“Myth, Magic, and Reality of Federated Searching: Implications for Reference and
Instruction” Discussion Summary
Katherine Dabbour
Library Assessment Coordinator
CSU Northridge
Kathy.dabbour@csun.edu
818-67704706
Introduction
The California Academic Reference Librarians Discussion Interest Group South
(CARLDIG South) sponsored the program for the CARL South Mini Conference on
December 9, 2005, which drew an estimated 95 librarians. Lynn Lampert served as the
discussion moderator, and Katherine Dabbour served as the discussion note taker. Both
are from California State University Northridge. The following information is excerpted
from an article that has been accepted for publication in Internet Reference Services
Quarterly, which is scheduled for publication in February 2007.
Methodology
Attendees were asked to discuss in small groups three questions related to federated
searching and then report back to the whole group. Each small group designated a note
taker and reporter. Ten groups turned in their notes and/or participated in the discussion.
Responses were categorized as appropriate to each question and themes were determined.
Considering the time constraint of one and a quarter hour, and the unanticipated size of
the group, the methodology generated a lively discussion both within the small groups
and during the reporting period. Furthermore, as a context for the discussion summary, it
should be noted that when the moderator asked how many attendees currently offer a
federated search system in their libraries, only 10 out of the 95 said “yes.” Therefore, this
discussion is most likely as speculative as the survey results previously discussed.
Summary
The first discussion question, which mirrored the online survey, asked, “Should federated
searching be considered a starting point for teaching or providing reference assistance?
Why or why not?” Three of the groups answered “yes” and most of their comments
focused on the positives of a “Google-like” one-box interface as either inviting or a
conceptual framework to build upon before launching into the more sophisticated search
interface that an individual database vendor offers. Others commented that a federated
search system could also introduce and evaluate the relevance of the resources available
from a library’s database offerings by indicating which databases contained the most
results for a keyword search. Others felt that a single-box interface enables the librarian
to focus more on keyword choice and the search process rather than on individual
databases’ search mechanics.
Three of the groups answered “no,” and many of their comments focused on the lack of
sophisticated searching, such as the loss of limiting to scholarly journals or access to
database thesauri. Others felt that the multiplicity of formats and sheer number of results
from simultaneously searching a variety of databases is confusing and would not be
considered a starting point database for lower division undergraduates or community
college students. Others indicated that since not all databases are metasearch compliant,
e.g., Lexis-Nexis Academic and Factiva, students would also be missing these relevant
resources.
Four of the groups’ answers fell under the category of “it depends,” namely, that whether
or not a federated search system was a starting point depended on the individual student’s
and/or class’ information needs. For example, some pointed out its value for
interdisciplinary research or looking up obscure topics; others echoed what was said by
the groups that answered “yes” i.e., that it mainly works to help determine what library
resources are available in a particular subject area and it’s value as a starting point when
you don’t know where to start.
Question number two asked, “What impact could federated searching have on students’
information literacy skills: Positive, negative, neutral? Why do you think that might be
the case?” None of the groups said that federated searching would have an unequivocally
positive or negative impact. Their responses ranged from middle-of-the-road neutral to
equally positively or negatively neutral. For the mid-range neutrals, it again depended on
students’ information needs: if they need it and understand it, fine, if not, it at least does
not hurt information literacy skills. For the more negative neutrals, without previous
instruction, they felt it would hurt students’ information literacy skills since they would
not understand what the federated system was searching, or how to evaluate search
results. For the positive end of the neutral spectrum, they felt federated searching could
act as a “hook” or conceptual framework by building on students’ one-box search
expectations already formed by their experience with Google; furthermore, at least a
federated search system would encourage the use of better resources without the student
knowing it.
For question number 3, “Should librarians teach federated searching to a particular “type”
of student, i.e., undergraduates or graduates only, grads only, etc.? Why or why not?” six
of the groups indicated “yes,” citing that either graduate students, seniors taking capstone
courses receiving library instruction, or classes in the majors should be taught federated
searching, which was considered too specialized or difficult for basic general education
classes or lower division students. Three of the groups said “no” that they would teach it
to whoever needed it, citing again the idea that it depended on the question. Another
group in the “no” camp said that assuming information literacy was taught on a
continuum of undergraduate to graduate at a campus, then they would get it at some
point.