> "These findings suggest thata searcher who is unwilling to search multiple databases or adopt
> a sophisticated search strategy is likely to achieve better than average recall and precision
> by using Google Scholar."
It's always weirded me out that these conversations suppose that
finding useful scholarly information is about choosing between
different machines that search the world of articles, books and so
forth.
When I was working on my PhD (not finishing it) by *FAR* the most
important methods were:
1. Citations in other scholarly sources
2. Recommendations from graduate students and professors
With number one being far above number two. That is, the best way get
into a topic is to find anything relevant and relatively recent, and
then start working out through the footnotes and citations. A Google
or OPAC search could kick this off, or later could fill in some more
recent references, but the core method of scholarship was *in the
scholarship*!
Sometimes, the best finding method is not only in the scholarship, but
actually created by the scholars. Sometimes its a scholarly reference
tool, like the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Sometimes it's something
more focused. In Alexander-the-Great studies, for example, one
scholar, Waldemar Heckle, has compiled—and continues to compile—an
organized and annotated bibliography of books and articles about
Alexander that is better than anything ever produced.
(http://hum.ucalgary.ca/wheckel/alexande.htm) If you're interested in
Alexander, it's the answer. Compared to Heckle's bibliography, the
other options are tiddlywinks. (Google wins out, however, because
Google includes Heckle's work—ranked pretty high—whereas no OPAC or
article index does.)
So, it seems to me that these conversations are fundamentally
off-kilter from how real scholarship takes place. Maybe we should
judge tools some other way, like how quickly they get you started, or
whether they leverage the intelligence of scholars and graduate
students. It seems to me that Google wins on both fronts right
now—it's quick and inherently based on crowdsourced opinion—but I
don't want to be dogmatic. I'm not sure the right tools have been
invented for really helping scholars.
Tim
Received on Tue Mar 03 2009 - 10:30:52 EST