Searching is often non-linear and iterative. It requires evaluation of sources and the mental flexibility to pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops.
Tale of two research assignments - a short story to be told at the beginning of a research class.
Draw a straight arrow pointing up at about 45 degrees on the board and explain;
This arrow is how most of us would like to see our research process go – direct, simple and immediately successful and in the present age of electronic searching, you actually can pretty much follow this model if you want to. Go to OneSearch or Google, type in a few keywords from your assignment, pick the best books and articles, write your paper, cite and you’re done.
But there is a different model (as you describe the other model, draw line that wanders, doubles back on itself, etc.)
When you get your assignment and you’re standing at the bottom of the mountain, you don’t set out on the trail immediately. Instead you spend some time thinking about where you want to go and why. You find out some basic information about this particular mountain (weather conditions, are there bears). You make a map – a plan that includes different resources you want to search and different terms you plan to use. Then you start climbing, maybe with a general search tool like OneSearch or Google. As you search you may find that some of what you expected at the bottom of the mountain isn’t quite like that. Maybe the expert consensus on your topic isn’t quite as strong as you though it was. Maybe there are other points of view to explore. Maybe there are other places to go, specialized databases, people to interview So you plan again, how to include that information, if it’s relevant. Maybe you’ll need to revise your topic or rewrite part of your paper. And this can happen multiple times so that your path up the mountain looks more like this.
Now both trips will get you to the top of the mountain, but which one will be the better experience?
