Research: the library vs. new technology

[CharleyH]

I love books. I love the woody smell of them or, depending on the place, that ancient mouldy aroma that teases your nostrils for a passionate moment before fading into the future of new books added to the archive recently. I love the raw feel of leather-bound reference books, the heavy weight of hardcovers and the shiny, polished feel of softcovers. I adore the culture of the bookstore and of the library. The library especially has that grand mix of people from the grit of the homeless lined up at 10am and reading the local news in warmth and comfort by 10:01am to the Versace-clad PhD major lining up at the reference counter at 7pm to get their grubby hands (via latex gloves or microfiche) on something so sacred, like the Collection de l'Enfereven, that it's untouchable without special permissions and precautions.

I've relied on the library since my mother read me the first book that I recall, 'There was an old lady who swallowed a fly...' (I know she didn't really die when she swallowed a fly, but she did at least die when she swallowed a horse!) I relied on books to give me fantasy worlds until the Internet came along (in my personal world, 1995). However, 15 years later, I still can't tear myself away from relying on non-fiction books to give me the research I need. I'm not old school... it's just that for every wiki-fact, internet blog or website with information, I have to research it 10-fold before I get to the actual facts. I love books because I am comfortable and feel confident that when I read them, they are more accurate than anything I find on the Internet.

Your thoughts and ideas about the validity of online research, vs. that of book research?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I want to add 'reasoning' and primary investigation to your list. I collect a thousand bits of evidence, fit it together, and toss away what doesnt fit...regardless of the source.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am working for an anthropologist, and I do most of my research via the internet. I think I have entered a library three times in two years on his behalf-- and twice, I assisted the librarian by scanning the relevant docs, so they could be placed into the online repository. I do have access to the academic sites, though, where peer-reviewed papers are published. And I know who the authors are.

Considering the amount of bad information I have read in "real books" I trust the internet as much as anything else. Wikipedia is as accurate, depending on the topic, as any encyclopedia-- indeed many of the articles are written by the same researchers. If yo doubt the authenticity, you can take a look at the links on top entitled "discussion" and "history" and see if it's been altered and in what way.


After you have researched your information ten-fold, how often does the "real Book" contradict the online info? How often does it agree?

 

[Handley_Page]

. . . . . .
I love books because I am comfortable and feel confident that when I read them, they are more accurate than anything I find on the Internet.

Your thoughts and ideas about the validity of on-line research, vs. that of book research?

On-line stuff is fine to point you in the right direction. As with much of research, you never know quite where there's been an error (I once trawled through pages & pages, only to discover that one of the early commentators on the original have made a simple arithmetical mistake).

So find me the originals and let me work my careful way through the whole process for myself. THen I can tell Wiki if they are wrong !

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I am working for an anthropologist, and I do most of my research via the internet. I think I have entered a library three times in two years on his behalf-- and twice, I assisted the librarian by scanning the relevant docs, so they could be placed into the online repository. I do have access to the academic sites, though, where peer-reviewed papers are published. And I know who the authors are.

Considering the amount of bad information I have read in "real books" I trust the internet as much as anything else. Wikipedia is as accurate, depending on the topic, as any encyclopedia-- indeed many of the articles are written by the same researchers. If yo doubt the authenticity, you can take a look at the links on top entitled "discussion" and "history" and see if it's been altered and in what way.


After you have researched your information ten-fold, how often does the "real Book" contradict the online info? How often does it agree?

You must question everything, even official records and witnesses.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

On-line stuff is fine to point you in the right direction. As with much of research, you never know quite where there's been an error (I once trawled through pages & pages, only to discover that one of the early commentators on the original have made a simple arithmetical mistake).

So find me the originals and let me work my careful way through the whole process for myself. THen I can tell Wiki if they are wrong !

And they appreciate it, if you can provide citations. All research relies on the ability to access the primary sources. Unfortunately the academically untrained fail to realize this and fall for any stupid statement made, so long as they can say they read it somewhere. The internet is more faulty in this regards because it it largely unedited but books can lead you down equally blind alleys. Cross-reference, cross-reference, cross-reference. And always be willing to admit you made a mistake. That's the part professionally academics have the most trouble with. And so knowledge progresses one funeral at a time.

 

[Liar]

Your thoughts and ideas about the validity of online research, vs. that of book research?

Text is text. A printed primary source is no more or less valid than a digital one.

But "online" is a big and chaotic place. it's most certainly NOT the library. It's the library, the news kiosk next door, the comic book store down the block, the cocktail party across town, the grafitti wall under the bridge, the the bum with the cardboard sign with bible quotes who yells about the end of the world, the newspaper recycling plant, ten thousand diaries and the steamy section of the bookstore.

And they can all look surprisingly alike.

And it's moving. Entire discourses are born and die at the drop of a hat. References are temporary, locations likewise.

The old and traditional way of validating the authenticicy of a text are out the window. Doesn't mean it can't be done. But people will have to re-wire their heads to do it. To not be satisfied when information is found. That is just step one.

 

[jomar]

So far free online research has worked very well for me and I have felt comfortable with the accuracy of what I've found in a variety of areas. I do admit to not have needed extensive research (historical, for example) or research on obscure or arcane matters.

 

[oggbashan]

Libraries and other resources of the printed word are great for family history research.

A lot has been put on the internet. A lot hasn't.

Og

 

[CharleyH]

Listening.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

My feeling is that, justifiable or not, an citing an online source lacks the weight of argument that a printed one carries. That's just a perceptual thing, I realize, but it's there. Kids don't think there's much difference, I suspect, but when they grow up to be scholars (those that do) they also come to realize the limits of the electronic world--as well as the print one, of course. Question everything.

 

[Katyusha]

When I was in college my professors required us to have online sources in our citations. Early in college, it was "at least one online source," but the further I went, the more online sources they wanted us to have. In other words, they were trying to teach us to use online resources and printed resources in conjunction with one another to prepare us for the way the academic world was changing, and we were taught that printed material can be just as fallible as online material.

Later on, when I went back to school, my professors required extensive online research but citing Wiki was an automatic F on any research project. They wanted us to access online versions of printed journals and peer-reviewed articles, etc., and stressed that Wiki was a good place to get a baseline on a subject we knew little to nothing about, but we couldn't include that as part of the actual research (hence I tend to dismiss posts here that quote nothing but Wiki articles as backup for their statements).

Generally though, online and printed resources are the same to me in terms of their validity and their weight. The difference is, as others have already pointed out, knowing how to cross-reference and verify what you've read.

 

[CharleyH]

My feeling is that, justifiable or not, an citing an online source lacks the weight of argument that a printed one carries. That's just a perceptual thing, I realize, but it's there. Kids don't think there's much difference, I suspect, but when they grow up to be scholars (those that do) they also come to realize the limits of the electronic world--as well as the print one, of course. Question everything.

Still listening.

 

[oggbashan]

Project Gutenberg gives world wide access to printed sources that were often difficult to source in book form.

A significant book written by one of my ancestors was only available at three places in the UK - Oxford and Cambridge and the British Library. If I had wanted to read it, I would have had to have travelled to one of those archives, borrowed the book and sat down and read it there and then.

It is now on Project Gutenberg and other academic websites. I have downloaded the complete text and read it several times in the comfort of my own home.

It was nonsense when it was written. It is nonsense now - but it provided a significant boost to settlement of North America because some readers believed that my ancestor knew what he was talking about.

He didn't.

I prefer to handle a real book, but then I would, wouldn't I, because I was a secondhand bookdealer.

Og

 

[jomar]

My feeling is that, justifiable or not, an citing an online source lacks the weight of argument that a printed one carries. That's just a perceptual thing, I realize, but it's there. Kids don't think there's much difference, I suspect, but when they grow up to be scholars (those that do) they also come to realize the limits of the electronic world--as well as the print one, of course. Question everything.

I disagree, bear. You just have to cross reference and separate the wheat from the chaff. As has been said, there are a number of "hold in your hand" academic research journals that are little more than vanity articles and don't hold up. Most (probably all by now) academic journals can be accessed online, though you may have to pay per article. Also, if you cite WebMD, for example, I'd think you'd be on pretty solid ground. Plus, the google plans to put ALL books online for your convenience.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I disagree, bear. You just have to cross reference and separate the wheat from the chaff. As has been said, there are a number of "hold in your hand" academic research journals that are little more than vanity articles and don't hold up. Most (probably all by now) academic journals can be accessed online, though you may have to pay per article. Also, if you cite WebMD, for example, I'd think you'd be on pretty solid ground. Plus, the google plans to put ALL books online for your convenience.

That will be great, when it happens. As I recall, George Herbert wanted the entire Library of Congress online when he was POTUS. It was considered too costly at the time, I guess, so progress has been slow. With Google's bucks behind the idea we may not have to wait much longer.

I wonder if there will be a market for embossed leather Kindle holders . . .

 

[Verdad]

I agree with everything that's been said about verification. On-line or on-paper, you have to cross-reference and you have to think critically. The net, if anything, encourages people to pay attention to the source and check out more than one, and that's a good thing.

But I also agree the net is a great time waster. In the same number of hours one could read a fat, solid, reputable book on a subject, gaining knowledge that's coherently presented and like to stay with one, one ends up clicking around on dozens of fascinating tangents, ending up with a bunch of forgettable factoids in place of insight and knowledge.

For anything requiring a synthetic picture (as opposed to a mere fact check), online encyclopedic articles can't supplant books, but then, we wouldn't expect their printed counterparts to do so, either. The net just makes the distractions harder to resist!

However, the net is invaluable for all those times when good enough is good enough; for a quick check of something you already know; for accessing in digital format the same thing you'd have to hunt down on paper; for a broad survey of a terrain; when you want to dip your toe into an area before deciding whether you want to know more; etc, etc. I'm not one bit nostalgic about having to go to the library for all those things.

 

[jomar]

...
I wonder if there will be a market for embossed leather Kindle holders . . .

You bet!

 

[3113]

It really depends on what you're reasearching. If you're researching something well known and fairly new, then the internet is the way to go simply because it's fast, often up-to-date (new info gets on the internet far faster than it gets printed up even in tomorrow's newspaper, let alone a book due out six months from now). So the bigger and/or more recent the subject matter, the more convenient the internet.

Also, how fast do you need the information and for what purpose? If I'm up at midnight trying to get a recipe for cherries jubilee for the Valentine's Day story contest and it has to be submitted within an hour, well, internet.

Now on the other hand, if you've leisure time--not a deadline and it's midnight (libraries ain't open!), and you're researching something more obscure or not recent, then the library can't be beat. ESPECIALLY if it involves pictures. As Og said, not every book has been put onto the internet, and what's especially hard to find are a wide variety of pictures and images.

Facts and dates may all be on the internet, but what about photographs, illustrations, drawings? Those are less likely to get uploaded, and often if they do, there's only a few. But books can contain pages and pages and pages or photos, illustrations, drawings. Example: I was doing research on Victorian clothing. There are plenty of internet sites with info on that, but their illustrations are limited. And being that Victorian clothing covers everything from 1837-1901...well, if you're looking for what was in style during a particular year, you're going to be out of luck. The internet sites might have images for 1850, but not 1840.

But when I went to the library--ah! I found everything I wanted and plenty of images from that one particular year. And the joy of it is, you can take down as many book as you like and someone else put them away for you

I use the internet more than I use the library, but it really depend on the subject I'm researching. If there are only a few things in the internet, and a lot of the sources seem to be copies of each other, then it's time to go to the library.

 

[Xelebes]

If I want to be real sure about something, I get a teacher. Otherwise the internet is just as good as the library. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on what I am looking to search.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I love books. I love the woody smell of them or, depending on the place, that ancient mouldy aroma that teases your nostrils for a passionate moment before fading into the future of new books added to the archive recently. I love the raw feel of leather-bound reference books, the heavy weight of hardcovers and the shiny, polished feel of softcovers.

I love you and want to have your babies.

I do love the Internet's ability to help me track down resources. It's superb for that. And thanks to the Google online access drive, I have actually been able to access obscure older texts that can be very difficult to find. But my preferred place to do this is in the snug, musty back shelves of a really large library, the kind you can happily lose yourself in. You can look up all the details you like on a minor figure of a dead nobility, but there's nothing quite like thumping the rich, solid weight of Burke's Peerage down on the desk.

 

[Pure]

a problem

what i haven't seen mentioned is that many of the best 'net sources are paid sites, or worse, require an institutional connection. for instance the works of Freud are online, it just costs a thousand dollars to join the group.

stella mentioned this: the credentialed and connected online researchers can do a bang up job in lots of areas, including current. the peasants are having a difficult time, often. the last medical article (one) i wanted WAS available to peasants, but cost $30 bucks. that is a simple and obvious way of saying "go away." i did.

in connection with the first point, the commerical control of knowledge is happening. some projects are clear, e.g. questia. the google project is un known, to me: whether it will open doors to the public, even at a reasonable fee, or not. [as some will know, the google books are fine to read online; they've been a devil to capture--eluding my attempts, except with screen saves.]

i might point out that the 'peasant' problem exists with books and libraries. having access to a university library [a network of them], i am spoiled. perhaps now i'm experiencing what John Q Public experiences, should he present himself at our university medical library without having an institutional linkage.

 

[oggbashan]

I still have my own library, much reduced from a few years ago when I had a larger house and a secondhand bookshop, but still extensive.

When the thread about Sir Thomas More appeared, I could look up in my own books three biographies of Henry VIII, the biography of Sir Thomas written by his son-in-law, and several history books covering the period.

If I searched my own library further I'm sure that I could find much more about More. If I wanted to extend my research I could go to Canterbury, where Sir Thomas's son-in-law lived, and apart from look at the son-in-law's front gate I could consult the public library, the Cathedral library and the Catholic Church's library. Each of those libraries has extensive archives on Sir Thomas. If that wasn't enough, there are three university libraries in Canterbury, all of which have books about Sir Thomas.

Or I could pick up a telephone and ring two or three local people who know far more about More than I would ever want to know...

Aside: Some people believe that if it is printed in a book then it must be true; others believe that if it can be found on the internet then it must be true; and others believe that if it is printed in a newspaper then it must be true. For Sir Thomas More, reading his son-in-law's account, Sir Thomas More's surviving letters and the official documents of the time will give conflicting accounts and not all of any of them are true.

"What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer." Sir Francis Bacon Essays published 1625 - Of Truth.

Og

 

[al_Ussa]

Libraries are infinitely better than the internet for pure research, presuming that you are using academic libraries rather than 'public libraries.' With budget cuts and gentrification, most public libraries I've seen are mostly kid's books, old encyclopedias and best sellers.

The internet has its place, and certainly JSTOR or even more specialized collections of journals and peer-reviewed material can be helpful. But there is still a lot of material not on the internet. This is more true when talking about non-English language material. I've been fortunate enough to work with old lontar - palm leaf manuscripts - and with documents from the colonial period. Many of those are not online, and the few that are are mostly through universities.

Not to mention that you wind with .pdfs you can barely read because they've been so poorly scanned.

The advantage of a decent academic library is the fact that you can usually gain access to their databases - something you might not be able to do from a home computer - have staff on hand to help should the need arise, and the ability to request books from out of state, even out of country. Always assume you can get your hands on some material or another.

As for wikipedia... well, anyone can edit it. Anyone! Which means that the most commonly held views tend to be the ones that dominate. More often than not the information is not done by specialists and is dated. And yes, the moderators have their own agendas too. So yeah, wikipedia is fine for quick checks or looking up names or dates. But don't think of it as the be all, end all. Their "neutrality" alone should make people question it.

I will let you in on a little secret, though. Wikipedia includes articles in other languages, and the information is not always the same between them. Sometimes, I find reading the foreign language wikipedia entries is a good way of building vocab. I've also found it a useful barometer of public opinions in other countries from time to time.

 

[amicus]

Research: the library vs. new technology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love books. I love the woody smell of them or, depending on the place, that ancient mouldy aroma that teases your nostrils for a passionate moment before fading into the future of new books added to the archive recently. I love the raw feel of leather-bound reference books, the heavy weight of hardcovers and the shiny, polished feel of softcovers. I adore the culture of the bookstore and of the library. The library especially has that grand mix of people from the grit of the homeless lined up at 10am and reading the local news in warmth and comfort by 10:01am to the Versace-clad PhD major lining up at the reference counter at 7pm to get their grubby hands (via latex gloves or microfiche) on something so sacred, like the Collection de l'Enfereven, that it's untouchable without special permissions and precautions.

~~~

Pure Prose, Charlie, and well put....and to Ogg & Shang...

I suppose it is my chosen role to play Devil's Advocate, but I do have a query to add concerning the usual definition of 'Conservative' and all the other words that describe the counterpoint to those who 'conserve.'

In a way, it makes sense, I guess, as the opposition contains a rather large number of those who desire to, 'go back to nature', and such, to more pastoral, slower times. Not an unusual occurrence at any time in history as changes come about and alienate the old to make room for the new.

Personally, I prefer books to read for pleasure, but the local librarian wanted to charge me a membership fee as I am out of the city and although I offered a copy of one of my books instead of cash, she rather impolitely (I thought) dismissed my offer.

As there is a rather magnificent horsey in the stable, it seems only appropriate to imply a comparison between the age of the horse, that even I was a small part of, and the advent of the internal combustion engine and the explosion of self propelled carriages to even the least able to support one.

The computer age and the Internet are here to stay, provided the, ahm, opposition fails to return society to the days and times of yesteryear, with oil lamps and hardcover books.

There is, too, the nostalgia factor of the much esteemed, Oggbashan, a dealer in books, which reminds me of a film about a British book dealer and an American woman, a delightful movie, the name of which I cannot recall at the moment.

If nothing else, the pragmatism of the matter will most likely determine the future of books and libraries...they are simply not cost effective any more, not for the public at large.

I suggest there is not really a case to be made for books and libraries; quite like the horse, that passed into history as a major influence in modern life, the quick availability of information at any time of the day or night, simply overwhelms the ability of the old to compete with the new.

I still swoon in green envy upon entering a library, say comparable to the one in, "Remains of the Day"; and still recall my first purchase of an antique, 1916 set if Encyclopedia Brittainica from a very European bookseller in Honolulu, Hawaii as a much younger man.



Amicus...