The Search Principle blog

Read a paper lately you wish you had written? That thought crossed my mind after reading this article comparing the principles of access that underlined Fred Kilgour’s work at OCLC with Google scholar:

Pomerantz, J. (2006). Google scholar and 100% availability of information. Information Technology and Libraries, 25(1), 52-56.

Would Melville Dewey (father of the DD classification) or John Shaw Billings (father of Index Medicus) have approved of Google scholar? In his paper, Pomerantz states: “Fred Kilgour would probably approve of Google scholar”. Kilgour was committed to a lifelong goal of improving access to library collections through shared catalogue information. But, we will never know what he thought of GS because Kilgour died in 2006.

One wonders what Ranganathan would say about Google scholar? Would his Five Laws apply to quick and open access to Google BookSearch? Quick, open access to the entire corpus of scholarly literature online are noble goals of the information age.

But at some point, availability, searchability and findability seem to be crowding out classification, cataloguing and subject analysis. I doubt Ranganathan would have approved of that development. (Or, Dewey, Billings and Kilgour for that matter.)

I’ve been fiddling with Google Coop and the new Rollyo-like feature of creating your own search engine. Here are some of the sites searched on Google medicine.

Check it out: Google medicine – search “common cold” AND “vitamin c”

Here are the same search terms performed in classic Google and Google scholar.

1. Scan
– Scoping the search is the first step; try the biggest indexes and search tools. Scan the literature.

2. Snowball
– use references in bibliographies, citation linking in Scholar, Web of Science, and “related articles” in PubMed to begin so-called snowballing for items that might be missed.

3. Systematize
– Build a search strategy, and document it. Be systematic and record your searching. Make it reproducible.

4. Sleuth
– For older print, search national library and union catalogues, be strategic about where you search, and investigate leads, top researchers and where they work.

5. Socialize
– Use social software to communicate. Stay current. To share search strategies. To find grey lit 2.0, search blogs and wikis.

With apologies (and thanks) to Brian Haynes and his excellent 4 S-scheme in evidence-based searching. Dean

In my adult learning pedagogies course, we are studying phenomenography, a qualitative study tool, which I hadn’t heard of (let alone pronounced), but one that I might use for LIBR534.

Let’s begin with our MLIS cohort of learners, whose experience of blogging could be studied using phenomenographic analysis. The study would attempt to understand their experiences of negotiated, weekly blogging for LIBR534. I could interview them, and analyze the information using phenomenographic research methods.

As an empirical research approach that explores the personal recollections and descriptions of a specific shared experience, phenomenography would help me to extract data from in-depth interviews, which I could then categorize by themes, variations and perceptions of the blogged experience. I would then map my findings into themes and variations, and describe them (or depict them using a graph).

The strongly-shared, experiential learning space in libraries (and searching) might benefit from phenomenographic analysis, and might lead to other study designs such as ethnography. (See Ference Morton).

A group of LIBR534 students have been experimenting, especially PubMed Junkie, with two visual drafts (or flowcharts) of PICO:

1. PICO Draft #1 – simpler, version

2. PICO Draft #2 – more details, librarian-version perhaps?

Nancy Anderson has posited a consumer health extension to PICO here. We’d be interested in feedback, here or on the individual blogs in question. regards, Dean

Megan Wiebe, MLIS Student, and HealthInfoChick, went solo at the WMLA/PNCMLA Conference in Seattle. Sounds like she got some good questions re: our poster:

Q) What do you mean by grey lit 2.0?
A) GL2.0 is hard to find “hidden” collaboratively created (ie. yes, wikis would work) published materials that are not indexed.

Q) Are the wikis grey lit?
A) Yes. Though, Google indexes/crawls our wikis so they are theoretically findable.

Q) I thought all grey literature was NOT indexed. Is that true?
A) The traditional definition is that grey literature is not indexed. However, my newer approach to grey lit is anything that cannot be found.

Q) What are blikis?
A) A combination of blog/wiki.

Q) What sort of content is on the wikis?
A) We’re in the early stages of creating a range of content and pointing to cases, and other materials.

Q) What is the purpose of the wikis?
A) The purpose is twofold: 1) to experiment with new means of leading users and colleagues to resources and 2) to communicate, collaborate and to share ideas.

Q) Do you have any tips for searching grey literature?
A) Yes. Document everything. Make your searching comprehensive, starting with the largest indexes and then “snowballing“.

Q) What wiki program/software do you use?
A) MediaWiki and PBWiki.

Q) Do people contribute to the wikis?
A) Not as much as we need/want. However, we’re getting there…

I’m glad I didn’t get in the way at the Conference. Megan didn’t need my “hogging” the questions, and learned more without me there, I suspect. So, why, you ask? Mentoring is also about letting go.

I invite all health librarians to ponder this question: what would you do with a cool million dollars if it dropped from the sky? That’s a one, with six zeros….!

What would I do? It seems to me that health librarianship needs to innovate, and to come up with creative solutions and directions for our profession. We can’t wait for the future to happen, we need to invite it into our libraries.

First, I’d see a comprehensive digital literacy program at Vancouver general hospital, one that would allow us to integrate knowledge at point-of-need/ care for medical faculty, staff, and students.

I would utilize innovative Web 2.0 software, and wireless outreach methods (e.g., develop a digital “housecalls” initiative to integrate an EBM-literate librarian into rounds). Closer to home, I’d design a section in the library for experimentation with software and gaming technology, a lab of seredipitious “second life” discovery.

Have I spent all the money yet? Stay tuned for an announcement, soon. No, I’m not kidding. Dean

One hundred years from now, Google will be seen as one entity that pushed the boundaries of intellectual property/ ownership in the digital age, thereby shaking publishing to its core. Either Google will force an Internet copyright shift to occur – and it will have to be a major correction – or legal wrangling will continue for years to come.

I’ve been saying to friends that YouTube.com had reached a point where it needed to sell out to Google after a rather brash, courageous (dumb?) run at copyright infringement. Now, today this announcement from e-Week.

This is going to be very interesting…..Dean

Librarians are not quick enough to implement technology. Librarians are too quick to implement new technologies. Is this our new paranoia?

Some of my colleagues suggest that our push to understand social software is crowding out librarianship, minimizing much more important skills: ie. knowledge of sources; and, the information needs of our users. Finger wag.

Our LIBR534 students have convinced me that blogs and wikis are a part of our future whether we like it, or not. The challenge for the new generation is to master all the other traditional skills: technical and public service skills. One way to do so, to push the envelope, is not to waste time – strive for professional excellence, and know your stuff (especially sources, services, user groups).

To test-drive wikis, one of my MLIS students, Megan Wiebe and I collaborated on this PNCMLA conference poster:

Expert searching of the grey literature: two collaborative wikis– Wiebe, Giustini.

Megan has done some interesting work with wikis, and it’s my analysis that she, like her many colleagues in LIBR534, is headed for success in health librarianship. My role, at this point, is to encourage her to push the envelope with social software, and to resist the pressure exerted by some in our field towards controlling our experimentation. Can you say de-professionalization?

Here is where we need all the soft skills we can muster – diplomacy, collegiality and enthusiasm. But our success within the new information age depends on mastering traditional skills. It’s our duty. Using social software is our right. Dean

My, the gents at Google scholar are smart. I’ve been taking a highly interesting course on globalization via BlackBoard, and today the eyebrow-raising announcement that Blackboard will team with Google scholar to integrate search into the online software. Here’s globalization at work in its most elemental way because Blackboard recently acquired the other online education software giant, WebCT. Search and learn globally. Together, online.

Yesterday, an un-named Library association called to ask about the pesky task of asking Google to come and speak at a B.C. library conference in 2007. And why wouldn’t they, to make inroads into Canada? I think Anurag‘s a good speaker, even though he hasn’t been communicative with Google scholar blog in, oh, six months.

Which brings me to this: Google scholar turns two (2) years old on November 18th. Shall we celebrate two years in beta? When, Anurag, do we get Scholar 2.0?