The ability to use databases effectively is an important aspect of a librarian's job. We are in a service oriented field, and most of our clients expect us to be able to aid them in their searches. Upon reading Judith Weedman's "Information Retrieval: Designing, Querying, and Evaluating Information Systems," I quickly realized that gathering "all but only relevant data" (p. 123) can be very complex. Weedman breaks it down into three areas: design, use and evaluation, all three of which, as I read, I looked at in reference to our search assignment.
Weedman states that "Understanding how a system is designed is crucial to understanding how to use and evaluate it (p. 115). She mentions knowing the mechanics of the search engines- all the parts of the algorithm that the database uses to rank it's output. When doing our search assignment, it was obvious that the systems (Ebsco and Wilson) we sampled are different, both in their algorithms used for ranking, and also in their pools of information to pull from. For example, it seemed that I would get a lot more international sources from Ebsco than from Wilson. Although these algorithms are "trade secrets," I believe the more you familiarize yourself with each system, the more you will have an inherent understanding of their capabilities.
Weedman also discusses the importance of making your search fit the system (p. 120). Typing in general words such as children, media, and literacy, gained me very different results in Ebsco and Wilson. Part of refining the search is knowing how I want those words to relate to one another. Do we want to know how literate children are in certain medias, or do we want to know how literacy is affected by media? One thing the databases did was to list other subject phrases that were similar to the search. I found this to be a great aid to help figure out the direction of the search, even with unclear goals in the beginning. Weedman also discusses that searchers need varied approaches and to be knowledgeable about the systems they are working with. I could really see that while doing the search assignment. When I first started , it felt like I was stabbing in the dark, but each time I go back to the databases, I gain another useful nugget of information. Querying databases is definitely a craft that combines skill and a certain level of thinking outside the box.
In the last area, evaluating, Weedman compares relevance to beauty- in the eye of the beholder (p. 123). How true! You could have twenty different people start with a general search of media, literacy and children, and in the end, wind up with twenty different positive outcomes. Weedman focuses on evaluating the search engines and the databases and leaves out evaluating the user. However, in my situation- a student learning to become a searcher that others rely on- it is my journey to be evaluating the user. A lot of work needs to go into learning how to maximize the databases available, and to also learn efficient ways to evaluate new databases. It is my job to see that my client's searches end up with the relevancy they desire.
In conclusion, I am learning that information retrieval is indeed a skilled art that is undervalued right now by our young. Getting people to take the time to evaluate databases, when Google and Yahoo are so accessible and fruitful, is and will continue to be a challenge for today's librarians. Teaching about reliable sources of information and how to develop a good search strategy should be started and emphasized at a young age. I know of a very bright high school student (now on a full scholarship to Colgate) who was recently devastated to learn that Wikipedia is not an infallible sourse of information! That is why librarians (like me!) need to lead the way in educating our young on proper information retrieval.
Weedman, J. (2008). Information Retrieval: Designing, Querying, and Evaluating Information Systems. In K. Haycock, & B. E. Sheldon (Eds.), The Portable MLIS: Insights from the Experts (pp. 112-126), Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited
No comments:
Post a Comment