Google Scholar: An Inconveniently Scholarly Truth

August 4th, 2009

We all like to think of ourselves as level-headed thinkers who see things as they truly are. Although sometimes we’re right, often we’re completely wrong. At one point or another, we all find ourselves duped by conventional wisdom.

To paraphrase Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, conventional wisdom gives explanations that are convenient but not necessarily correct. Our fast-paced, low attention, git-r-done culture demands easy, one-line answers. Not necessarily accurate answers, just easy ones.

That’s where Google Scholar comes in to ruin the fun with undistilled, boring, inconveniently scholarly truth. Cataloguing academic journals and studies - the gold standard of unbiased data - Scholar can help you find the truth in a sea of hearsay. It just takes a little knowledge and effort.

Abstract

Professional researchers study topics of interest and report their findings in publications. Their topics range greatly, from the migratory patterns of fish to the effect of beer commercials on children. These studies are done under strict conditions, with many precautions taken to eliminate misrepresentation of the results. These reports are published primarily in academic journals, where fellow researchers can review and critique the results. If the findings are clinically interesting or relevant, new studies will elaborate on the results and cite the original report. The number of citations a study receives can be an indicator of its academic significance.

Until recently, these journals were available on the shelves of university libraries, taking up entire buildings in their notoriously inefficient way. Locating an article was time consuming and frustrating, and there was an intrinsic inertia to delving further into a subject. It was just too much of a pain to research something. This was the prime environment for the growth of Galbraith’s conventional wisdom.

Today, Google Scholar provides an alternative. It acts as the most comprehensive university library in existence by searching all libraries instantaneously. With it, one can quickly find a relevant study, pull up its details, look at related articles, and formulate an informed, modern opinion on a subject. In this way, the new ease of searching can trump the old ease of conventional wisdom.

However, Google Scholar and the studies it indexes are not perfect. There are many factors that can give us misleading information. It’s important to be aware of some common problems with this system, so they can be managed effectively.

Limited access: Since studies are usually published in academic journals, they are considered copyright material. Usually this means that the complete articles are off-limits to the general populace, unless you pay for it. Studies found in Scholar typically show a summary (called an abstract); however, further detail requires payment.

This can be circumvented by using a library network that has a Scholar link. Being connected to this type of network gives full access to articles that are blocked from typical internet connections. You can do this on computers that are physically inside participating libraries’ walls but it’s much more convenient to do so from home.

To access full articles from home, you need log into a library’s VPN, which routes your internet connection through the library’s network. University libraries are more likely to have a Scholar link than public libraries, and if you are/know a university student, accessing the library VPN from home is simple.

Tempered language: Researchers are rightly careful in choosing their words. Rarely will you find superlatives (”always”, “never”, “the best”, “the worst”), but you will find no shortage of tempered statements (”indicates”, “may imply”, “might have an outcome”). Researchers are looking for the truth, not a sound bite. So if you’re looking for a clear, concise, definitive answer… look elsewhere. It’s just the raw, unpolished truth that is showcased in studies.

Jargon use: Studies are typically performed by educated academics, so naturally the terminology they use can be difficult to understand. Often, foreign-sounding statistical analyses are used to interpret results. Unfamiliar topics are particularly hard to follow as academics use shorthand unfamiliar to the layperson. Be prepared to look up every third word as these studies focus on results, not readability.

Hidden motivators: Researchers are often looking to carve themselves a niche or make a stunning discovery. No researcher wants the results of their work to be useless, and some may endeavor to manipulate results subtly. Although the academic system does a good job of reviewing and critiquing studies, some dubious or misleading findings do get published. Fortunately, the ones that do get printed are mostly marginalized by academics, yet to the untrained eye may seem legitimate.

Study Manipulation: Studies are often funded by powerful interests. For example, a pharmaceutical company may provide funding for a study on a new medication. During the study they may monitor the outcomes and pull the funding if negative results begin to show. This way they can make sure only favourable studies are carried through to completion. While it’s difficult for even powerful organizations to completely fabricate outcomes, it’s important to acknowledge that they have some influence over them.

Conclusion

In the end, Google Scholar is a useful tool, but it must be used appropriately and knowledgeably. Whether viewing the complete articles on a library network, or the abstracts from home, Scholar gives us a way to move past conventional wisdom and better educate ourselves. Keep in mind the caveats mentioned and search with confidence as there is no better way to find the truth than through the facts, as inconveniently scholarly as they may be.