Undergraduate use of federated searching: A survey of preferences and perceptions of value-added functionality

College and Research Libraries

Volumn 68, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 472-487

  Belliston, C Jeffrey ^a   Howland, Jared L ^a   Roberts, Brian C ^a  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37149015327     PISSN: 00100870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5860/crl.68.6.472     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. John Riemer and others, "Rethinking How We Provide Bibliographic Services for the University of California" (Bibliographic Services Task Force Final Report, December 2005) 2. Available online at http://libraries. universityofcalifornia.edu/sopag/BSTF/Final.pdf. [Accessed 2 May 2007].
2. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of WebFeat in setting up the implementation-neutral interface used in the data gathering.
3. Roger K. Summit, "Dialog and the User: An Evaluation of the User Interface with a Major Online Retrieval System," Interactive Bibliographic Search: The User/Computer Interface, ed. Donald E. Walker (Montvale, N.J.: AFIPS Press, 1971), 83-94;
4. Stanley A. Elman, "Cost-Benefit Experience with Dialog Full-Text Retrieval," Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science, Volume 10.36th Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, October 21-25, 1973, eds. Helen J. Waldron and F. Raymond Long (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973), 54-55;
5. Stanley A. Elman, "Cost Comparison of Manual and On-Line Computerized Literature Searching," Special Libraries 66, no. 1 (1975): 12-18.
6. For example: Donna Fryer, "Federated Search Engines," Online 28, no. 2 (2004): 16-19;
7. Roy Tennant, "Cross-Database Search: One-Stop Shopping," Library Journal 126, no. 17 (2001): 29-30;
8. Rachel L. Wadham, "Federated Searching," Library Mosaics 15, no. 1 (2004): 20.
9. For example: Frank Cervone, "What We've Learned from Doing Usability Testing on OpenURL Resolvers and Federated Search Engines," Computers in Libraries 25, no. 9 (2005): 10-14;
10. Doris Small Helfer and Jina Choi Wakimoto, "Metasearching: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Making it Work in Your Library," Searcher 13, no. 2 (2005): 40-41;
11. Anne L. Highsmith and Bennett Claire Ponsford, "Notes on Metalib® Implementation at Texas A&M University," Serials Review 32, no. 3 (2006): 190-94.
12. For example: Xiaorian Chen, "MetaLib, WebFeat, and Google: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Federated Search Engines Compared with Google," Online Information Review 30, no. 4 (2006): 413-27.
13. For example: Debbie Campbell, "Federating Access to Digital Objects: PictureAustralia," Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 36, no. 3 (2002): 182-87;
14. Geoff Daily, "A Case of Clustered Clarity," EContent 28, no. 10 (2005): 44-45.
15. John Boyd and others, "The One-Box Challenge: Providing a Federated Search That Benefits the Research Process," Serials Review 32, no. 4 (2006): 247 (empliasis ours).
16. Ibid., 249 (emphasis ours).
17. Ibid., 251 (emphasis ours).
18. Ibid., 253 (emphasis ours).
19. Jonathan Rochkind, "(Meta)search Like Google," Library Journal (Feb. 15, 2007). Available online at www.libraryjournal.com/article/ CA6413442.html. [Accessed 28 February 2007].
20. Boyd, 252. Our participants' terms closely parallel those of West Virginia University students as reported by Penny Pugh in her contribution to the cited column.
21. A report on the Quality Metrics project at Emory University states, "There was a categorical rejection of the value-and, of the very possibility-of substantive quality indicators presented in the ratings system, in particular as these applied to books and journals. One philosophical objection was to the notion of the quantification of quality in such a reductive manner." The "quantification" referred to the creation of a rating of search results "hypothetically conceptualized as computed through numerically weighing various factors such as academic peer comments, non-academic comments, number of times cited, and the like." Rohit Chopra and Aaron Krowne, "Disciplining Search/Searching Disciplines: Perspectives from Academic Communities on Metasearch Quality Indicators," First Monday 11, no. 8 (2006): under "A. Thematic explication of key findings, 4. Quality as User Empowerment to Make Judgments about Quality. Available online at www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_8/chopra/index.html. [Accessed 2 January 2007].