’s available, more specialized databases might be just the ticket to finding the thing and giving students that tough-love push into the deep end of scholarship.
That is precisely why quality information literacy instruction is still a necessity in academic libraries – to help students find their scholarly legs in a strange new land of information. In order to achieve that end most effectively, perhaps we should be emphasizing the differences between popular and scholarly modes of information gathering, rather than the similarities. Despite OneSearch@IU’s outward resemblance to Google, the fact is that it is not Google, and we are not doing students any favors by marketing it as such. Coco writes:
To find the scholarly articles that will meet the paper requirement, the student will need navigate a host of alien concepts, vocabularies and controversies that will, at least at first, drive his experience with peer-reviewed scholarship. And while some degree of anxiety is probably useful to his learning experience, there can be little doubt that the process would be easier and of more lasting value to the student who has support—human support—as he goes through it.
Advances in technology require more, not less, pedagogical attention to ensure that students comprehend the underlying structures of scholarly communication. We often expect this generation of tech-savvy undergraduates to see a blank search bar and know what to do with it. But the reality is, not all search bars are equal. Effective library instruction serves to illuminate the unique function of academic databases and discovery services as compared to popular search engines. After all, if what you want is Google, you can always go to Google.
Aside: Read this post by Margaux DelGuidice from In the Library with the Lead Pipe to see why librarians are oh-so-glad that discovery services are not Google.
Photo credit: Opening of Lincoln Park swimming pool 1925, courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives from flickr.com