Year: 2009

Introduction

Recently I analyzed two databases for prospective purchase: GREENR and Green File. Never before in a prospective database purchase have I so adamantly been opposed to the acquisition of new intellectual resources enhancing access to information. Perhaps, I should favor these because they strengthen access to information in the natural sciences and natural science policy, my departmental liaison; yet I do not favor these at all even though the databases have some strengths. Why?

Method

In order to analyze the two databases I did several comparative subject searches relating these to each other as well as to databases that we already have purchased. I conducted two subject or keyword searches, one concentrating on an important, international environmental issue, “rural development” and the second concentrating on an important American environmental issue or law, “NEPA,” the widely used acronym for the federal National Environmental Protection Act. I looked at the results, particularly search hit numbers both filtered and unfiltered for these two. I compared these to a similar but simplified or federated subject search with “Bearcat.”

Despite the potential flaws in “Bearcat” and my method, whether an abstract analysis of each database or a comparison, important evidence and conclusions become obvious. A search of “NEPA” in Green File led to 356 hits but in GREENR only approximately twenty hits. In a similarly simple search in BearCat led to almost 7,000 articles. In either case I did not analyze the half-life or impact factor or other significance except whether peer-review of any of the hits and this only in passing. While the next part of the method omitted the count of hits for “rural development” in GREENR and Green File the volume of hits in Bearcat was so overwhelming huge before filtering that the quantity of articles or hits in GREENR and Green File is almost inconsequential. “Rural development” in Bearcat yielded a Ripley’s Believe It or not large number of 111,945 articles. Filtering and targeting of course reduces the number but still leaves a rich choice of articles.

Comment

Green File and GREENR partially overlap in coverage of subjects. They also overlap with the databases that we already purchase although the two bring together into one place information about the hot new buzzword “green.” Consequently in a tight economy I object modestly to purchase for the reason of cost alone. Green File is a free source.

Green File is an elegantly, simple consistent graphic design of similar appearance to all EBSCO products. Despite all the “bells and whistles” of EBSCO databases to target a search this is a highly logical tool for student research provided they understand searching concepts (an important and major assumption). In contrast GREENR also has provisions to conduct simple and advanced searches following Boolean concepts but GREENR also has an information hierarchy with divisions and subdivisions into “canned” or pre-determined topics. Unlike Green File (EBSCO) this pre-set system of topics dominates the GREENR gui. This enables a reader, who is uncertain to pick a topic readily with little or no thought. This contrasts with the excellent thesaurus approach of Green File, where the subtopics or similar words still require some student thought in accord with ACRL standards of topic definition. GREENR has more “eye candy” than Green File. Although the computer and other tools should ease our tasks, possibly even the task of thinking—I don not agree with this—we and our readers should always be learning to define problems and ask questions whether here or after college. For an interesting related article with a different perspective, see Marc Perry, “After Losing Users in Catalogs, Libraries Find Better Search Software,” Chronicle of Higher Education, October 2, 2009, p. A 13. also available in digital format). GREENR, perhaps the way of the future consequently, inadvertently but counterproductively promotes intellectual laziness in contradiction of ACRL standards.

Conclusion

Perhaps we should change the ACRL standards; I think not! Consequently, I advise against the purchase of GREENR. Recently an EBSCO representative graciously advised and corrected me explaining that Green File is free.  Therefore I vote for embrace of the free Green File—not GREENR. Does green also make you see red?