Thanksgiving is over, but it’s never too late to be Thankful

The Chronicle of Higher Ed’s Thomas Benton has a column out listing the things he’s grateful for in academe.  Libraries made the list, (I want to say, “of course”), and he’s worth quoting in full, here:

Libraries and librarians: Our colleagues who are information professionals provide us with the scholarly resources we need for our research and teaching, and they do so with minimal recognition and considerable pressure to adapt to rapidly changing technologies. While the Internet has been a boon to scholarly research, the physical library is—more than stadiums, more than student centers—the heart of the academic enterprise: It’s a place for solitary reflection as well as serendipitous encounters in the context of intellectual seriousness. Nothing can replace libraries as places, even if they are no longer primarily based on the circulation of printed materials.

What are you thankful for on campus?  Does the library make your list?

Thinking about how students do research

bear with me now, I’m going to start ugly with a reference to this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  In it, the “Shadow Scholar,” a.k.a. a writer for a custom-paper mill, details his process, and justifies at length his participation in students’ elaborate (and expensive) schemes to get degrees (not just bachelor’s degrees, but M.As,  and even Ph.D.s) without doing the work.

His contempt for the education system as a whole is palpable.  That’s not why I’m referring to this article here.  What struck me was his description of his “research” process:

“First I lay out the sections of an assignment—introduction, problem statement, methodology, literature review, findings, conclusion—whatever the instructions call for. Then I start Googling.

I haven’t been to a library once since I started doing this job. Amazon is quite generous about free samples. If I can find a single page from a particular text, I can cobble that into a report, deducing what I don’t know from customer reviews and publisher blurbs. Google Scholar is a great source for material, providing the abstract of nearly any journal article. And of course, there’s Wikipedia, which is often my first stop when dealing with unfamiliar subjects. Naturally one must verify such material elsewhere, but I’ve taken hundreds of crash courses this way.

After I’ve gathered my sources, I pull out usable quotes, cite them, and distribute them among the sections of the assignment. Over the years, I’ve refined ways of stretching papers. I can write a four-word sentence in 40 words. Just give me one phrase of quotable text, and I’ll produce two pages of ponderous explanation. I can say in 10 pages what most normal people could say in a paragraph.”

This sounds terribly familiar.  I’ve been spending good chunks of this semester interviewing and observing students while they are doing their research, and the first stop for many is Google, the second stop, Wikipedia.  When they tell me they go to Wikipedia, they also tell me, “just for a start,” and “I know professors don’t like it, but I just want to get a sense for what is out there.”  I suppose the technical term for what they are doing with Wikipedia is a browse, but they can also (and do also) browse on Google, and, for that matter, on the library’s website.

Many of our student profess to never going into the library, either.  Or at least, to never using the library’s resources.  “I can find everything I need online,” is an oft-expressed sentiment.  When I ask what “online” means (because there’s an awful lot from Atkins available online these days), they clarify:  “Google.”  They get to articles via Google, they find books on Google books, and they also find (and use) information in a variety of websites (mostly .edu or .org sites, because many were taught at one point that the URL suffix can be one hint as to a website’s reliability).

Some, but not all, students realize that the articles they get to via Google are actually available because of the Atkins library (that is, we pay for access, so that you can get to them).  Some, but not all students, realize that there are books in Atkins that could be helpful to them in the stacks.  Some, but not all students, are aware that websites are not ideal sources for research papers.

When professors insist, students seek out books.  When professors insist, students seek out peer-reviewed journal articles.  In the absence of that insistence–and sometimes, even in the presence of that insistence–students do the work that is expedient.  They find good-enough sources, and write good-enough papers.

When do students do better than “good enough?”  When they are working for a class they love, especially one in their major.  When they are the kind of student who will go onto graduate school, because they love the process of research.  When they are returning students, who have a very clear idea why they are at a university, and so want to get the best out of their experiences there.

If students are in a required class, a class they perceive to be a hoop they need to jump through to get to the next thing they would like to do, then they will do “good enough” work.

And if they don’t see the point in doing the work at all, or if they are completely overwhelmed and don’t know where to begin to start the work themselves, they might turn to someone like the “Shadow Scholar.”

Ground Floor Reconfigure

I’m sure you’ve noticed something different about the Ground Floor–new cafe name, furniture rearranged, carrels moving out.

Now it’s REALLY different.  Check it out.

So, what will you do in this new space?
Will you do the same things?
Will you have to find another place to go?
Have you ever worked on the ground floor before?  Do you think you will, now?

Google Instant and psychic searching

Well the latest news about Google is that it’s trying to predict what you are searching for instantly.  The results come up as you are still typing what you are looking for.  The early verdict is “clever, not psychic.”  I wonder if it will turn into a kind of game–what is Google thinking I’m searching for?–very like when people allow their phones to complete the words they are typing, even (and especially) when it’s the wrong words.

The impulse to know more than users do about what users are searching for can get us into trouble.  I’m not saying that users of library resources always know what is possible, when conducting a search.  But it is possible for  information specialists to go too far in assuming they think they know what people are looking for–or how they should be looking for it.  Information scientists are trained to organize information, and to retrieve it from information systems, but are not always working with systems that are intuitive to users.  Thinking that information science provides the best way to organize information can get in the way of library users finding the information they need–or even, perceiving the library as a good place they can go for resources.  If the organizing structures of the information resources are too challenging, people can give up. 

I wonder about Google Instant.  Will people respond well to Google presuming that it can know so much from so little initial data?  Will Google build in the right kind of flexibility. so that people can find what they are actually looking for, not just what Google thinks they are looking for?

On metadata, Google, and why we still need librarians and libraries

This article in the Chronicle of Higher Education takes Google to elaborate task for its inadequate metadata.

What is metadata?  It’s a word that I was utterly unfamiliar with up until about 6 months ago.  And my grasp of its meaning is still that of a non-expert.  My definition of “metadata” is:  the descriptive data attached to the electronic records of library materials, be they books, articles, or other documents/items, that allow for search engines to find those materials.  (I am sure my colleagues here will correct me when I am wrong–or elaborate on that definition if they find it inadequate).  In short, if there is bad or incomplete metadata, the best materials for the searching patron may never turn up, when they type in subject categories, author names, book titles, or publication dates.

Google’s massive book-scanning project inspires a great many alarmist conversations among academics, and I have my own reservations about the Google-ization of academic publishing.  But it seems clear to me that, if Google is going to do this, with the purpose of making nearly all of academic publications accessible and searchable, they should at least do it correctly.  This article points to the errors already embedded in Google’s metadata, and highlights the potential trouble for scholars if those errors are allowed to persist.

Do you expect to be able to find useful information when you Google things?  How can you expect it, if there are such serious flaws in their methods?  Perhaps this is a hint that Google is not actually the be-all end-all of academic search, but remains just a starting point.

Among the messages I take from the article today is the one that states: Google should be employing actual metadata experts in their books project.  And also that, for now, the need for librarians and their expertise is not going away anytime soon.

They’re not just for feedback (updated)

The whiteboards in the library were never intended to primarily be vehicles for feedback (although they are occasionally used for that, and that’s fine).
They are there, fundamentally, so that people can use them while they’re studying in the library.  They are on wheels so that you can move them to a space that works best for your group.  We know that the whiteboards in the study rooms are tremendously useful to the study groups that use them, and when it’s midterm or finals time, we want it to be possible for the entire library to be one huge study room.

So, not only are there these portable boards, but there is a new set of whiteboard surfaces along the wall of the Atkins ground floor, just outside of the cafe downstairs (used to be Ritazza, now it’s Peet’s).

Here’s an example of what someone did with one of the whiteboards on the second floor.

And there are whiteboards on the ground floor now, and people are using them, too (thanks to Donna Gunter for this picture):

What else helps you study in the library?  How are you using the spaces in Atkins?

A New Year, in the Fall (updated)

I’ve been an academic for my entire adult life, and so New Year’s for me falls in late August.  It was fitting that the weather changed just enough today to make it feel like Fall was really just about here.

Today was the Atkins Library’s Week of Welcome day, and we were out in force, giving students “smart pills” with our latest brochure, and connecting students to the resources they need to do their work here on campus.  We also had up the ever-present easels, and people wrote on them. 

We asked four questions.  I’ll post the first one now, and update as we get the pictures ready.

Where do you like to Read and Write ?

Question 2:
What do you think  Librarians DO?

Question 3:
Who do you talk to about assignments?

Question 4:  What do you need from the library?  We got two sets of responses, because we erased the full board and started over about halfway through our WoW session.

What are your answers to these questions?  Are they different than the ones above?  Answer in the comments!

Library Ethnography at the American Library Association meetings (ALAs)

The Chronicle of Higher education had this article on ethnographic research in libraries.  One interesting side-effect of this article is the comments that follow–seems some people don’t see ethnography in libraries as “scholarly research.”  Well, that’s arguable.  I’m biased, of course, but I think that any ethnographic endeavor is about increasing understanding.   And if we engage in ethnography to influence library policy (as we are doing here at Atkins), we are using that increase in understanding to make policy better fit with the needs of our patrons.  I think that’s also legitimately “scholarly.” 

Suggesting that applied work like ethnography done in libraries, or in military situations, or in corporations, cannot possibly be “scholarly” is defining away a big chunk of anthropological research, for what I think are largely political reasons, having nothing to do with scholarly integrity. 

Anyway.
Any of my colleagues actually attend the session on ethnography?  Alas, I was unable to be in DC for the ALA festivities.