SUBMIT OR RESIST: LIBRARIANSHIP IN THE AGE OF GOOGLE.

Navigation: Main page

Author: Bell, Steven J.1

Conversations with industry experts confirm that they and a growing number of librarians, particularly in the academic sector, believe that the best way to bring the masses back to the library's electronic resources is to make them more like Google. Judy Luther, president of Informed Strategies, believes simplifying library databases will allow more users to take advantage of library content. "The beauty of Google's simplicity is that it doesn't require users to be familiar with any tools, techniques, or resources to conduct a search." she noted.

Another outspoken advocate for simple systems is Steve Coffman, vice president of business development at LSSI, who believes that Google has done for searching what Amazon did for hook buying. "In the long run it is much easier and better to adapt our systems to our users and the Google-style searching that our users have come to know and love than it is to try to force our users to adapt to our tools," he said. "We would be well advised to follow Googles example and focus our limited resources on building intelligence into our systems rather than trying to train it into our users."

Robert Baker, librarian at Pima Community College's Community Campus in Tucson, Arizona, believes that library subscription database vendors need to build Google's qualities of speed, accuracy, and simplicity into their products, "Most of our users are searching these systems unmediated by library professionals." Baker pointed out. "It would be wonderful to educate them about all the sophisticated ways to improve their research, but the reality is that we'll never get to them all. Database producers who build the better mousetrap will garner rave reviews from users and increase their market share."

In an article titled "Trumping Google?" (Library Journal, Oct. 1, 2003), Luther touts metasearch, or federated searching, as one potential way to "meet the expectations and needs of 'the Google generation.'" The primary justification for metasearching is that it helps those information seekers whose needs are satisfied by achieving results that are just "good enough." Herbert Simon, the management scientist of the 1950s, coined the term "satisficing" to refer to the human condition by which we choose the first and easiest solution rather than doing all the necessary work to reach the best possible conclusion. That perspective worries many librarians who seek to help users aspire to more than good enough, which for many end users can be just a few items from the first 10 or 20 hits served up by a poor search that yields many thousands of full-text articles.

To truly trump Google, our profession would need to do more than just imitate it. Such a feat would require nothing less than a manifesto on how to reverse the natural gravitation of 21st-century information-seekers toward low-quality internet information and shift them back to our libraries' high-quality resources.

With the advent of Google Scholar, it is now possible to obtain higher-quality scholarly literature with a Google search. Critics have pointed out some of the weaknesses in this search engine, such as a lack of clarity about what is included in the collection, the inclusion of significant amounts of nonscholarly material, and a search system that not only yields questionable results but that also has difficulty with even some simplistic searches (e.g., author, journal title) that would present no challenge for library databases. Knowing that users are going to explore Google Scholar, the prudent move for libraries would be to create links from Google Scholar to full-text versions located in the library's own subscription databases. In addition, academic libraries are adding Google Scholar information pages to their websites in an effort to create awareness and promote more effective searches.

Although there's no evidence it will actually make library content more accessible via internet search engines. "Google migration" is the other emerging response. If library users avoid our catalogs and databases, the new premise contends, by somehow migrating the library's books and digitized content to the universe of what web spiders crawl, our users will actually discover our resources. This movement is best illustrated by OCLC's ambitious Open WorldCat project, a program to make library books appear on the first page of Google results. Similar projects include efforts to make academic libraries' institutional repository content searchable, such as ProQuest's Digital Commons product.

The Google Print project may represent the ultimate in Google migration, with the planned addition of millions of academic library books to its content. Traditional library database producers are undoubtedly following this trend closely, and there would be little surprise if firms such as Gale, EBSCO, or ProQuest were to begin licensing their content to Google so that the masses could access those extensive stores of article content.

Google migration seems completely logical. If library users prefer to obtain their research content from search engines--whether or not they're the best possible resource for resolving a particular information need--the solution to library avoidance is to put the library content where users are going. For specialized digital collections, this makes good sense. Any library that has gone to the trouble and expense of digitizing a unique historical collection will certainly want it to reach the widest possible audience. But will this model extend itself to other traditional library content such as our catalogs and article databases?

In our haste to be where the users are, what price will the librarian profession and the information industry pay in terms of cascading consequences? There needs to be a balance between integrating library resources into Google and educating users to understand that they sometimes need to be where the library is. What Google migration is likely to communicate is that it is no longer necessary to use anything beyond a search engine. We already know that search engine users rarely go beyond the first page of results or use advanced features. Will inviting them to increase their dependence on search engines as the access point for library content do even more to erode our profession's tradition of teaching those skills that enable researchers to do better than just good enough? Without traditional search techniques such as Boolean and field search capabilities, exactly bow do we expect end users with complex search topics to retrieve just the right content buried in those institutional repositories, especially once it's been merged into the jungle of commercial websites? If our profession's vision is that just-good-enough results are acceptable, then the answers to these questions are of little concern.

Googlelizing, whether it comes by way of modified interfaces, metasearch, or Google migration, will no doubt satiate the end user's need for an easy convenient gateway to databases bloated by massive full-text where there are no requirements for critical thinking or search preparation. But these strategies will ultimately fail if our mission is to triumph not over Google and search engines, but over the real obstacle we now confront as a profession--getting our end users to care about the quality of the information they obtain. I do agree with Judy Luther on one point: We both see an internal rift within our profession. On one side are what Luther calls the Resistors; on the other side are what I call the Googlelizers. According to Luther, the Resistors oppose dumbing down information systems while the Googlelizers promote giving end users the "Google experience."

Googlelizers charge that Resistors want end users to be like us--information professionals. And what do the Googlelizers find wrong with user education? One of our profession's basic missions is to educate our user communities. Producing high-quality research requires thoughtful, concentrated effort, whether one is a novice, scholar, or somewhere in between. It may even require learning new skills and engaging in some intellectual challenges. But the Googlelizers will have us believe that doing so will only further alienate our convenience-minded end users.

Resistors are cognizant of the changing patterns of user behavior, and they support educating users to skillfully search both library and internet content. They are not fixated on reversing trends in the use of search engines. They do believe that users can learn that search engines are but one alternative in a wide spectrum of information resources, and that it is our responsibility to equip them with the skills to identify and effectively use all of their options, not simply the one that is most obvious, easy, or convenient.

In formation-literacy proponents do not seek to convert end users into information professionals. Rather, their goal is to educate them to take advantage of the already available tools in our databases that require some basic awareness, not a librarian's search expertise. Librarians can help to dramatically improve a student's success in searching a full-text database system such as LexisNexis Academic Universe by educating users about the advantages of using the guided search or something even as simple as a field search technique such as "length>800" to eliminate short, unsubstantial articles that heavily populate this system. I've yet to encounter an end user who rejected any of this as too complex or arcane, or who accused me of trying to turn him or her into a librarian. Just the opposite, I'm routinely thanked for sharing these search techniques, Googlelizing our search systems will make them look more like Google, but they will also perform more like Google, and the price we and our users will pay is a greatly reduced capability to achieve precise search results.

To get beyond Googlelization/Google migration and to the real challenges librarianship now confronts, we must come to terms with our poor handling of competition. In 2003 and 2004 a torrent of popular-press articles sang the praises of Google while heralding the demise of libraries, or, worse, completely ignoring libraries and librarians. No wonder our communal inferiority complex has us convinced we must play catch-up. No sooner is there a new form of competition than talk of our pending obsolescence reignites. Competition is typically perceived as a threat rather than a challenge to strengthen our connection with end users. But competition is nothing new for our profession. Our users have perpetually had access to information from other sources, from colleagues to a host of free and fee-based information services.

Why then has our attention become so fixated on Google, which holds but a slim lead over its own search engine competitors? Despite our history of successfully meeting the challenges of competition, the current response is especially worrisome. Why? Because this, we are led to believe, is what the users want. Since all of our users prefer Google, then our actions should reflect those assumptions that our resources will be more accepted and popular once they emulate the competition. Copy-your-competitor thinking may work for discount airlines and fast-food restaurants, but is this response best for us, or are we sacrificing important values that contribute to [he successful foundation of our profession?

End users are already overwhelmed by searches from megadatabases that yield thousands of hits because as online searchers they lack the basic skills needed to achieve more precision. Contemporary education is focused on learning outcomes, and librarians in education environments must be able to substantiate that students are doing more than just retrieving high volumes of full-text articles. If academic librarians are unable to provide evidence that we and our electronic information resources are enabling students to achieve institutional student learning outcomes, then we will deserve to be marginalized by inferior systems.

Despite the rising tide of Googlelization proponents, there are some encouraging signs that this profession can and will resist. Innovators are exploring technologies and service approaches that will help create a middle ground upon which we can offer our user communities better, more user-friendly search systems without sacrificing either our commitment to user education or our expectation that users want and will strive for more than "just good enough." Two design innovations demonstrate that technologies can be harnessed to make traditional library search systems work smarter, not dumber.

The Research Libraries Group's RedLightGreen project is garnering attention for its mostly successful attempt to blend the simplicity of a search engine interface with the sophistication of the traditional library catalog. Searchers are presented with a single search box with little homepage clutter, and even the advanced-search screen is free of confusion. The strength of RedLightGreen is that search results are presented along with a "refine search" box that lists controlled vocabulary terms that, when selected, help searchers to achieve far greater precision.

A similar approach is taken by ProQuest's latest innovation. Smart Search. This is another excellent example of using advanced technology to reinvent library information systems lo help end users achieve better, more precise results without their needing to understand the structure and techniques of more advanced library databases. Like RedLightGreen, it presents a single search box, and search result displays offer users a selection of controlled vocabulary from which to choose in order to refine the quality and precision of the search.

Our competitive advantage over Google, and what differentiates our resources from search engines, are sophisticated subject search schemes. Smart Search and RedLightGreen both make the power of thesauri seamless and transparent for the end user. So those who claim that library catalogs and databases are too complicated for anyone other than librarians need to examine these and other library search systems more closely. The only logical conclusion to draw is that these systems are not overly complex or off-putting to end users. We are simply working with user populations that are doing what comes naturally, selecting the known over the unknown. Only through user education are we able to present the unknown as the simple, yet better, option for achieving precise search results.

And as the developers of search systems create these exciting new interfaces, librarians are fast gaining momentum with information-literacy and user-education initiatives in every sphere of the profession. At colleges and universities, librarians are becoming integral to programs that introduce new students to the basics of wise research. Colleagues in both K-12 environments and in community libraries are supporting these efforts to create a better informed, information-seeking citizenry by offering instruction and information-literacy programming. Staying on this track provides a positive and proactive alternative to Googlelization and Google migration. It seems completely counterproductive to sacrifice these programmatic efforts for search systems that cater to the lowest common denominator.

On the issues of Googlelization and Google migration, our profession is dividing into two camps that either support or oppose these radical changes to our technology environment. The likely reality is that many librarians may find themselves with a foot planted in each. But if we succumb to Googlelized interfaces that by their very nature eliminate the need for real critical thought or skilled search techniques, then what is there for us to teach the user? If Googlelizers emerge victorious in this struggle, the "good enough is all right" message will reinforce that end-user satisficing is acceptable behavior. At that point, what end user or educator would accept librarians' arguments that they play an essential role in enabling end users to think critically about acquiring high-quality information?

What I advocate are relationships with database producers, faculty, and community educators that foster more thoughtful solutions in which search systems are easier to use but retain the sophistication of traditional search techniques or controlled vocabularies, making them more transparent and logical. We must partner with our teaching colleagues to ensure that they are more supportive of integrating information-literacy skill-building into their courses and assignments. When library education is more transparent to the users, something learned as students learn course material, then perhaps the search systems themselves would be less perceived as barriers to successful research.

Above all, we must avoid giving in to the belief that all end users are satisfied with just-good-enough results, and that our survival depends upon transforming our services to accommodate that assumption. In our profession's period of uncertainty it is reasonable to expect that our colleagues will come forward with some radical ideas for taking new directions in transformative times. But perhaps the best advice for coping with these challenges came from Lee Hisle during his tenure as president of ALA's Association of College and Research Libraries. In a seminal article on library values that appeared in ACRL's December 1997 College & Research Libraries News, he wrote, "Stability can come from our values; not by the way we do things, but by the beliefs we bold as immutable. By reaffirming, by changing when necessary, but most of all, by understanding those values most critical to us and our profession, we can move into the future with confidence." So just when our end users need our professional expertise the most to help them to find the best-quality information--information needed to contribute to a free and well-informed society--let's maintain confidence in traditional research resources and our ability to educate our society to use them wisely.

~~~~~~~~

By Steven J. Bell

Steven J. Bell is library director Philadelphia University.