The field of anthropology involves the study of all people through
all times. As such, it's a remarkably diverse field,
encompassing many different other fields - history, geology, biology,
art, psychology, and so on - and subsequently requires that
researchers have at least some understanding of each of these, as
well. Librarians must recognize this fact as we seek to direct
users toward appropriate information sources, sources that are
accurate, reliable, and preferably lacking in bias.
In the article Evolving Internet Reference in Anthropology,
the authors address the above challenges and provide a list of
sources for anthropological research, all web-based and one of which
(AnthroSource, which is cited multiple times) we used in our work for
the course's anthropology module. Because we are asked to
discuss what we have discovered about anthropological sources, I will
say this: good sources last. This is simplistic, to be sure,
but consider that the online world is irregular: some sites simply
disappear, others cease to be managed and become outdated, others are
crowd-sourced and are innately inaccurate...certainly the reader can
agree that the internet can be problematic. And yet researchers
turn to it regularly and increasingly, expecting that information
will be current, accurate, accessible, and available at little to no
cost. It is incumbent upon librarians to provide direction and
guide researchers through what can feel like a quagmire of results.
I admit that, prior to reading the article, I was skeptical when I
saw the date of publication. Yet these are sources to which we
can still point our patrons.
Problematic access continued to be the theme of this week's module
for me, as I was unable, again and again, to access the AnthroSource
articles to which we were directed. Despite the use of the VPN,
I consistently received errors from EBSCO. No amount of
re-direction solved the problem. This, of course, is not the
result I sought, nor is it a result that Professor Roland will
appreciate, particularly as I draft this post at a late hour on the
last day of the module. Yet - while it might seem like a
cop-out - I'm left considering other researchers, on deadlines,
unable to access materials that they should be able to access but
cannot, or relying on the internet to provide them with the answers
they seek. How can we, as librarians, help? Of course, we
may not be able to help if the issue is with accessing databases
remotely or with technical services for database providers, but with
knowledge of suitable information sources, we can certainly provide
researchers with a helping hand via email, chat reference, or
services like Know It Now.
Above, crowd-sourced information
sources were called into question as being, sometimes, unreliable.
Each week, however, we are asked to look at sub-Reddits, and this
week was no different. What strikes me each week as we do this is
the incredible wealth of information to be found, often in the form
of links to articles by reputable authors. Again, anthropology is a
remarkably diverse field, and the articles to which links are
provided reflect this, ranging from ebola to studies on stone-age
tools to a marketing campaign to bring organ meats to the dinner
table during World War II. Comments, too, often include links to
other articles, providing additional research sources. Just as rules
for research are made – such as my previous comment on
crowd-sourcing – they are broken...although it is again useful for
librarians to direct patrons to those rule-breakers that are worthy
of consideration. As an aside, the anthropology sub-reddit is a
fascinating meta-sources for anthropological study: individuals with
common interests or common backgrounds coming together to create an
online society with rules, a hierarchy, conflict (and, sometimes,
conflict resolution), and social status. There is certainly a
research paper there!
For the first time, we were asked to
use YouTube as a source for study. YouTube is crowd-sourced, as
well, and the quality of videos found there runs the gamut from
excellent to absurd. Yet I was able to find a large number of
sources for anthropologists, all of which were useful and reliable.
Interestingly, the video I viewed – The
Celts: Lost Treasures of the Ancient World – speaks to the
issue of reliability of sources, a theme that has recurred for me
throughout the modules in this course. The Celts were an illiterate
society with an oral tradition, and so much of what we know about
them was written by sources outside their culture, such as the Greeks
and the Romans. As such, while they shed light on some of the
practices of the Celtic peoples, they must be considered as being
partially inaccurate. Librarians and their patrons are contemplating
this challenge regularly. Are sources reliable? Bias is difficult
to avoid, particularly in the social sciences, and must be considered
at every turn, beginning at the moment we recommend a source. Bias
is not necessarily negative; to the contrary, it has aided in the
preservation of the online sources mentioned in Evolving
Internet Reference in Anthropology, as
well as other excellent sources.
In a field as huge as anthropology,
finding appropriate sources can be a large challenge. Yet by
acknowledging that the challenge exists – and with a bit of
creativity – librarians can help researchers (even procrastinators
like me) find the sources they need.
"Good sources last" - what a great rule of thumb, catch phrase!
ReplyDelete