Search results

The wide adoption of web-scale discovery tools calls into question the usefulness and viability of traditional subject indexes. This study examines this question of usefulness in the context of the discipline of literary studies. To what extent can researchers rely on the primary database devoted to language and literature study to discover relevant scholarship, and how does the database's performance compare to other common search tools?

The study uses a random sample of citations from articles published in the flagship journal, PMLA, to see how well the sources cited by literature scholars are covered in various search tools, including the MLA International Bibliography.

Of the search tools investigated, Google Scholar found the largest number of citations, even when limiting to literary scholarship. However, the eclecticism of citations suggests that scholars benefit from using a variety of search tools and methods.

Although other studies have looked at discoverability in certain subject areas, this one focuses on literary studies. An understanding of the relative coverage of different search tools can inform librarian practices and recommendations.

This study aims to use research guides as a window to disciplinary information literacy in the field of modern language studies from a librarian’s point of view. Informed by literature on disciplinary research practices and on library research guides, it analyzes how librarians represent, and teach, an especially rich and multifaceted information landscape.

Researchers analyzed the topical coverage, organization, resource emphasis and instructional content of 182 research guides in the field of modern language studies. Data were collected both manually and automatically using a Web scraper. Data were then coded using categories developed by the authors.

Guides focused on language and literature topics, with some interdisciplinary coverage. Guides tended to focus on resources and formats rather than user tasks or instruction. Over two thirds of guides included some type of instruction, primarily focused on locating resources, and a slim majority of instructional topics were specific to modern language studies.

Looking at guides from another field would have allowed for cross-disciplinary comparisons. It is possible that including guides from additional languages or universities would have given different results.

Although there is significant literature on research guides, few have analyzed how they reflect what information literacy looks like in a particular discipline. This study also contributes to research on information literacy instruction for modern languages and recommends that it be informed by an understanding of disciplinary research practices.