As a graduate student...and one who remembers spending endless hours in the library making sure to copy exactly all the relevent information from various books in order to hand write papers in my early school years and an avid "Googler", I'd like to suggest Wikipedia as an optional starting point for reference. While I do not consider Wikipedia a resource for my research on international environmental policy, endangered species and natural resource management, it was certainly useful in helping me to explain "off-sides" during the World Cup.
Wikipedia has a place in providing knowledge to society, but I think students gain a better appreciation for research and in the development of their own ideas from actually having to conduct literature research and from learning to distinguish credible sources from the non-credible. It's easy to select the easiest way to conduct research with all the technology that becomes available, and though I'm very happy to use any internet source that can speed up the process, I frankly do not consider Wikipedia a credible resource, though in some cases it may reference credible sources for its content. If this is the case, I suggest the student go straight to the source.
my two cents...
ruba
On 9/13/06, Paul Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The way I cast this argument is to note that the "quantity of
information" problem has been solved (to put it mildly), and the new
challenge is to identify quality information. This leads to a
discussion about peer review. More broadly, the challenge is to find
shortcuts that can help the student to access quality sources.
One trick is to include the word "syllabus" in google searchers;
professors serve as information filters as we sort through a mass of
books and articles on a given topic in search of something worth
assigning. References that appear on several syllabi are likely to be
key sources.
Another trick is to think in terms of brand names. Even a computer
science major is not going to disassemble a computer before buying it;
rather, s/he will likely rely on brand name as a short cut to indicate
quality. Including "brand names" like the National Academy of Sciences
and other reputable research sources (organizations, individuals) in
one's searches is a way to access quality research. Once can also limit
google searches with <site:.edu>
But how can a student (and citizens generally) distinguish brand
quality? To the non-specialist, the Foreign Policy Council appears
indistinguishable from (to make up a name) the Foreign Policy Analysis
Center, which could be no more than an individual with strong opinions
and a big bank account. This is an area in which faculty can provide
some guidance. But what of the citizen, outside of academia, who would
like to become informed about an information-intensive social
controversy like global warming or "intelligent design" of impacts of
pesticides? I believe Google Scholar could be a very significant part
of the answer; I looked into it this summer and it certainly outperforms
my library's search engines. But the peer-reviewed work it pulls up is
made inaccessible to the public, unless one pays a fee. And why pay,
when there are these free (and often misleading) information sources out
there on the web?
To my mind the democratization of knowledge - and the informed
participation of citizens - will require less wikipedia and more free
access to scholarship.
This is where I include a disclaimer acknowledging the importance of
non-scholarly sources for many research endeavors, both to escape the
assumptions and emphasis of the academy and to access cutting edge
insights from the grey literature.
Paul
--
Paul F. Steinberg
Assistant Professor of Political Science & Environmental Policy
Harvey Mudd College
301 E. Platt Boulevard
Claremont, CA 91711
tel. 909-607-3840
