Sharpening the search saw: Lessons from expert searchers

Many students consider themselves to be proficient searchers and yet are disappointed or frustrated when faced with the task of locating relevant scholarly articles for a literature review. This bleak experience is common among higher education students, even for those in library and information science programs who have heightened appreciation for information resources and yet may settle for “good enough Googling” (Plosker, 2004, p. 34). This is in large part due to reliance on web search engines that have evolved relevance ranking into a vastly intelligent business, one in which we are both its customers and product (Vaidhyanathan, 2011). Google’s Hummingbird nest of search algorithms (Sullivan, 2013) provides quick and targeted hits, yet it can trigger blinders-on trust in first-page results. Concern for student search practices ranges from this permissive trust all the way to lost ability to recall facts and formulate questions (Abilock, 2015), lack of confidence in one’s own knowledge (Carr, 2010), and increased dependence on single search boxes that encourage stream-of-consciousness user input (Tucker, 2013); indeed, students may be high in tech savvy but lacking the critical thinking skills needed for information research tasks (Katz, 2007). Students have come to rely on web search engine intelligence—and it is inarguably colossal—to such an extent that they may fail to formulate a question before charging forward to search for its answer. “Google is known as a search engine, yet there is barely any searching involved anymore. The gap between a question crystallizing in your mind and an answer appearing at the top of your screen is shrinking all the time. As a consequence, our ability to ask questions is atrophying” (Leslie, 2015, para. 4). Highly accomplished students often lament their lack of skills for higher-level searching that calls for formulating pointed questions when struggling to develop a solid literature review. In addition, many are unaware that search results are filtered based on previous searches, location, and other factors extracted from personal search patterns by the search engine. Two students working side by side and entering the same search terms may receive quite different results on Google, yet the extent to which this ‘filter bubble’ (Pariser, 2011) is personalizing their search results is difficult to assess and to overcome. Just as important, it can be impossible to know what a search might be missing: how to know what’s not there? This portrayal of the information landscape may appear gloomy but, in fact, it could not be a more inspiring environment in which to do research, to find connections in ideas, and to benefit from and generate new ideas. A few lessons from expert searchers, focused on critical concepts and search practices, can sharpen a student’s search saw and move the proficient student-researcher, desiring more relevant and comprehensive search results, into a trajectory toward search expertise. For the lessons involved in this journey, the focus is on two areas: first, the critical concepts— called threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003)— found to be necessary for developing search expertise (Tucker et al., 2014); and, second, four strategic areas within search that can have significant and immediate impact on improving search results for research literature. The latter are grounded in the threshold concepts and positioned for application to literature reviews for graduate student studies