Book Review: The Oxford Guide to Library Research, 4th edition

(Cross-posted from Notes from a Simple Librarian)

 

Thomas Mann, The Oxford Guide to Library Research, Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. ISBN: 978-0-19-993106-4.

 

Genre: nonfiction, guides

Subgenre: academic research, LIS

Format: trade paperback

Source: Hutchins Library, Berea College 

 

Our library recently acquired this for the reference collection as an update to the third edition that we had. I did notice this edition's publishing date is 2015, so it already may be falling behind in some details. When I investigated, I did not see a fifth edition forthcoming. Still this is a pretty good book overall.  

This book is a guide to help readers do research online and offline with an overview of various online and offline sources. Though it goes over online and offline sources, there is some bias or preference expressed in the book for print sources found in libraries, especially large research libraries. Naturally it also favors subscription based online resources, again found in libraries, especially large research libraries. The publisher describes this book as "the gold standard in the field," but it is so as long as you are using and accessing large research libraries. There is not much here about smaller academic libraries, like ours, and even less about public libraries. Though the strategies presented can apply for any researcher, the book is mainly for academic researchers at large research universities and institutions, for example, the Library of Congress, which is by the way where the author works. 

 

The book is arranged into 15 chapters. Some of the chapter topics include: specialized encyclopedias, use of subject headings in library catalogs and databases, citation searches, people sources, and hidden treasures (other not so visible at times sources like microforms and government documents). The book definitely strives to be as inclusive of various resources as possible. 

This is a guide mainly for academic researchers. The book is also commonly used as a textbook in library school programs (or "i-Schools" as they often call themselves now), and a lot of the material in the book is written more for librarians in training than actual non-librarian researchers. At times, some topics, such as cataloging and subject headings, may into more depth than most researchers may need, but that depth is necessary for librarians to understand how the systems work in order to better help their patrons. For other readers, some of the material may be way more technical than they want or need to know. 

For librarians in the field, like me, parts of this book may serve as a skills refresher. I did read it all to write this review, but for my brethren in the field I recommend you read what you need when you need. 

The book may not be too accessible for undergraduates. It does offer good research tips, but undergrads may need to dig through the more dense material first to find the good tips they can use. The book may be more geared to graduate students, research faculty, and especially librarians in training. Thus I would recommend the book for academic libraries, especially R-1 and similar institutions. For small academic libraries, I'd say this is optional. I am good with having it in our small collection, but having read it I can see it can be optional for us. 

In the end, I liked some parts better than others, and I think many academic readers can find some use in it. 

3 out of 5 stars. 

*****

Additional reading notes: 

The book is designed to answer three questions: 

 

"First, what is the extent of the significant research resources you will miss if you confine your research entirely, or even primarily, to sources available on the open Internet? Second, if you are trying to get a reasonably good overview of the literature on a particular topic, rather than just 'something quickly' on it, what are the methods of subject heading that are usually much more efficient for the purpose rather than typing keywords into a blank search box? And third-- a concern related to the first two-- how do you find the best search terms to use in the first place?" (xv).

A challenge is convincing researchers, especially students on tight schedules and deadlines who DO want it quickly and just good enough to do the assignment. Then again, a lot of what those students do is not "real" research. It's rather synthesis and compiling of sources on a decided topic, but that is a whole other conversation. 

This is a good point that many folks often miss or conveniently refuse to understand: 

"In the overall universe of information records, three considerations are inextricably tied together: (1) copyright protection; (2) free 'fair use' of the records by everyone; and (3) access limitations of what, who, and where. 

It is not possible to combine (1) and (2) without restricting at least one element of (3)" (xvii). 

Now things like copyright and access to research are debatable, but at the moment the above is the reality, unless you do as some faculty, researchers, and increasingly students do and find your sources in some shady parts of the Internet (and no further comment from me on that). 

A bad habit many librarians, especially the cool and hip ones like the "doers and stirrers," tend to have, which irks me a bit to be honest: 

"(The library field, unfortunately, has a habit of simply following Google rather than focusing on alternatives to it that work much better in the niche areas libraries must fill)" (115). 

That is also why so many libraries go to big default search boxes on their websites to "search everything" or do one "big search" without regard to trade offs of such decision in terms of focus, relevance, and useful results. It's a jump on the Google bandwagon of big search box and hoping the algorithm is on your side, except the algorithm is usually not on your side. Librarians jump on this for convenience, to make it "easier" for themselves and for impatient patrons instead of putting in the work and teaching students and/or patrons properly. Again, this can be a whole other conversation for another time. 

A growing problem in open Internet searching. I often mention this in library instruction, but few students seem to really appreciate it. Less savvy faculty often gloss over it: 

"(The growing proliferation of echo chambers and filter bubbles-- i.e. producing search results weighted and skewed by individuals' own idiosyncratic past search histories-- further diminishes the Web's capacity to provide inclusive overview perspectives)" (133). 

The author gives a nod to Reader's Advisory: 

"Bibliographies are also frequently more useful than databases when questions of 'reader's advisory' nature arise-- that is, when people just want recommendations of good books to read, in any subject area" (184).