GALE and Google, or how research has changed in recent times

I read something this week that caused me great distress and malaise: the GALE project, sponsored by several libraries, is in the process of digitizing many of the periodicals and newspapers from the 19^th century.  And to believe this was all!  There is also an 18^th century collection and it seems intention to expand the digitized library.

My distress does not stem from the actual act of digitizing.  Rather, it is a selfish purpose.  GALE provided a short performance about their project, explaining their mission as providing those from afar with quick access to a wide array of documents.  They have manuscripts, pamphlets, diaries, books, maps, photographs…such a selection!  With such accessibility, what need is there to travel?  What purpose is there to go to London, to the British Library, to catch a glimpse of these tangible treasures? 

I must confess some excitement from this, however.  For it provides another manner in which individuals can access these materials.  Although it costs £369 per 6 months, there is still an ethical aspect at work, much like a physical library: one does not have to pay for travel and lodging to pour and study over these precious documents, only one at a time.  One can access multiple documents in a day, increasing the amount of research that can be done in a day.  However, because of the price to access it—and that not all can access it—there is still work that must be done, ethically.

Another issue that arises from digitization of these materials is how it changes research.  The scholar Dr. James Mussell discusses the “Googlization” of digitized materials; how research is transformed into key search terms, which makes it faster and easier but also more limited.  Mussell explains that Google “is based on ranking results so that the most relevant tops a list so numerous that it cannot be checked in its entirety. The user's satisfaction does not rest on knowing that they have the best result (they have no way of iudging this), merely that it is adequate for their needs…Patrick Leary has argued, he or she must possess a degree of historical knowledge in order to identify suitable search terms” (60).  Instead of locating sources that would be best for their research, scholars are limited to the results which turn up, tailored to what appears to fit their needs.  Research becomes faster but it attempts to read the reader, excluding items because they seemingly do not fit the researchers need based on their keyword search terms.  How simplified things become, and yet how limiting!

I still prefer the physical source.  I dream of using original documents in my research, to see manuscripts and scour through sources.  However, the work of GALE is an impressive chapter in the advancement of research.  Although it must still improve upon its ethical approach (£738 per year!  Such a cost!), it still provides the ability to access multiple documents in a faster manner.  One must weigh their research needs and desires and tailor it to their needs, it seems.  And to be sure to explore farther than what a “Googlized” search might return!