I applaud the Chronicle of Higher Education for their article in this week’s issue about citation (personal bibliographic management (PBM)) software because I think it will help to make more faculty aware of these products and their availability from the campus library. In turn, the more that faculty are aware of products such as EndNote and RefWorks (both mentioned prominently in the article) the better they can communicate their availability to students. I think the academic library community knows how much time PBM software can save our faculty and students, but because they require a bit of a learning curve (much less so for the very basic features of RW) EndNote and RefWorks can be a bit of a hard sell. This article, even though it offers some negative reactions to PBM software, will likely help to promote usage among our communities.
That said I would have liked to seen the following points made or issues raised in the same article:
It’s an unfortunate omission to not point out that quite a few library aggregator databases allow PBM software users to directly (with a click or two) export their citations. This saves enormous time in not having to retype citations, not to mention that the records can then be easily edited to include additional content.
The issue of whether or not PBM is overkill for undergraduates is raised. I tend to agree that it is likely to be overkill for most undergrads, with the possible exception of an honors student that is likely to be spending more extensive time on a thesis paper. Most undergrads jump from topic to topic with their papers, using few citations in most, so having the database functionality of PBM software is hardly of use to them. It’s unlikely they’ll need to accumulate a large number of citations on any one topic, and the ability to store, search, and retrieve citations as needed is certainly a powerful feature of PBM software.
With respect to undergrads the article could have asked an academic librarian to point out that aggregator databases (e.g., ProQuest and EBSCO) now offer the ability to cite references retreived in the databases in one of several major formats. Knowing how to format citations in these databases, and having faculty who can show students how it is done, would likely meet the needs of most undergrads.
Finally, related to any discussion of PBM is the issue of whether academic librarians should be spending time teaching students the arcane rules of and inconsistencies among formatting styles, or just be getting them to use the tools that will format the citations for them. I definitely favor just showing students how to use the formatting tools, but there are those that argue that learning how to format citations from scratch is good for undergrads because it will help them to avoid plagiarism, better understand the components of a citation, and make them upstanding citizens. It certainly would have been interesting to add this perspective to the discussion, but perhaps it deserves its own article.
Today’s Wall Street Journal (free) has a good overview of the many techniques that scientific journals can use to manipulate their impact factor, such as blatantly asking authors to cite more studies the journal has already published to limiting citations to outside journals. Thomson Scientific is releasing new impact factors this month, and it’s important to not be too slavish in basing collection develoment decisions on impact factors, as well as to remember that it’s not only Google that can manipulate what knowledge rises to the top.
For a recent stinging rebuke of citation citing in the humanities, see Harvard University Press executive editor Lindsay Waters’ Lure of the List ($) in the Chronicle. Waters takes the journal Critical Inquiry to task for using “very likely bogus social-science tools” and substituting “accounting methods for critical judgment” in order to rank the most important literary theorists.
Previously ACRLog has discussed the use of new methods to better understand our users and what they really need – as opposed to what we think they need. The use of ethnographic research for this purpose was reported in the computer industry and in a library. Last week’s issue of BusinessWeek featured an article titled “The Science of Desire” about the growth of ethnography in the corporate world. As one expert put it, “Ethnography has escaped from academia, where it has been held hostage.” The article profiles a variety of firms that are using ethnography to study their customers and then use what is learned to improve existing products or develop new ones. From the article:
The beauty of ethnography, say its proponents, is that it provides a richer understanding of consumers than does traditional research. Yes, companies are still using focus groups, surveys, and demographic data to glean insights into the consumer’s mind. But closely observing people where they live and work, say executives, allows companies to zero in on their customers’ unarticulated desires.
You might not get that excited reading about a company that used ethnography to perfect a tool to help consumers do a better job of clearning their bathroom, but with so many companies – and service industries such as hotels – using ethnography to transform how they think about their users and develop services for them – it might get you thinking that ethnography might just be a powerful tool for improving how academic libraries deliver resources and services to their user communities.