Searching vs browsing

[oursin]

Further to early comment about searching vs browsing.

Obviously, sometimes searching is the only way to go, when after something very clear and very specific. It may very well, for example, find you a particular book. What it won't supply is the serendipitous discovery. It may also be too focussed and fail to give due weight to context (I think of

Comments

[drasecretcampus]

I think browsing gives you deep long term knowledge - that book that turns out to be useful ten years after you bought it, the connecting of X and Y via article Z that you read because of being interested in A, B and C, and so on. (Also known as doing the research after writing the first draft) I'm not sure whether it's OCD or paranoia, but my activity of noticing *everything* has paid off so many times. Or paid off for others.

[drasecretcampus]

... and it's like active and passive networking. I've seen young scholars work a room, and speak to literally everyone and actually not really achieving anything. I've worked by getting to know a couple of people, who've introduced me to their contacts (and vice versa - be useful for others rather than seeing how useful they are), and working out from there.

Tortoise and the hare, I suspect.

[oursin]

People do actually notice that aggressive networking, and it's a bit of a turn-off. (This may be me being English about things again.)

[forthwritten]

One of the many times I received a despairing look from my supervisor was when she asked how I actually found books. I said cheerfully that I get a rough idea where the books for that topic are then just go and see what I find. I do chase up references in books/articles, but both of these methods are more useful than combing through the electronic catalogue; as you say, this is great for specifics but not so good when you don't quite know what you're looking for or want a book that will introduce you to the subject or pique your interest.

[aquaeri]

I'm in a completely different field, but this is thought-provoking to some issues we're having, thanks!

[dickon_edwards]

The London Library lets you frolic among all the stacks and big rolling periodical shelves and generally help yourself, which you can't do at the British Library.

[oursin]

The BL is great if there is a specific thing you need to see (except, well, when it's missing or they don't have the particular volume you want, or it turns out you need to consult it on microfilm), but not so great for general fossicking purposes. The London Library (which, alas, I don't belong to, but once managed to get into on the grounds that it was supposed to have a reciprocity arrangement for staff of my institution) is great.