People with little understanding of the process and seemingly no knowledge of the reasons behind research methods toss around terms and numbers with great pretense. Worse, others with potentially less knowledge are making policy decisions based on these numbers. With this lack of understanding, it is no wonder we have arrived at a world confused by “alternative facts,” “fake news,” and the disregard of scientific institutions and data.[1]

I am reminded of the popular belief “people lie with statistics.” As I told many a class, people can only lie with statistics to those that don’t know statistics. The same is essentially true of all information. People can lie about history, but only to those who don’t know history. People can lie about anything to those that do not know about the topic. The way to prevent this is to learn about the topic in question. In the case of trusting research and data, one needs to understand research methods and evaluate.

As librarians we are dedicated to seeking out information. While we generally do not engage in original scientific research ourselves, we refer people to such research and help people to evaluate the materials they find. Academic librarians may do this with greater depth and frequency, but I would argue the responsibility is even greater for the public librarian who serves a population that comes to them for information without any expectation of foundation and background knowledge. For the average public library patron there is no expectation that they possess a background in even website evaluation, let alone scientific research methodology.

For the public librarian we (rightfully) take pride in our role of evaluating material and educating others to do the same. As the evaluation process, not subject matter, is generally our expertise, we depend on other factors such as knowing the credentials of authors and publishers. A simplistic example is that we refer people to information produced by a journalistic news source rather than a tabloid. In the past, the expectation was that the most trusted information could be obtained from the juried professional journals of an academic discipline. If a cure was touted by the American Journal Of Medicine, we knew we could trust this cure more than if presented in The National Enquirer. The actual reason behind this had little to do with the publisher, and everything to do with the process. The material presented in the journal we knew was going to be based on data gathered by scientific methods and reviewed by experts in the field.

This week, I learned the American Psychological Association (APA) asked a journal editor to resign when he asked to see the data of the research he was evaluating for publication.[2] This is akin to the restaurant firing a chef when he asks for proof his ingredients are not spoiled or the hospital firing a surgeon when he asks to see a patient’s record before operating.

What began within me as minor annoyance has now developed into what can only be described as fearfulness. As librarians we are not only on the front line of information sharing, we are also its guardians. I believe we need to hold creators accountable. If you don’t know or understand research methods – learn them! If a source or organization will not provide or support the process, don’t support it. We need to start treating data with respect or all information will soon become meaningless.

References

[1] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text

[2] http://boingboing.net/2017/03/02/psychology-journal-editor-aske.html

Resources
http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-activists-push-psychology-journals-towards-open-data-1.21549

The post The Importance of Understanding and Evaluating Research first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

ID Search allows journalists to search by document source (such as the Panama Companies Registry), person, or company. Journalists can also set up email alerts notifying them when new results appear for their searches or for persons on official watchlists. They can set up their own private watchlists as well. According to OCCRP, “most sources” on ID Search are updated every twenty-four hours.^[2]

IDSearch is part of OCCRP’s Investigative Dashboard (ID), a platform that brings together data search, visualizations and researcher expertise.

Journalists and Librarians Are a Natural Match

Journalists and librarians have common a goal: the pursuit of the truth through information and research. Libraries can actively support local journalists by highlighting tools such as ID Search and other research databases.

One way might be to curate a page on your website of tools and resources for journalists or create a postcard to send to local media outlets. This blog post from TechSoup for Libraries offers even more ideas for catering to local journalists as well as some of the benefits of inviting media into your library.

You could also team up with a media outlet to offer programming around media creation and journalism. The Dallas Public Library and The Dallas Morning News are supporting the next generation of journalists through an initiative called “Storytellers Without Borders.” A Knight News Challenge grant-winner, the program encourages high school students to engage with community members while learning about opportunities in libraries and journalism.^[3] The application process for Storytellers Without Borders opens in August.

Why Libraries Should Support Journalism

Kelly Baxter of the Dallas Public Library wrote about how journalists and library science professionals experience many of the same challenges: Both have to deal with constantly changing information sources and technology. The project not only demonstrates the role libraries play in the “research, creation, and dissemination” of journalism but also “reinforces the public library’s role as a community center; a neutral space where diverse individuals are encouraged to come together to educate one another through the sharing of ideas and experience.”^[4]

Public libraries can facilitate factual, research-based journalism, whether that’s training the journalists of tomorrow or sharing tools such as ID Search.

Resources

Ginny Mies, “The Library as a Newsroom,” TechSoup for Libraries, February 11, 2014.

References

[1] Tom King, “OCCRP Launches New Search Engine for Investigative Journalists,” Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, May 30, 2016.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Christine Schmidt, “Dallas Public Library, Dallas Morning News Team up to Develop Teenage Storytellers,” The Scoop Blog, June 23, 2016.

[4] Kelly Baxter, “Storytellers Without Borders: Activating the Next Generation of Community Journalists Through Library Engagement,” Knight News Challenge, April 22, 2016.

The post Journalists and Librarians: A Common Goal first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Pirate libraries—sometimes called “shadow libraries”[1]—are largely focused on creating parallel collections of academic or research content. While most of the content is academic and research-oriented, several pirate libraries also include large collections of pirated comic books.[2] Basically, pirate libraries offer pirated content. The two largest pirate libraries are Library Genesis and Sci-Hub.

Library Genesis—also known as LibGen and the self-proclaimed “Library of Congress of the digital world.”[3]—is based in Russia and claims a digital collection of approximately one hundred terabytes in size, consisting of over three million e-books and twenty million journal articles. Library Genesis’ goal is to “liberate access to knowledge rather than just go on DRM rip binges.”[4]

Like Library Genesis, Sci-Hub is an extremely large site for accessing pirated content. However, Sci-Hub was originally based in the United States and has since moved to multiple international locations as its home base, the geographical location of the servers providing users with copyrighted content. After legal proceedings in 2015, Sci-Hub moved to a new domain, Sci-Hub.io, which was promptly shut down.[5] At the time of the writing of this article, Sci-Hub is operating through two domains, Sci-Hub.bz and Sci-Hub.cc. Sci-Hub’s Twitter activity provides valuable insight into the site’s mission and goals. The three Tweets below describe the site’s mission and motivations:

Several methods have been employed to obtain content for pirate libraries. Originally pirate libraries relied on donations of digital files by individuals. Given the slow pace of acquiring content, more recent pirate libraries have employed more advanced techniques for obtaining content. Sci-Hub relies on researchers with access to restricted content through their institutional affiliations donating their credentials.[6] Then Sci-Hub uses the donated credentials to get through paywalls to provide the content freely to unaffiliated users.

Unsurprisingly, the growth of pirate libraries has prompted legal action by Elsevier, a major scientific publisher against Sci-Hub, along with several other pirate on the grounds of copyright infringement.

In response, operators of pirate libraries have largely responded that “they’re filling a market gap, providing access to information to researchers around the world who wouldn’t have the resources to obtain these materials any other way.”[7] Moreover, in defending Sci-Hub, the site’s founder cites Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”[8] Generally, the operators of pirate libraries do not dispute the claim that they are violating copyright; instead they state the reasons why they are, focusing on the greater good of research and society. The case is still pending.

Implications for public libraries

Pirate libraries have a number of implications for public libraries. First, it is unclear what institutions will be held accountable for in regards to donated credentials. As many public libraries purchase subscription databases, they may be at risk if found legally liable for patron misuse of credentials.

Also relevant to public library user education is that public library patrons may use pirate libraries, especially if they are unaffiliated with an academic or research institution. Again, education for staff and patrons about what pirate libraries are and what they mean for users, is valuable in reaching users so that staff share both elements of digital and information literacy with patrons.

While lacking the flashy name of pirate libraries, similar collections of content paralleling public library content have developed over the last decade, especially with the rise of e-content. For example, some readers seek DRM-free ebooks, audiobooks, movies, and music by using sites like Tor, where all types of digital files can be reloaded without restriction.

Overall, for public libraries this is an opportunity for staff and patron education. What does “free” content from a pirate library mean? The courts have yet to answer that question. Until, then we can best serve patrons by being well informed about developments in the information ecosystem.

References

[1] Sarah Laskow, “The Rise of Public Libraries,” Atlas Obscura (New York), April 21, 2016.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “Library Genesis/LibGen,” Meta Library, accessed May 16, 2016.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Sarah Laskow, “The Rise of Public Libraries,” Atlas Obscura (New York), April 21, 2016.

[6] David Smith, “Sci-Hub: How Does it Work?” Scholarly Kitchen, February 25, 2016.

[7] Sarah Laskow, “The Rise of Public Libraries,” Atlas Obscura (New York), April 21, 2016.

[8] Emma Henderson, “Pirate website offering millions of academic papers for free refuses to close despite lawsuit,” Independent (London), February 15, 2016.

The post The Pirate Library Controversy first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

What about today’s students, though? While thirty-something students had the Internet when it came time to do a research paper, we did not have all of the virtual assistance students have today. As a reference librarian, it is alarming to see how many students are clueless when it comes to researching a topic. From my experience, many of them think typing a phrase in to Google is their “research.” Although Google is a very helpful search engine, these students do not know that they must look at the authenticity of the source rather than taking it as informational doctrine.

In the study “How Teens Do Research in the Digital World,” Kristen Purcell et al express that although the finest students will access research on a wide range, they are equally concerned about students not evaluating the quality of online information.[1] Which is why Purcell et al go on to state that they spend time teaching this in the classroom.

According to a survey taken by teachers, 94 percent of students are most likely “to perform research by using Google, while only 18 percent use a print or electronic book, 17 percent search an online database, and 16 percent consult a public or school librarian.[2] While in college, JSTOR was my go-to database; I used it for many literature analysis articles. In addition to this, I lived in the library’s stacks in my search for literature analysis on a particular author. Now, though, if you were to look up a psychoanalytical analysis of Sylvia Plath’s “Tulips,” you could access any angst-ridden teenaged girl’s take on it.

It is so important to teach students how to use search engines correctly. I believe this starts with informing students that “Googling” is inequitable to “research.” A librarian at University Laboratory High encourages students to use Google Scholar and subscribed databases.[3] Google Scholar is a great tool as it includes scholarly articles, which is just the type of information students should be utilizing. This is an especially fantastic tool if libraries are lacking the funding to purchase subscriptions to online databases.

The “Strategies” page on Carnegie Mellon’s interesting Solve a Teaching Problem website by the Eberly Center has a lot of great pointers. A problem is identified, such as “students do not know how to research,” and suggestions are given to alleviate the issue. The university goes on to further explore how to solve the problems by prescreening the students’ research skills, teaching research abilities, collaborating with the library, etc.[4]

What would assuage all of these research problems by the time a student gets to the university level would be to start making online research methods part of the middle school students’ curriculum. Some schools are lucky enough to have a media specialist teach this, while others do not. Many schools have eliminated professional librarians who used to teach research skills, and because of this, teachers must pick up the ball. I realize that teachers are already have their lesson plans stretched to maximum levels, but it is in the students’ best academic interest to teach them effective research skills from an early age.

References:

[1]  Kristen Purcell et al, “How Teens Do Research In The Digital World,” report by Pew Research Center, November 1, 2012.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Leslie Harris O’Hanlon, “Teaching Students Better Online Skills,” Education Week, May 20, 2013, reprinted in Education Week: Digital Curricula Evolving as “Teaching Students The Skills to Be Savvy Researchers,” May 22, 2013.

[4] Eberly Center, “Explore Strategies: Students don’t know how to do research,” Solve a Teaching Problem, n.d.

Further Reading:

Paul Jackson, “Search vs. Research“

The post Teach Effective Research Skills Early first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

I’m sometimes caught with my jaw open. In working with many librarians on various discussion lists, I find they seem to be looking for things and answers only on those databases and aggregators of databases to which they have corporate access, such as ProQuest, EBSCOhost, Gale databases, et al. Of course, this is done because these databases are considered safe and more reliable information than items found on the Internet. But my jaw drops when I find they haven’t made an effort to search the Internet, or they haven’t found what they need from the Internet when indeed it can be found. In any case, the Internet can be and is, for a librarian, a friend.

Lots of information can be found using various search engines and search operands with the Internet. To be honest, it seems the Internet is now about finding more friends or connections than you can deal with, finding more restaurants for which you have no time to eat at, or in the case of a chosen career, finding more jobs for which you won’t ever qualify, and more than you even want to be qualified for. To me, it seems that more people are making money online telling me how to write, how to market, how to publish, and how to annoy as many people as possible to sell my stories, than those actually writing stories and nonfiction.

This piece is about finding resources to help you use the Internet more effectively and efficiently.

Search Engines

There are lots of directories of search engines—engines for countries, for collectors, for researchers, for almost any endeavor you might be engaged in.

Phil Bradley has a short annotated list. The site also has articles about using the different search engines and gives a listing of social media tools, and the blogs about searching can keep you up-to-date.

Mashable has a listing organized hierarchically for general, human-generated, book and library, business, music- and video-related, blog and RSS engines, and miscellaneous topical engines. These are somewhat similar to the Wikipedia layout below.

Wikipedia has an interesting and useful breakdown of search engines and what they do: sorting out those of general content, specific topics, a grouping based on model (hierarchical, index, clustering, meta, semantic, visual, etc.,) and a section telling us which search engine indexes these various engines are using, if not their own.

SearchEngineWatch.com is one of the premier sites to find information about search engines, marketing, SEO (search engine optimization), and many articles about the difference in engines. It was one of the first of such sites and used to have a very easy-to-find chart of all the operands used for the various search engines. Initially SEW was on the top of my list, but it has gone far into the business of marketing and helping webmasters to create pages so search engines can find them, rather than about searching and research.

Using Boolean and Scripts

Operand charts include Google. Many university libraries, like University of New Orleans and Berkeley, already have Boolean charts available outlining operands for several library databases.

Some software programs can generate scripts for searching. A book some might wish to read is Alison and Adrian Stacey’s Effective Information Retrieval from the Internet: An Advanced User’s Guide. I’ve also mentioned Tara Calishan’s book Web Search Garage in another article.

A 2004 presentation by Marcus P. Zillman, “Searching the Internet Using Brains and Bots,” provide for some great—if a bit dated—resources for searching and/or teaching library literacy.

In the music business, finding a piece of sheet music can be difficult, unless you know that various publishers have contractual agreements with publishing groups in other countries. A European publisher will have agents for their works in the U.S. but not necessarily under the original publisher’s name. TRO, Inc. in New York City has or had at one point, contracts with music publishing groups in seventeen countries. You could often go to TRO to find something published in Europe and other countries but unavailable from the original publisher. You can discover who these agents are, usually, by surveying the original publisher’s entire website.

Not everyone can know details about all businesses, but persistent and creative searching can often reveal such things. At this point in time, as essential as bibliographic instruction is, knowledge of searching is at least as important to the librarian, and it really helps to know the inside workings of various fields of business.

The post Search vs. Research first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

Official Use
Every librarian, researcher or graduate student knows the dual truisms of Wikipedia:

1) Wikipedia can’t be trusted.

2) We all trust Wikipedia anyway.

This doublethink is something we’ve managed, for the most part, to work around. For example, many use Wikipedia for personal questions but trust EBSCOhost for official reference work, or use Wikipedia for reference questions but only if the patron can’t see the screen. Whatever justification we’re using is an acknowledgment that we use Wikipedia at least much of the time.

Justifiable Use
Though officially I stress caution, I maintain Wikipedia is a fine resource. Whether using it for something that really matters (like a school essay) or just killing time reading about ramen, a reader should be careful.

The student essay example is the easiest to describe. Students are getting information from Wikipedia. If they’re looking up info for their 1984 essay, it doesn’t matter that they’ve been told Wikipedia is doubleplusungood, they’re using it anyway. They can’t be talked out of using it. But they can be taught to use it effectively.

I find that more important than the articles is Wikipedia’s reference section. The articles can only be judged on whether or not they’re written authoritatively, and if the reader is new to the topic it’s difficult to tell. I often tell students who are lost to start on Wikipedia, but instead of stopping there to pick through the reference section. Those references are more often than not from legitimate sources, and at least sources that (unlike Wikipedia) can be fairly judged for their reliability. More important, there are often a lot of them. For example: the Wikipedia page for ramen has twenty-five references. The novel 1984 has seventy-eight. Then there’s the “See also,” “further reading,” and “External links” sections. With all this in one place, Wikipedia is a great jumping off location for a deeper or broader search on a topic. Even if the article has mistakes, it’s still useful.

Wikipedia: Doubleplusgood
Even though most users rely on Wikipedia with virtually no oversight, it certainly isn’t flawless. It’s sometimes outright wrong, and sometimes weirdly useless (the article on the Potato Doughnuts explains, “Much like flour doughnuts, potato doughnuts are often accompanied with coffee.” Really, doughnuts with coffee? You don’t say, Wikipedia!). But all failures and jests aside, there’s a reason Wikipedia has been around for an internet eternity of fifteen years, and a reason English Wikipedia reached its five millionth page. Wikipedia has proven, mostly, to be reliable.

Ten years ago librarians, researchers, and academics spent a lot of time questioning the merits of Wikipedia as a resource. To do that in 2015 misses the point. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a resource. A high school student right now doesn’t remember a time when Wikipedia wasn’t one of their primary sources of information.  And with five million articles in English alone, few topics are so esoteric that they don’t have a page (to drive the point home: “Esoteric” has a Wikipedia page with 129 references). Those who haven’t accepted Wikipedia may cling to their solid points, but they might as well get on board. And using Wikipedia as a source for references is a good middle ground.

Links:

English Wikipedia surpasses five million articles

1984

Ramen

Potato Doughnut

Add Pic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_logo#/media/File:Paul_Stansifer_at_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_in_front_of_the_Wikipedia_Puzzle_Globe_Logo.jpg

The post (Still) Justifying Wikipedia first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

However, it concerns me that in many cases the rules of research and the conceptual issues that make research valuable do not seem to be acknowledged.   For example, consider the concept of generalizability.  Generalizability refers to the ability to extend the research findings and conclusions from a study, typically done on a sample to the larger population.   In other words, if I conduct a sample on a library or two, generalizability refers to whether my results could apply to other libraries.    In most library research I see today, the answer is no.

One reason for this is appropriate sample size.  The results of a survey conducted at your library can only apply to your library.  Yet often I hear of people taking the results from one location and applying it to another.  Statistically this is not valid.  Do you know that most statistics are not valid and are not considered generalizable if the sample size is less than 120?

Another concern of mine is issues of definition, in research lingo: conceptualization and operationalization of variables.  Conceptualization refers to how a concept, such as “outcomes” or “learning,” is defined.  That is, what do these terms mean to the researcher.   Operationalization is how that concept is measured.  In other words, how do you measure if something is learned or had an effect?

With some variables this is simple and straightforward.  We all understand time and how we measure it. But some concepts can mean different things to different people, not to mention in different circumstances.  Social science has struggled with this issue forever–how does one defines and measures abstract concepts, for example love?   In libraries, we all understand and generally agree on what we mean by “a program” or even “attendance” and possibly even “library user.”  But what about concepts such as “outcome,”  “satisfaction,” or “learning?”

In many library studies, the definitions of concepts and their measurement become circular.  An outcome of library use is learning.  Learning can be measured by library use.  As a researcher, I find this means nothing.  Likewise, I’ve seen many studies that measure concepts based on perception.

For example, the library, having run a series of programs, asks attendees or library users what they thought.  Did they view themselves as learning something at the program/library?  Do they feel that it was valuable time spent?

These results are then taken as outcomes.  When the public reports that they viewed themselves as learning something at the library, some present the information as a positive outcome–people learn things at the library!  In fact, this is false.  This example measures perception, what people think and feel, not what is occurring, learning or not learning.

Don’t get me wrong, people’s perceptions are very important!  We want people to perceive us this way and these perceptions help us a great deal.  The problem is with our presentation and conclusions.  Our outcomes should be “people feel they have learned,” not “people have learned.”

The importance of this lies with credibility.  For someone who knows and understands research, we may understand what it trying to be communicated, but it isn’t accurate.  For a supporter, this may be forgiven, but for those who do not support libraries, this kind of misrepresentation can be fatal.

The post Don’t Forget Research Rules first appeared on Public Libraries Online.