The Google Question Kyle Bachman-Johnson LIS 6120 April 17, 2011 Dr.

Hermina Anghelescu

The Google Question The Google Question Early in my observation time at the Johnson Community College Library, the Head of Reference (HOR) mentioned Google disparagingly. She made it clear that she did not consider it appropriate in the library. I observed reference desk interactions in which students mentioned that they had used Google to find articles for assignments, and the HOR immediately steered them to databases. While I understood the overall objective guiding students to make the shift to scholarly literature, in support of information literacy these observations intrigued me. I too, had been mistrustful of Google. It was drive-through reference, not to be taken seriously. I questioned the quality and the accuracy of the search results and the motives of the company. I understood the fear among certain librarians that Googles success might make them seem to be obsolete. There is ample support for the HORs position that Google doesnt belong in the college library. Of major concern is Googles encouragement of keyword searching, when subject search yields a more relevant and focused return. Students who prefer the familiarity and ease of the Google interface, who select from among the first page or two of results, will not be motivated to learn a more effective and efficient technique. They may not fully appreciate that the specific information they need can be found, and that it is unlikely to be among the first 10 hits returned in a keyword search. Leiberger coined the term Googleitis to describe this habitual use of search engines for research (Grenzeback, 2009)p. 187. In the academic library, better tools are available for the task at hand (Lieibiger, 2011) (Grenzeback, 2009).

The Google Question A related concern has to do with what is known about the way Google search works. One of the elements involved in the ranking of hits produced by a search, is the popularity of sites. Rankings are higher for pages that many others have linked to, Googles assumption being that the . . . popularity of sites is a validation of quality (Brabazon, 2006, p. 160). Brabazon has described this as the Google Effect . . . the notion that the popularity of hits determines the relevance of the results (Brabazon, 2006, p. 159). Clearly there is confusion between popularity and quality. In the search

for information in the academic environment, the quality of search results should not be affected by the opinions of the masses. Finally, the fact that Google is a business that serves its advertisers rather than users, make its motives questionable. Google runs daily experiments on its pages (and users) and as a result is able to feed searchers advertisements aligned with their search terms implications for info literacy. There are others, however, who see Google as potentially enhancing both research and literacy education. Of particular interest is one of many additional Google products, Google Scholar. (Google Scholar was not mentioned by any of the students or staff at Johnson Community College during my observations. It was as if the g word remained unspoken, perhaps it would be forgotten.) Google Scholar has been directly compared with subscription databases and the results are equivocal. Bradley compared the size, coverage, features offered, and search results of H.W. Wilsons LibLit and Google Scholar. Her results led her to conclude that LibLit is superior. She noted, however, that the Google Scholar citation tracker is a helpful feature that allows

The Google Question the user to link directly to sources cited in bibliographies, and that Google Scholar includes grey papers that are inaccessible elsewhere (Bradley, 2010/2011) . Other studies provide support for the use of Google Scholar in academia. Howland and his team compared the scholarliness of the citations returned for searches with Google Scholar and JSTOR, and Google Scholar excelled. Searches were conducted across all disciplines. One of his findings was that three quarters of the citations found in JSTOR were also found in Google Scholar, while just under half of those found in Google Scholar were found in JSTOR. Howland indicated that Google Scholar performed better in terms of precision and recall as well. Further, he found no evidence that the scholarliness of Google Scholar results varied across disciplines (Howland, Wright, Boughan, & Roberts, 2009). Lydia Dixon and her cohorts looked at results of usability studies to assess the relative usability of journal portals, Google Scholar, and link resolver forms. Users were given citations to locate using each of the three methods. Google Scholar was preferred by users, judged more satisfying, and produced faster performance. As a result of this study, the academic library made changes to their web pages, catalog, and link resolver forms. The changes were followed by a sharp increase in usage (Dixon, Duncan, Fagan, Mandernach, & Warlick, 2010). Regardless of ones conclusions about the search utility of Google, there is another aspect of academic reference librarianship that may benefit from its inclusion. I observed at the Johnson Community College Library that students generally came to the library as Google users. I had also become very conscious of the uncomfortable distance between the reference staff and the students. I became interested in the 3

The Google Question possibility that, as a reference librarian, I could use this fact to advantage both in establishing rapport and in teaching information literacy. It struck me that approaching a Google user with an open and accepting attitude would be good customer relations. Offering to showcase my own expertise with the entire Google line might build a bridge. The likelihood that I am seen by a 20-something student as a novice on the internet is high, so a demonstration that I can do better than hold my own in his world might win me a vote of confidence, or at least a second chance. For me to have an impact, the patron needs to feel both a level of comfort with me and a sense that I have something to offer. As a reference librarian who speaks Google, I can meet him where he is in

order to take him beyond Google. This kind of approach would also circumvent another problem that interferes with establishing rapport. Rather than perceiving me as someone out-of-touch, with nothing to offer, another patron may feel intimidated because they anticipate that I know everything. Feeling inadequate or overwhelmed, this patron may be put at ease if we are working in familiar Google territory. Perhaps there are basic information literacy concepts that can be taught using a tool he is competent with, before moving on to something as new to him as databases. Ultimately there will be more learning and better communication if the patron is relaxed. In each of the two scenarios just described, my behavior as a reference librarian will have contributed to the likelihood that the patron will return again when she has a question. In her review of the literature on the topic of library anxiety in the academic library, Heather Carlisle discusses the factors that contribute to discomfort (Carlisle, 2007). This experience of feeling overwhelmed, bewildered, and inadequate in the 4

The Google Question library environment, is made worse when informational instruction is delivered without an emotional component. Another moderating factor is the relationship with library staff; students who perceive barriers have greater anxiety than those who perceive good rapport (Carlisle, 2007). Since library anxiety can lead a student to avoid the library, avoid asking for help, and refuse to attend literacy class, reference librarians should do what they can to diminish it. The profession as a whole must continue to work on developing better interpersonal soft skills along with other proficiencies in order to provide the best services in library reference (Brown, 2011). If I know that the patrons familiarity, a sense of competence, and engagement are keys to return visits to the reference librarian, it follows that I need to dispense more than dry information. Openness to the popularity of Google may well bring me closer to my ultimate goal; engaged and information-literate students. Once the patron is engaged and interested, I can then teach her more about the tool she uses (and missuses) every day. There is much to learn about Google within the context of information literacy. Cirasella has written about some of the specific ways Google can be used to engage patrons in the reference interview. She describes the use of Google as a tool to clarify tip-of-the-tongue questions, when the patron cant quite articulate a question. There are two Google tools, Google Suggest and Google Sets that can be very helpful in clarifying the question. Refining ill-formed reference questions, correcting or completing incomplete citations, and checking spelling of names are other tasks that Google search can handle well (Cirasella, You and Me and Google Makes Three: Welcoming Google into the Reference Interview, 2007). Placing a tilde immediately in 5

The Google Question front of a search term will search for synonyms in addition to the keyword (Peijun, 2011). Finally, Google Search History is an excellent recordkeeping tool, logging

research history for users who are logged in to their Google account (Cirasella, Google Sets, Google Suggest, and Google Search History: Three More Tools for the Reference Librarian's Bag of Tricks, 2007). Likewise, there are uses of Google Scholar at the reference desk. At least five reasons are noteworthy: 1. To complete a citation and to find the full text. 2. To identify portions of monographs (using a full-text search), or to relocate something found earlier. 3. To locate an item that the library doesnt own. 4. To locate items when library databases/catalogs are down or not functioning properly (if the library participates in Open WorldCat). 5. To conduct interdisciplinary metasearching for suggestion of another database (Bronshteyn & Tvaruzka, 2008).

A reference librarian imparts information, but she needs a recipient who knows he has a need and believe she is in possession of that information. Observing at the reference desk of Johnson Community College reinforced this reality. Until there is a dialog and a relationship, the reference librarian and her knowledge are irrelevant. Patrons who go habitually to Google for information are communicating something, and it behooves us to listen. This is a teachable moment. The more I know about Google,

The Google Question the better prepared I will be to help others discern when to use it and when to look elsewhere.

The Google Question References Brabazon, T. (2006). The Google Effect: Googling, Blogging, Wikis, and the Flattening of Expertise. Libri, 1571-67. Bradley, A. (2010/2011). A Comparison of Google Scholar and Library Literature and Information Science. Current Studies in Librarianship, 37-48. Bronshteyn, K., & Tvaruzka, K. (2008). Using Google Scholar at the Reference Desk. Journal of Library Administration, 115-124. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930820802110969 Brown, L. J. (2011). Trending Now-Reference Librarians: How Reference Librarians Work to Prevent Library Anxiety. Journal of Library Administration, 309-317. doi:10.1080/01930826.2011.556950 Carlisle, H. (2007). The Implications of Library Anxiety for Academic Reference Services: A Review of the Literature. Australian Academic and Research Libraries, 129-147. Cirasella, J. (2007). Google Sets, Google Suggest, and Google Search History: Three More Tools for the Reference Librarian's Bag of Tricks. The Reference Librarian, 57-65. doi:10:1300/J120v48n99_04 Cirasella, J. (2007). You and Me and Google Makes Three: Welcoming Google into the Reference Interview. Library Philosophy and Practice. Dixon, L., Duncan, C., Fagan, J. C., Mandernach, M., & Warlick, S. E. (2010). Finding Articles and Journals via Google Scholar, Journal Portals, and Link Resolvers: Usability Study Results. Reference User Services Quarterly, 170-81. Grenzeback. (2009). Google @ Your Library. Nebraska Library Association Quarterly. 8

The Google Question Howland, J. L., Wright, T. C., Boughan, R. A., & Roberts, B. C. (2009). How Scholarly is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases. College Research Library, 227-234. Lieibiger, C. (2011). Google Reigns Triumphant?: Stemming the Tide of Googlitis via Collaborative, Situated Information Literacy Instruction. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 187-222. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2011.628886 Peijun, J. (2011). Exploring Google to Enhance Reference Services. Community & Junior College Libraries, 23-30. doi:10.1080/02763915.2011.571177