A500.3.4.RB_MaceRoyce
Critical, intellectual, and profound are words from the thesaurus that help to define "scholarly", but in terms that are easier to define and understand. While these words are key in describing what the term "scholarly" means, everyone has their own view of what "scholarly" entails and what it does not. Moving through this course (Leadership Foundations in Research), I have come to realize that "scholarly" is truly ambiguous.
At the undergraduate level, scholarly research was gathered based on the thinking that someone who is an expert in the field had all the answers. Everything was "set in stone in terms" of what constituted an article as "scholarly". As we transition to the graduate level, we are being taught that "scholarly" needs to be questioned. What truly makes a resource valid and worthy of being labeled "scholarly"? We analyze scholarly works through critical thinking and approach them with an open-minded scrutiny (in a sense). We transition into thinking for ourselves and thus becoming scholarly in our own right through critically thinking about the discipline we study.
The scholarly information found in the Hunt Library is different from information that you will find in Google for a couple of reasons:
1) The Hunt Library utilizes a Scholarly Commons Faculty Support Team librarian to review all submitted documents for inclusion to the Hunt Library. Google does not utilize any sort of screening process for inclusion to its search engine. Google will literally look for anything and everything related to leadership.
2) The Hunt Library utilizes the following criteria for determining inclusion into the library:
The piece of work submitted must make some contribution to the body of research; or,
be an original creative work (or a facsimile thereof); or,
comprise part of the teaching and learning process; or,
represent a significant part of the public record of the activities of the university community; or,
constitute a primary resource for further research and learning.
Google does not employ any of these filters for anything that is related to leadership on their search engine. You could possibly add the word "scholarly" to the search, but that would not guaranteed that the work found would necessarily constitute "scholarly". A key factor here is that the Hunt Library attempts to filter work based on critical thinking concepts and decides if it can make a scholarly contribution to ERAU and its students.
These points are not to say that Google doesn't have a lot of good, "scholarly" information in its search engine, but the filtering process and number of excess information not completely relating to a discipline could easily be found here. The Hunt Library makes a conscious effort to filter information and deem it scholarly though its own processes. While Google is a very open and generic way to find information on any topic, the Hunt Library is more exclusive in its gathered information and the access needed to get to it. In the end, we must remember to think critically about information gathered from both Google and from the Hunt Library in order to decide if its contents contribute to the discipline in which we are studying.
At the undergraduate level, scholarly research was gathered based on the thinking that someone who is an expert in the field had all the answers. Everything was "set in stone in terms" of what constituted an article as "scholarly". As we transition to the graduate level, we are being taught that "scholarly" needs to be questioned. What truly makes a resource valid and worthy of being labeled "scholarly"? We analyze scholarly works through critical thinking and approach them with an open-minded scrutiny (in a sense). We transition into thinking for ourselves and thus becoming scholarly in our own right through critically thinking about the discipline we study.
The scholarly information found in the Hunt Library is different from information that you will find in Google for a couple of reasons:
1) The Hunt Library utilizes a Scholarly Commons Faculty Support Team librarian to review all submitted documents for inclusion to the Hunt Library. Google does not utilize any sort of screening process for inclusion to its search engine. Google will literally look for anything and everything related to leadership.
2) The Hunt Library utilizes the following criteria for determining inclusion into the library:
The piece of work submitted must make some contribution to the body of research; or,
be an original creative work (or a facsimile thereof); or,
comprise part of the teaching and learning process; or,
represent a significant part of the public record of the activities of the university community; or,
constitute a primary resource for further research and learning.
Google does not employ any of these filters for anything that is related to leadership on their search engine. You could possibly add the word "scholarly" to the search, but that would not guaranteed that the work found would necessarily constitute "scholarly". A key factor here is that the Hunt Library attempts to filter work based on critical thinking concepts and decides if it can make a scholarly contribution to ERAU and its students.
These points are not to say that Google doesn't have a lot of good, "scholarly" information in its search engine, but the filtering process and number of excess information not completely relating to a discipline could easily be found here. The Hunt Library makes a conscious effort to filter information and deem it scholarly though its own processes. While Google is a very open and generic way to find information on any topic, the Hunt Library is more exclusive in its gathered information and the access needed to get to it. In the end, we must remember to think critically about information gathered from both Google and from the Hunt Library in order to decide if its contents contribute to the discipline in which we are studying.
Comments
Post a Comment