Bibliographic Databases for the Art Researcher: Developments, Problems and Proposals

Boyles, James C.

doi:10.1086/adx.6.1.27947702

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, during the last few years, this lack has begun to be remedied. Serious attention is now being paid to online searching in the humanities: its particular requirements, problems with databases and their vendors, and specific search techniques (Boyles, 1987(Boyles, , 1988Crawford, 1986;Everett & Pilachowski, 1986;Katzen, 1986;Lehmann & Renfro, 1991;Loughridge, 1989;Mackesy, 1982;Ross, 1987;Ruiz & Meyer, 1990;Stern, 1988;Tibbo, 1989;Walker, 1988Walker, , 1990Walker & Atkinson, 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A profile of end-user searching behavior by humanities scholars: The Getty Online Searching Project Report No. 2

Siegfried

Bates

Wilde

1993

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Getty Art History Information Program carried out a two-year project to study how advanced humanities scholars operate as end users of online databases. Visiting Scholars at the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities in Santa Monica, California, were offered the opportunity to do unlimited subsidized searching of DIALOG databases. This second report from the project analyzes how much searching the scholars did, the kinds of search techniques and DIALOG features they used, and their learning curves. Search features studied included commands, Boolean logic, types of vocabulary, and proximity operators. Error rates were calculated, as well as how often the scholars used elementary search formulations and introduced new search features and capabilities into their searches. The amount of searching done ranged from none at ail to dozens of hours. A typical search tended to be simple, using one-word search terms and little or no Boolean logic. Starting with a full day of DIALOG training, the scholars began their search experience at a reasonably high level of competence; in general, they maintained a stable level of competence throughout the early hours of their search experience. IntroductionPrompted by scholars' increased access to online databases, such as those offered by Dialog Information Services, the Getty Art History Information Program launched a two-year program in early 1989 to study how humanities scholars, engaging in their characteristic modes Received May 29, 1992; revised February 8, 1993; accepted February 8, 1993. of research, use online databases when they are given the chance to do unlimited searching, unconstrained by cost. The study was intended to probe a number of aspects of the scholars' experiences with online searching, including their reactions to the use of the online databases, the role the searching had in their research work, their search techniques and learning curve, their queries, and the search terms they used. The results of the study are to be reported in a series of articles, of which this is the second.The first report (Bates, Wilde, & Siegfried, 1993) analyzed the vocabulary used by the scholars in their searches, and the third report is to analyze the results of the interviews with the scholars about the role of the searching in their research. The purpose of this article is to analyze and profile the online searching record itself, drawing on complete transaction log data captured for the study. In particular, at the request of the Getty collaborators, Bates analyzed how much searching the scholars did, the kinds of search techniques and DIALOG features they used, and their learning curves.Marilyn Schmitt conceived the Getty Online Searching Project; she designed the study together with Susan Siegfried and Deborah Wilde. Siegfried and Wilde carried out the collaborative project plan and oversaw the gathering of data throughout the project. Marcia Bates analyzed the data, formulated conclusions, and contributed insights from the discipline of information sc...

show abstract