Article Note: On getting that full-text article

Citation for the article:

Dixon, Lydia, et.al., "Finding Articles and Journals via Google Scholar, Journal Portals, and Link Resolvers: Usability Study Results." Reference & User Services Quarterly 50.2 (Winter 2010): 170-181.

Read online.

I have been thinking about this topic for a few reasons. One, I've had to work at teaching students during library instruction sessions just how to find articles when they are not full-text in a database. Locally, the fact we have LinkSource means that I have to teach students how to get around it and go directly to the A to Z list on our website. The steps the instruction librarian and I follow to teach this:

• From the citation in question, copy the title of the journal that contains your article. 
• Open a new tab on your browser (or new window). Open the library's homepage here. 
• Click on "Find a Journal or Periodical." 
• On the search box there, paste the title you copied. Run the search. 
• If we have it, you see the holdings. Pick a link that has dates of coverage for the article you want. 
• Depending on how savvy the student is, we may have to walk them through a specific journal interface's page to find their article. If the article is available in print or microfilm/fiche (a very rare occurrence these days), we send them to the appropriate location.
• If we do not have the journal, or we do not have the date in question, the student is told to do an Interlibrary Loan request using the ILLiad system. 

What happens if we go through these steps, and the item is not available? Depends. If the students actually has time, odds are good they will use the ILLiad system. If the student is in a rush (as in they procrastinated, and now the paper is due in less than a week), they likely give up, and we try to find alternate sources. Why do we have to do all that ritual? Because to be blunt LinkSource does not really work as advertised. More often than not links it provides are not accurate, or results overall are inconsistent. Now, the fact that the instruction librarian and I do this may displease the ERM librarian and the director because it means that a tool we pay for is not getting used. I will be blunt once more: we simply do it anyhow because we believe in getting the resources to the students who need them in the most efficient way possible. I could go on a further rant here about folks who fail to listen to the librarians in the front lines, but all I will say is that she and I will do whatever it takes to help our students.

Moving along, in two graduate courses I taught recently students specifically raised the question of "how do I get it if it is not full-text?" In addition, I get the question on a regular basis at the reference desk. This tells me that database interfaces, and our websites (speaking here of ours as well as collectively of libraries overall) still have issues when it comes to letting students know what is available or not. What I have learned from experience is that finding journal articles, as in knowing when they are full-text or not and how to get them, is a significant challenge to users. I have also learned that the solutions available online leave a lot to be desired. Furthermore, I have learned that teaching the skills and savvy to find the items does take some time, and we have to keep on doing it.

I also thought a bit about Google Scholar, which is something that students are noticing as well. It is also something I am mentioning as part of my classes. However, I will ponder on Google Scholar later so I don't make this much longer. At any rate, I did find this article to be timely for me.

The article looks at the challenges of finding a known article if you have a citation or finding a specific journal. The authors consider the issues by doing usability studies on a journal portal, a link resolver, and Google Scholar. According to the authors, "this study focused on how effective interfaces were at helping users complete the tasks" (171). By the way, the Google Scholar thing reminds me that as students use it, when they can find it, we get to teach them how to get articles listed on Google Scholar from the library to avoid having to whip out the credit card. I guess our work as instruction librarians is never done.

As usual, here go some of my notes and highlights from the article:

• The process can be challenging to new and experienced users. "Even experienced students and faculty struggle with potential complications such as embargoed holdings, platform changes, or subscription lapses" (170). Embargoes certainly a hated bane. 
• Issue with Google Scholar: Callicot and Vaughn "found that, although Google Scholar guarantees results, constructing complicated queries or limiting results retrieved is difficult" (qtd. in 172). In library instruction, we usually teach students to do Google last, after they have used the library databases. However, we do go over it briefly if there are questions and compare it to databases as well as discuss the pros and cons. Keep in mind this is limited by the time factor of a library session. 
• However, the authors had a different suggestion based on their findings, but do note it is in terms of having a known citation already (not starting your research from scratch): "The observations regarding the question of which interface most effectively allows searching for articles by citation would suggest that librarians should direct users to GS [Google Scholar] as a first choice and that it should be featured most prominently for finding articles by citation" (177). I will say that very often, when a student comes to the reference desk with what looks like a somewhat vague citation, I will use Google Scholar to locate it sooner than trying to use the journal portal. More often than not GS will give me the complete citation, and then I can use the A to Z list to find it. 
• A bit from the conclusion: "Finally librarians need to remember that many users do not begin their search on the library website. If the top tools offered on the library website are user-friendly and effective rather than frustrating and time-consuming, users will have a reason to begin their search there" (180). 

CBS News raises questions about Mortenson and CAI

Last year, Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea (link to my GoodReads review; I had a good impression at the time, though I was not particularly thrilled about the book. Not the best written thing I have ever read), came to the UT Tyler campus. I suppose like many folks who listened to the guy, who seems a lot better as a speaker than a writer, I did find the story inspiring. So I find it disappointing to say the least that he is being exposed for lies in the book as well as financial issues, such as money from the book and his book touring not really going to the CAI charity like he claims. That I find particularly egregious since a big part of his speech was promoting how the book helps the organization so they can build schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Jon Krakauer, an early supporter, probably summarizes this pretty well (maybe a bit more charitable than others may be willing to be) when he says,

"Krakauer: He's not Bernie Madoff. I mean, let's be clear. He has done a lot of good. He has helped thousands of school kids in Pakistan and Afghanistan....He has become perhaps the world's most effective spokesperson for girls' education in developing countries. And he deserves credit for that...Nevertheless, he is now threatening to bring it all down, to destroy all of it by this fraud and by these lies."

Sadly, this is not just about some good guy with a few character flaws. These are serious issues, and what seemed like good acts are now going to be tainted. Worse, from the report, it seems the acts were not that great anyhow (schools claimed to be build but not built, or built poorly, for instance). 

You can read the expose from CBS news here.

Update note (same day): Galley Cat has a summary. It also includes links to statements by Mortenson and CAI that they sent to CBS regarding the 60 Minutes segment. 

Article Note: On becoming "Librarian 2.0" according to some librarians

Citation for the article:

Partridge, Helen, Julie Lee, and Carrie Munro, "Becoming 'Librarian 2.0': The Skills, Knowledge, and Attributes Required by Library and Information Professionals in a Web 2.0 World (and Beyond)." Library Trends 59.1-2 (2010): 315-335.

Read via Project Muse.


The article has some good points, but there is nothing really new here given all that has been written extensively about "librarian 2.0" in the Librarian Blogsville. In fact, I am starting to get the impression that the term "librarian 2.0" may be on the way out in favor of some other new term. I do not know what the new term may be, but if job ads could be an indication, probably something to do with "emerging technologies" or something like that. But I am digressing.

The article starts with the usual literature review. This gives an overview of how the term emerged and where it is as of the article's writing. A lot of the literature conveys that the debate or definition discussion goes back and forth between how much interpersonal skills such a librarian needs and how much technological/technical focus said librarian needs. In theory, both sides should not be mutually exclusive. In practice, they can be very much separate. At least in recent conversations with our instruction librarian, part of the conversation has been about how newer librarians seem to be too focused on the technology and not enough on basic interpersonal skills including things as simple as how to do an adequate reference interview. Basically, the problem we have observed is librarians with a high degree of technolust who want to sit behind a desk, do all their reference online (be it via a social network or a virtual service) and never have to deal with a patron in person; after all, most of the resources are online anyhow (or will soon be there). As I said, this is strictly observation by two librarians who have been in the field for a while observing the folks coming out now of library school. Thus take it as the anecdotal commentary that it is.

The study used 81 Australian individuals in focus groups in order to "identify the current and anticipated skills and knowledge required by successful library and information science (LIS) professionals in the age of Web 2.0 (and beyond)" (319). The method and justification for using focus groups is explained in the article as well. Participant profile is described as well. A series of open-ended questions, listed in the article, were used to stimulate discussion in the focus groups.

Some notes and thoughts from the analysis of the focus groups:

• On technology. There was consensus that while technology (i.e. IT) is important, it is not the dominant issue or skill set. "Successful librarians in the Web 2.0 world (and beyond) need to be aware of, and have some fundamental understanding of, the emerging technology-- what is available and what it can do and how to make it do what is needed-- but they do not need to be IT professionals per se" (326-- emphasis added). The article emphasizes that there is a difference between "IT skills" and "IT appreciation skills." 
• On continuing learning for the librarians. "The need for librarian 2.0 to be interested in, and willing to engage in, lifelong learning was highlighted by all focus groups" (326). You need to know how to keep up, be inquisitive, enjoy experimenting and learning. I think these are just traits any librarian should have. In other words, I do not think they are new nor the exclusive purview of librarian 2.0. The part about exploring after the workday is something I do have mixed feelings about. To an extent, when it comes to work, I follow the Winget line of "you pay me to work, and I do the work." My after hours are exactly that: mine. Sure, I may experiment online and try out new tools, but I do that for myself. If it happens to be useful at work, all good. But I do not do unpaid work after I leave because I happen to like things like spending time with the family and just relaxing. You have to learn  how to unplug, and I honestly wish our profession did not spread so much the illusion that we are plugged 24-7 and toying around with every widget, site, and online gizmo out there.
• On focusing on the users. See my comment above for some of my thinking. I will add what the authors write on this: "Librarian 2.0 loves working with people, values the diverse experiences of users, looks at things from the users' perspective and seeks to actively use the emerging technologies to provide their users a voice" (328). I know that is a lot of the reason I became a librarian. I do love working with people, students in my case as an academic librarian. Diversity is a big thing I value, and it was something that I experienced quite extensively when I used to work in Houston. A lot of the reason I experiment and try to learn new things is so I know what my students may go through at some point in time. Then again, that is not a revolutionary concept. When I went through the National Writing Project, the idea of writing with your students not only to lead by example, but to see what the students experienced as writers, was a bit lesson that stays with me to this day. 
• Other attributes discussed and mentioned include: Evidence Based Practice and Research Skills, Communication, Collaboration and teamwork, and Business savvy. 
• And yes, a lot of LIS professionals do need to get over themselves (329). And while I am certainly to experiment and try new things, I often do find the "just do it" mantra to be a bit problematic in the sense that it seems to be "do it, don't ask, just do it, don't worry about the consequences." At times, the result can be a failure that often someone else has to clean up. Some ambiguity and risk taking are fine. Taking the risk for the sake of taking the risk without at least taking some thought is just irresponsible. 
• A magnificent question asked by the participants of the study, which is one I may have asked once or twice: "How do you free people up to have the time and the necessary support to actually be able to stay current with everything that's going on and the ability to get out of the day to day detail?" I am still waiting to hear answers that are not wishful thinking, platitudes, or as I heard it once, "tough, suck it up." 
• I would consider this a statement of the obvious. However, given all that gets written on "Librarian 2.0," it may not be as obvious. The statement: "Not surprisingly, the study highlighted that librarian 2.0 is less to do with technology and more about the quality transferable skills and interpersonal abilities." 

Booknote: Los cuadernos de Don Rigoberto: 12 Books, 12 Months Book 6

This is the review for the book as I posted it on GoodReads. Finishing this one puts me at the halfway point. Also, it is the last of the books in Spanish I had selected for the challenge. In essence I found Don Rigoberto's notes a hell of a lot more interesting than the plot itself.


Cuadernos de Don Rigoberto, Los by Mario Vargas Llosa

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


I wanted to like this book a lot more, but in the end I was only lukewarm at best about it. I have some mixed feelings about it, and I hope I can convey that as I write this note. On the one hand, Vargas Llosa is indeed a master writer who can craft a sentence. The erotic and love scenes in the novel are simply beautifully described. The language and imagery are great. The use of literary and artistic references is also very good, and I tend to like books that make use of references and allusions as this book does. I tend to like reading erotica (and some porn as well), so you would think this book would have been perfect given the positive attributes I have described so far. So, what was the problem?

The problem was that the passages in between the nice stuff were boring and dry as hell. And to be perfectly honest, I found the character of Fonchito, Don Rigoberto's son, to be annoying and irritating. I just wanted to smack the kid and tell him to get lost. Mind you, the taboo angle did not bother me. For those not in the know, the basic plot of the novel is that Don Rigoberto and Lucrecia got separated after she had an affair/liaison with the precocious Fonchito. Fonchito is Lucrecia's stepson. Rigoberto still misses Lucrecia dearly, so he writes to her and about her in his notebooks, which make quite an exploration of sensuality in various facets. Ok, that all I can handle just fine, and I would think it would make a good tale. Problem was that, aside from the sensual parts, the rest of the novel was, well, pretty boring and the reading experience was pretty slow. A pity because, as I said, this book does have things to like.

As a final note, keep in mind this book is a sequel to the novel Elogio de la madrastra (available in translation as In Praise of the Stepmother ). I have not read the previous novel, and I don't think you have to have read it to appreciate this one. However, those who have read it may likely get more out of this novel.

My mother used to say that even great writers put out a dud once in a while. I am taking this as just being a novel that was so-so. If you want to truly sample Vargas Llosa, especially now that he won the Nobel Prize for Literature, he has much better works (some of which I have read). This is more for those fans of the author that want to say they have read it all. Who knows, I may give it a second chance down the road, or skim the passages I like (some of those make for good bedtime reading), but not anytime soon.




View all my reviews

Article Note: If all libraries became teaching libraries

Citation for the article: 

Palmer, Catherine,  "This I Believe. . . All Libraries Should Be Teaching Libraries." portal: Libraries and the Academy 11.1 (January 2011): 575-582.

Read via Project Muse. 


The title grabbed me right away, and I have to say it is a neat idea. Much like Palmer said, if Elmhurst College (the place the article discusses) had an opening, and they needed an instruction librarian, I would love to apply. Because I love the idea of making our libraries teaching libraries. You would think in academic libraries (the setting I work in), this would be a given, but at times the idea of a teaching library is only given lip service. This may be because academic libraries do reflect their institutions, say a teaching college (where teaching undergraduates is the core of the work) versus a big research campus (where research is the core, and undergraduates are sort of an afterthought, often taught by TA's so the professors can do the "real" work). Given my experience in academia, I can say I have seen both ends. At any rate, I found some of the ideas in the article intriguing, and I think for some libraries, those ideas could at least serve as conversation starters.

Palmer says that it may not be obvious initially why making teaching a central mission of a library is significant. She discusses sample statistics comparing reference transactions versus library instruction sessions, and she finds that the number of patrons reached by library instruction is very low. This is a conversation I have had with our instruction librarian here a few times who struggles with getting into more classrooms to help integrate information literacy into the curriculum. In some cases, the best she can do is promote her services and have the professors send their students. So she often ends up doing a lot of individual research consultations, teaching students one on one. Nothing wrong with that; back in my days as instruction librarian I did a lot of one-on-one teaching as well (best part of my job back then, and it is something I wish I could do more these days). But the point is that we would be able to reach more students proactively if we could offer more library instruction and get integrated into more classes.

However, what came to mind right away when Palmer made that observation was that we indeed do need to be teaching libraries. My argument is simple: just look around at the large amounts of misinformation, ignorance, and just plain lack of critical thinking in society these days. If there is a time when we need libraries where teaching is the central mission, this is it. I would add that to any argument on why we need to keep our libraries open. It goes with that whole safeguarding of democracy thing.

Palmer goes on to discuss something I have considered before, though I probably have not expressed it as eloquently as she has: considering instruction as a marketing tool of the library. She writes:

"We need to embrace instruction, whether provided in-person or online, as the most effective marketing tool we have at our disposal. The best way to ensure that the patrons (the majority of whom are undergraduates) who come into our buildings in the thousands, based on gate counts, have some idea of what libraries can offer-- besides a safe, clean, quiet place to study-- is to have an engaged, enthusiastic, knowledgeable librarian teach them" (576). 

This is applicable to encounters at the reference desk, instruction sessions in a classroom, and even online interactions.

A few other notes from the article:

• "We cannot possibly address each individual student's information need during a class session in the way that we can during a reference transaction. We can ensure that students have a baseline knowledge of the resources and services available to them, however; and, perhaps most important, we can give them a vocabulary that will help them ask better questions when they do need individual help" (577). Given things like the limitations of a one-shot session, emphasis on getting students to know our services, and more important for us, for them to know that a librarian is always there to help, is a big part of any instruction session. For me, it is not uncommon to use a bit of humor and tell my students, "you may forget half of what I taught you here today, but you do have my contact information. Feel free to use it." 
• Why the research model for universities and teaching students as if they are all going to be grad students and researchers (replication) is not exactly the best idea. Having said that, I am not saying we end research, or just go vocational all the way at the expense of things like humanities (like some people do). But higher education does need to understand that not all students are going to be clones of their professors. Palmer writes, "the fact is that most undergraduates go into the workforce, not on to graduate school. If we expect our society outside the academy to understand what it is that its tax dollars allow research institutions to do and to make informed decisions on how to support those institutions, then it is undergraduates who are most in need of understanding how universities 'make knowledge'" (578). This also made me think back to a piece Rory Litwin of Library Juice wrote a while back on "Get Out the Books, Not the Vote." I am also thinking this goes back to how we market the library, or how we make an impression of the library for our undergrads. After all, they will graduate someday and be making the big decisions. Planting the seed of good experiences, teaching them solid lessons in critical thinking, how information works, is accessed, and used, will pay off in the long run. 
• "Without our collections, we would have little to teach; but without teaching others how to find, evaluate, think about, and use those collections, there would be little need for the collections we have and little support for allocating scarce resources to acquire more" (578). I am thinking that a teaching mission can go to the idea of how does the library add value to its campus. 

Palmer goes on to discuss what a "teaching library" would look like and what kind of things would need to happen for it to become a reality. Some things would not change, or they would change very little; things like good collection development would certainly continue. But other crucial changes would take place. For one, and this is something I find intriguing in terms of library marketing and outreach as well as instruction, is that we would have to develop new stories and narratives about what we do; we would also have to look at ourselves differently. Palmer provides a list of other important changes that is worth a look. We must keep in mind that the transformation may not be an easy one. Just because you relabel some things, it does not follow that the changes will be embraced or adopted. Buy-in and serious commitment are needed.

The master teacher idea also intrigued me. However, I wondered how Palmer's idea of librarians who are master teachers teaching others would work in a smaller setting where every librarian has multiple tasks; Palmer suggests having a designated instructional services department for this work (by the way, working in such department would be a dream job for me. Heading one might actually make me reconsider my negative view of wanting to manage anything). Also I wonder what about if you have only one or two librarians committed to the teaching mission, but the rest of the librarians do not really care, or just do not want to change, or worse, simply don't think anyone should be telling them how to teach. I think this is where administrative support and commitment is going to be crucial; if the library administration does not provide direction and vision on this to get others on board, it likely may flounder. Having asked that, I still think the idea of a "mini immersion" experience created locally has a lot of value, and it should be replicated. In fact, as I understood things when I went to ACRL Immersion on the teaching track, teaching others what I have learned was part of the model and mission (by the way, that idea of teaching others is a core tenet of the National Writing Project, another program I was honored to have attended).

A few more notes from the article:

• "But, by acting programmatically, the libraries could slowly inculcate the expectation that all students, regardless of their major, would graduate with a sense of how knowledge in their chosen discipline is created, shared, evaluated, and archived for use by future scholars" (581). 
• "Finally, it would help to develop an institutional memory for instruction and allow the library to develop new leadership for this important function" (581). 
• "It is no longer enough for librarians to simply respond when asked for information; they must continuously promote library resources and services in a manner that engages and addresses the needs of the appropriate audience and reinforces the role of the library and librarians in the intellectual life of the campus" (582).