One point the librarian made that bears repeating – research takes time. I’m not talking about the reading of articles (that takes even more time) but finding good research is work. Students who got “A’s” and “B’s” last semester said they spent over 30 hours on research alone. That doesn’t include the writing of the paper at all. This was easy for them because they picked topics they felt passionate about.
An idiom allegedly from Chinese goes, “if you give someone a fish, they eat for a day. If you teach them to fish they eat for a lifetime.” Our goal in our class is teaching – and skills that transfer to a lifetime of use.
You have to hunt for research (hence the word “search” embedded in the term). CQ Researcher is like a barrel of fish for you to shoot at – I hope most of you don’t need it – it doesn’t impress me. It is not a database but an encyclopedia published in a journal format. Its primary virtue is ease of use. Sure, we may get more calories in you if we spoon-feed pre-digested information, but it isn’t the calories that are important, but the ability to provide for ourselves. And CQ Research is processed. Sure a McDonald’s Filet-o-fish will provide more fat and calories (not to mention salt) than a fish you catch and prepare for yourself – but is is far less healthy, and ultimately less satisfying. We only prefer the taste if we’ve been raised on a diet of deep-fried and slathered in fat.
To teach this subject better, in the future I should create a handout with links – that students can follow. I also need to clarify that students NEED time to work on their own research.
Databases I recommend:
- Academic OneFile link
- JStor
- ERIC
- Gale (3 different databases – I’m thinking Gale Virtual is the way to go first).
- PsycArticles
Resources I would use sparingly – no more than one source per paper.
- Wikipedia – not a bad place to start to learn language and to poach resources, but it’s a lot like peeing in the shower: not something you need to brag about.
- CQ Researcher. It’s research lite. It may be credible, but it doesn’t impress anyone. In some ways it’s inferior to wikipedia. The same scatological analogy applies.
Another thought on comments made regarding procrastination: computers changed the process and meaning of “writing a paper.” 30 or 40 years ago research was done with bound indexes, card catalogs that took up enormous space, and rows and rows of physical books. Writers would copy from books by hand into notecards (or notebooks) then rearrange notes and recopy by hand into their notebook rough drafts – and repeat until the last minute and TYPING often happend the night before the paper was due.
Research today all happens at a computer/ word processor – so “writing” isn’t divorced from research – but the two are connected throughout the process. Also, the myth of writing a paper the night before it’s due in college and still getting an “A” is an college urban myth that ranks right up there with the one about people who only show up for tests and Ace classes – or that drinking bong water is an awesome psychedelic experience.
Why might fools or sociopaths repeat these college myths?
