Summon at UBC Library 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Summon at UBC Library 2011

on

  • 2,358 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,358
Views on SlideShare
2,294
Embed Views
64

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
23
Comments
0

3 Embeds 64

http://blogs.ubc.ca 61
http://static.slidesharecdn.com 2
http://www.aplaceofmind.ubc.ca 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Summon at UBC Library 2011 Summon at UBC Library 2011 Document Transcript

  • Marketing ‘discovery tools’ to the Google generation: a review of issues and strategies for academic librarians (outline draft) Dean Giustini, Eugene Barsky, UBC LibraryI. IntroductionIn this paper, we review some of the issues and challenges of marketing ‘one-search discoverytools’ in academic libraries in an age where many popular federated and meta-search toolscompete for attention. The library and information science literature is full of cases outliningthe difficulties of cumulating the scholarly literature [1-4] and the benefits of using discoveryservices to lead to authoritative content [5-7]. But what seems missing is a (re)contextualizationof when a single central database is most useful and when specific databases, discovery toolsand / or Google should be consulted. We argue that users resort to at least three ‘searchpostures’ (or strategies) as a result of not knowing when to use which search services, namely i)repetitive keyword ‘pre-searching’, ii) digital browsing of key websites and iii) heuristic‘discovery’ using a range of indexes and methods [5]. Due to their affordances, two tools seemto foster browsing and ‘pre-searching’ in academia more than any other, Google Scholar andWikipedia. However, we highlight the reasons for the proper marketing of one stop tools (‘onesearch’ or ‘one box to search all’) in academic research while discussing the challenges thatacademic librarians face in doing so. Where relevant, we describe our interactions with users atthe University of British Columbia Library where Serials Solutions’ Summon was introduced toresearchers in February 2011.II. Background“...[one-stop search] is about helping users discover library content in all formats … [this is]regardless of whether it resides within the physical library or among its collections of electronic
  • content, spanning both locally owned materials and those accessed remotely throughsubscriptions.” [7] (Breeding, 2010)References  Byrne, Alex (2008). Web 2.0 strategy in libraries and information services. The Australian Library Journal. 57(4), 365-376  Breeding, M. (2010). The state of the art in library discovery 2010. Computers in libraries, 2010, 30(1), 31–34.  Bilder, G. W. “In Google We Trust?” Journal of Electronic Publishing 9.1 (2006). Web. 1 May 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3336451.0009.101  Campbell, J. “Changing a Cultural Icon: The Academic Library as a Virtual Destination.” EDUCAUSE Review 41.1 (2006): 16–31.  Caswell, JV., Wynstra, JD. (2010). Improving the search experience: federated search and the library gateway. Library Hi Tech. 28(3):391-401.  Chen X. (2010) Google scholars dramatic coverage improvement five years after debut. Serials Review. 36, 4: 221-226.  CIBER (2007): Information behaviour of the researcher of the future (‘Google Generation’ Project), University College London, CIBER. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/infostudies/research/ciber/downloads/ggexecutive.pdf  Dartmouth College Library (2009): An evaluation of Serials Solutions Summon: as a discovery service for the Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, NH, Dartmouth College Library.  Drake, M.A. (2008). Federated search: one simple query of simply wishful thinking?’’ Searcher, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 22-4, 61-2.  Duddy, C. (2009). A student perspective on accessing academic information in the Google era, 32nd UKSG Annual Conference and Exhibition, 30 March–1 April 2009, Riviera International Conference Centre, Torquay.  Duvernay, J. (2010). Promoting Library One Search at Arizona State University, The success of web-scale discovery in returning net-gen users to the library Library journal webcast April 8, 2010. http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/tools/webcast/883883-388/the_success_of_web- scale_discovery.html.csp  Gibson I, Goddard L, Gordon S. (2009). One box to search them all: implementing federated search at an academic library. Library Hi Tech. 27(1):118–133.  Chen X. (2010). Google Scholars Dramatic Coverage Improvement Five Years after Debut Serials Review Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2010;221-226.
  •  Dartmouth College Library (2009): An evaluation of Serials Solutions Summon: as a discovery service for the Dartmouth College Library. Hanover, NH. Duddy, C, A personal perspective on accessing academic information in the Google era, or ‘How I learned to stop worrying and love Google’, Serials, 2009, 22(2), 132- 135. Gibson, I., L. Goddard and S. Gordon (2009): ‘One box to search them all: implementing federated search at an academic library’, Library Hi Tech, 27(1), 118– 133. Hahn J. (2010). Information seeking with Wikipedia on the iPod Touch. Reference Services Review. 38(2): 284 - 298. Head A., Eisenberg M. Truth Be Told: How College Students Evaluate and Use Information in the Digital Age. Project Information Literacy Progress Report, University of Washingtons Information School. Nov 1, 2010. 72 pages Jacsó, P. (2004). Thoughts about federated searching. Information Today. 21(9):17- 20. King, D. (2008). Many libraries have gone to federated searching to win users back from Google. Is it working? Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 20(4), 213– 227. Joint, N. (2010). The one-stop search engine: a transformational library technology? Library Review, Vol. 59, No. 4., pp. 240-248 Lampert LD, Dabbour KS. Librarian perspectives on teaching Metasearch and federated search technologies. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 2007, 12(3/4), 253-278. Lim S. (2009). How and why do college students use Wikipedia?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60, 11 (November);2,189– 2,202. Lockwood, C. and MacDonald, P. (2007), ‘‘Implementation of a federated search system in the academic library: lessons learned’’, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 12 Nos 1/2, pp. 73-91. Lowry, C. Transformational Times: An Environmental Scan Prepared for the ARL Strategic Plan Review Task Force. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2009. OCLC. College Students’ Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2006. Rand, A. (2010). Mediating at the Student-Wikipedia Intersection. Journal of Library Administration, 50(7/8), 923-932. Rowe, R. (2010). Web-Scale Discovery: A Review of Summon, EBSCO Discovery Service, and WorldCat Local. Charleston Advisor. 12(1), 5-10.
  •  Stevenson, K., S. Elsegood, D. Seaman, C. Pawlek and M.P. Nielsen (2009). Next generation library catalogues: reviews of Encore, Primo, Summon and Summa. Serials, 22(1), 68–82.  van Dijck J. (2010). Search engines and the production of academic knowledge. International Journal of Cultural Studies. 13: 574-592.  Vaughan, Jason. (2011). Investigations into library web scale discovery services. Paper 44. http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/lib_articles/44  Way, Doug. The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection. (2010). Scholarly Publications. Paper 9. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_sp/9  Wrubel, L. and Schmidt, K. (2007). Usability testing of a metasearch interface: a case study. College and Research Libraries. Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 292-311.  Yang SQ, Wagner K. (2010). Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards next generation catalog? Libr Hi Tech. 28(4):690 - 709.Further reading  Electronic resource discovery systems: do they help or hinder in searching for academic material? by Hanna Stelmaszewska  Head A. Information Literacy from the Trenches: How Do Humanities and Social Science Majors Conduct Academic Research? College and Research Libraries, Sept 2008, 69, 4  Course Assignments Fail to Train Undergraduates for Research in the Digital Age Education-Portal.com, August 6, 2010.  At the Last Minute Joe Janes, Technology column, American Libraries, April 2009, p. 26  Information literacy: A Call to Action Sharon Weiner, College and Research Library News, July/August 2010, 71, 7.  Weiner SA. Information Literacy: A Neglected Core Competency Educause Q. 33, 1, 2010.  Professor Michael Eisenberg Talks Critical Thinking Today HowDo.Us Interview with Mike Eisenberg, Co-Director Project Information Literacy, Professor, University of Washington Information School, March 2010  Research Assignment Handouts Give Students Meager Guidance,” by Kelly Truong, Chronicle of Higher Education, July 27, 2010.  Students Use Wikipedia Early and Often, Study Shows Mary Helen Miller, Chronicle of Higher Education, March 16, 2010  Increasingly, the sheer number of discovery tools have made it necessary to debate the merits of each system http://www.librarytechnology.org/discovery.pl while comparing http://sites.google.com/site/urd2comparison/