Now who do I believe? For years now we have heard much about the oncoming demise of the library and its services due to the increasing use of general search engines like Google to find academically acceptable sources for student assignments. Somehow this article from First Monday: A Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet entitled, “Beyond Google: How Do Students Conduct Academic Research?,” slipped my notice. Alison Head argues that students use library services more than we realize. I hope this is true. Among the more interesting results of her study:

1. A majority of students began their research by consulting course readings or the library’s Web site for online access to scholarly journals. To a lesser extent, students used Yahoo!, Google, and Wikipedia as first steps.
2. Most students consulted aggregated research resources — many of which had been identified for their scholarly quality by professors, librarians, or library databases.
3. Many students were challenged by research tasks, especially selecting and evaluating information and figuring out professors’ expectations for quality research.

Notice also that three times as many students begin their research with the library’s website rather than visiting the library or asking a librarian:

Recent research has made claims about students’ reliance on the Internet for academic research over their use of campus libraries.

Research from the “Pew Internet & American Life Project” reported that nearly three–quarters (73 percent) of college students reported using the Internet for research more than the campus library (Jones, 2002). Other findings suggest a vast majority of students turn to the Internet first for academic research (Griffiths and Brophy, 2005; Van Scoyoc, 2006). Further, some authors have claimed students use commercial search engines, such as Google, and bypass the library’s many complexities all together (Thompson, 2003).

1. Yet, our study did not substantiate earlier claims about the Internet cannibalizing academic library use. Instead, we found:
   Students used the library and considered library resources helpful — both the reference librarians and databases from the library Web site.
2. A majority of students were not as reliant on search engines, as prior research studies have suggested. Only about one in 10 students in our survey reported using to Yahoo! or Google first when conducting research. Only two in 10 students in our survey used search engines as a second step.

I suppose it’s time to add a few more services to the library’s website. We already offer reference and research help through instant messaging and I am currently working on adding screencast tutorials on accomplishing certain tasks, podcast interviews on researching certain fields, and an online research guide. Anything else I should add?

Popularity: 7% [?]

Citing Wikipedia is most certainly verboten in academic circles, but how many in academic circles are familiar with the citation managers cited, summarized, and compared in this Wikipedia article? I highly encourage their use — they save more time than you could imagine.

Includes a comparison of

• operating system support,
• Export file formats
• Import file formats
• Citation styles
• Citation file formats
• Word processor integration
• Database connectivity
• Password “protection” and network versions
• References
• External links

Thanks for the link, Montana Russ!

Popularity: 25% [?]

Time management. But they are wrong. The ProQuest study says this, however, because:

When study participants were asked to identify which resource they preferred for academic research and course assignments, they overwhelmingly preferred library databases. However, students will opt for Google if they have difficulty navigating the library’s e-resources Web page, if they’re faced with multiple obscure links or “how-to guides,” or if they’re not aware of the library databases that pertain to their particular need.

Seems to me that the issue is not so much time management as a lack of information competency. Everyone thinks they are an expert searcher, and so of course they will indicate when asked that their biggest obstacle is just time rather than efficiency. “If only I had more time to look for articles.” If only students saw the need for further training in identifying, locating, and accessing articles thereby mining more time to digest and write.

The very end of the press release concerning this study gives some indication that my assessment may indeed be a bit closer to the mark:

Results of the ProQuest study have inspired toolkits specifically designed to help academic and public libraries better market their online resources, become more attuned to patron concerns and develop outreach strategies to assist their patrons throughout the research process

If time management were the issue, why not just distribute copies of David Allen’s Getting Things Done: the Art of Stress-Free Productivity to students rather than assisting libraries in marketing their training opportunities? Either way the study hardly appears to be all that revolutionary. You mean college students struggle with time management and information competency? Who knew? Students use Google? Really?

Popularity: 16% [?]

I have for several years now been a fan of Nota Bene for academic writing in large part because formatting according to various styles (APA, MLA, Turabian, etc.) were built-in, citation management was convenient through their Ibidem module, and bibliographies are a snap.

Other programs seem to be catching on. In particular, Microsoft Word 2007 has an integrated citation manager and auto-formats references according to most major styles, including Turabian. From the Word Blog:

As I write my paper, all of the citations that I have been inputting are stored in this awesome tool called the source manager which can be accessed by clicking “Manage Sources”. This means that instead of my list of books I have been pouring over going into the ether I call index cards, all of my work is stored in one little handy database. Enter incredible time savings.

I’ve finished my paper and input my information as I’ve gone along. I know that everything I have been working on is stored in my source manager is safe and sound and ready to be put to good use. Well, all I need to do is click the “Bibliography” drop-down and choose whether I want a bibliography or works cited. Word will then pull the information that you have in your current list and auto generate the information you need into a formatted bibliography (or works cited). It really is that easy.

There are some really cool power features that I didn’t dive into that live in the source manager like the ability to keep a master list (great for students working on papers that often pull from common books or articles) and the ability to search my running bibliography or even preview a particular citation.

It will be interesting to see where this goes and what the folks at Nota Bene do to push usability even further. I have not actually tried the MS Word 2007 features, and so I will continue to recommend and use Nota Bene — especially since all appearances indicate that Word 2007 will not import citations from another system… Yet.

Other (but FREE!) options include:

• Zotero. I LOVE Zotero. This Firefox plugin has saved me countless hours of work since it not only identifies bibliographic information when viewing a book in a catalog or on Amazon, but it also will export that information as BibTex. I used this when compiling the WikIndx that will be going live at our library soon.
• BiblioExpress. is a simple reference manager for researchers. It is the freeware edition of the company’s flagship product – Biblioscape. BiblioExpress can be used to collect literature references of different types, to explore bibliographic resources on the Internet, as well as to serve as a free viewer of bibliographic data. BiblioExpress can format records in several popular styles, including ACS, APA, and MLA. BiblioExpress is designed to be small and efficient. You can run BiblioExpress from a floppy disk.
• Projects and products related to the ShareRef Project which in one way or another provide bibliographic management features to end users.
• SourceAid builds your reference list online for free in the major styles.
• Bibus Bibliographic Database is an open source bibliographic and reference management software that works with Open Office.
• OttoBib creates bibliographies from ISBN numbers. Turabian compatible.
• JabRef is an open-source client for bibliographic citation management.
• BibDesk is a bibliographic citation management tool for Mac users.

Citation format tools that I use include:

• KnightCite
• Citation Machine

There are many, many other tools available, and they are becoming more numerous by the day. Please feel free to leave a link and description to others in a comment if you like.

Popularity: 48% [?]

A relatively recent study entitled Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester (.PDF) has the following to say concerning the Google generation and their approach to reference services at an academic library:

So self-service is the preeminent model and strategy of the information-seeking student. But when the student cannot satisfy his/her own needs and turns to real-life service providers, what happens? In their drawings of ideal library spaces, students sometimes group librarians with technical support staff and baristas at service desks (see Chapter 4). When they do not differentiate between different kinds of service providers, it is in part because they do not know the service providers, having experienced few person-to-person service relationships. If they have a need, they want it filled. If they want a need filled, they want to go to a font of all sorts of service, a sort of universal service point, a physical Google. In other words, they want Mommy. (p. 76)

HT: Nicole Engard, Metadata Librarian at Princeton University

Popularity: 10% [?]

Popularity: 13% [?]

Now that the Graduate Research Seminar’s annotated bibliographies are beginning to pile up on my desk I think its about time to update the research wiki. It is still a work in progress, and even needs some new categories (missions, preaching, etc…) and so I am issuing a call for suggestions. Please note that I am looking primarily for reference works. This guide is not intended to be a thorough bibliography of all helpful resources for theological research. Rather, it is primarily a guide to reference materials, so recommend accordingly. Other materials which contain helpful indexes, etc., will also be considered. I need to know:

1. What resources need to be added to bibliographies for existing disciplines? If you can, please provide a brief annotation of why this book is helpful as a reference source, i.e., number and type of indexes, currency, breadth…
2. What other disciplines need to be added to the online guide?
3. What resources need to be added to these other discipline-specific bibliographies?
4. Any other suggestions, recommendations, thoughts, and musings related to the guide.

Please make all recommendations in the comments to this post, or send bibliographies to paul[at]commonplaces.org.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Ahhh. About time.

RSS feeds and alerts in an academic serials database.

Popularity: 16% [?]

Now this is cool. Anyone know how to do it for theology papers? Maybe using Google Scholar’s citation search capabilities?

As to what the image depicts, it was constructed by sorting roughly 800,000 scientific papers into 776 different scientific paradigms (shown as red and blue circular nodes) based on how often the papers were cited together by authors of other papers. Links (curved lines) were made between the paradigms that shared common members, then treated as rubber bands, holding similar paradigms closer to one another when a physical simulation forced them all apart: thus the layout derives directly from the data. Larger paradigms have more papers. Labels list common words unique to each paradigm.

A description of the “feather boa” label layout algorithm, how it is used, and some related work is posted at Mr. Paley’s site [deadlink]. This same image, at its true (readable) 42″ x 43″ size, was recently viewable in person as part of the traveling exhibition Places & Spaces: Mapping Science currently at the New York Hall of Science; it’ll soon be in Chicago.

A copy can be purchased from Information Esthetics for ten dollars.

HT: Seed Magazine, March 7, 2007

Popularity: 6% [?]

The catch-phrase these days in library reference work is “information literacy,” a concept which is defined by the Penn State faculty senate as being comprised of four interconnected components:

1. knowledge of information sources, the organization of information, and the nature of knowing the attributes of scholarly knowledge;
2. skills in finding, evaluating, using and effectively communicating information;
3. generalization of knowledge and skills to various applied settings with a positive disposition toward the use of new and extant information sources and information technologies;and
4. social context for the use of information, equability of access to information and the dissemination of knowledge

I have no desire to merely create a handful of informational literate students. I approach my role as a theological librarian as a ministry — a ministry which hopefully enables students to concentrate on their studies and less on Dewey decimals. Read my post about the ministry of theological librarianship.

I think Hermann Witsius was correct in saying that no one learns well unless he learns in order to teach and that no one teaches well unless he has first learned well.¹ Since these students are presumably studying with the goal of eventually teaching others (it is a seminary, after all), then they (we) must learn appropriately. My goal, then, is to teach students how to navigate the world of information — tools, taxonomy, architecture — in order to enable their study of other disciplines, not just to add another discipline to study.

But how? I can offer workshops — but students do not come to workshops that they are not required to attend. So I am left with attempting to foster relationships with faculty who are sympathetic with the goal of enabling students to do more effective research and then lobby for a chance to address their students. Some faculty are really quite open to the idea. This week, for instance, I am teaching the entire week’s worth of all of a particular faculty member’s Written Communications and Comp 2 classes, the result of which is really quite effective). Others are moderately receptive and are willing to give me a one shot introduction to bibliographic research. Still others are at least willing to send their students to me if they need help.

So I’m constantly polishing the presentation. Not so that it is impressively slick (well, not just that), but to find the most effective way to present the information. Soon, d.v., I will be able to transform these sessions into workshops with a cart of designated laptops. For the time being, however, it must be a one-sided presentation.

My appeal, then, is for ideas to make the sessions better. I’ve used Powerpoint. I’ve used mindmapping programs like MindManager. But I do not yet feel like I’ve found the best way to present the material. I typically use one of the two for the instructional aspects of the presentation, and for demonstration of online tools I use Firefox.

Any ideas?

Popularity: 13% [?]