The Running of the Bools

Boolean logic is a research method that uses  such conjunctions as 'and', 'not', or, well, 'or' in conjunction with key terms that are being searched. For example, researching music devices from the 1950s, one may use the following Boolean search:

radios AND transistors
radios OR vinyl records
radios NOT CD players

Research can thus be refined and made more efficient through this sort of filtration process. Boolean logic allows for every combination in a series of research items to be explored more quickly.

I believe I still have much to learn in order to make effective use of Boolean logic, as I have yet to find it very helpful in my research for this assignment or others. I need both help and practice in order to use this method more effectively.

Boolean logic: it'll PULL-ya-in (?)

Google Scholar vs. Library Databases

To be perfectly honest I do not have a preference between Google Scholar and the Library Databases, I believe they both have their place.  I like Google Scholar because it gives a broad base of various scholarly works to peruse and decide upon.  However the Library Databases allows an individual to dig deeper into a specific topic. 

Here is an example of how I used these two tools in combination with each other.  I first went to Google Scholar and the topic that I was researching was “flash mops.”  I began to search in Google Scholar and I saw a broad section of sources that appealed to me.  I saved the titled that I found relevant to my topic. Then when I felt that I had a cross-section of sources related to my search keyword(s), I then went to the Library Databases and began to search the specific titles that I had gathered from Google Scholar.   By this point I was reviewing the abstracts for each title source in much more details.  If something seems to be bang on based on what I was trying to find with my research then I downloaded it or made arrangement to pick it up at the library.  I would also take the time to make notes from the abstract of any terms, ideas or concepts that I was not familiar with to do further research if necessary.

The key differences between these research methods from my experience are as follows.

Google Scholar covers a larger cross-section of information with any search word or term.  It did not matter what word or phrase I used, in more cases than not you I found results from my search.

On the other hand the Library Databases required very specific search word(s) or phrases or more often than not the result would either be no results at all or very unrelated results based on the topic.

As I have said in the beginning of this article I do not have a bias between one or the other.  What I would say is that it depends on what stage of your research you are currently in.  If you are at the early stages and you just want to test the waters to see the various scholarly works that might be available then go with Google Scholar to begin with.  However if you have a good grasp on your topic and you have a good knowledge of what you are looking for then go to the Library Databases first.   

The Boolean Trim

Boolean. Boolean Logic. Oy.

Sounds like a good way to go in principle: adding "AND" (for words and word combinations you want included together in articles), "OR" (for words that you'd want at least one or the other in articles) and "NOT" (for things you don't want in your articles at all) to your key search words in order to narrow and focus your search results down to the most relevant possible selection. The concept behind it definitely seems like it would cut down on research time and also get you the most useful articles for answering whatever your research question is. Of course... things are never as simple as they seem at first glance.

Myself, I've never really used it before this class, but this attempt at using it for my podcast was entirely unsuccessful. It could just be because it took some chipping away at my research question to get it as tight as it needed to be while still leaving room to explore, but all that Boolean Logic did for me was trim down article content to unhelpfully tiny selections of information, and largely not even in the direction I was looking to go. No number of "AND"s, "OR"s, or "NOT"s could steer my searches to the right information stream, and I only made real progress after I abandoned using them all together, and stuck with broad-concept searches.

Will I use it again?...Yikes. Maybe, but only if I can find someone who's good at it who's willing to give me some sort of tutorial on how to use it productively.

Camellia, W14, Search Strategies

When I was researching for my podcast episode, I tried out many different research strategies.  However, the research strategy that I found to be most useful was the Library Databases.

For instance, I required some linguistic-related information for my podcast episode.  The Library database: ProQuest has a list of subject areas, including the Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA) Database.  With LLBA, I was able to access information specific to the linguistic field of study.  The wonderful aspect of using a Library Database is that there is almost always a database that is in the realm of the field of study that your topic pertains to.

However, I did search with Google Scholar nonetheless.  When I used Google Scholar, the search results were broader as opposed to a Library Database that will provide you with information under a specific field of study.  Also, with Library Databases, there is usually an ‘Advanced Search’ tab (you can choose type of source, if you want information from a scholarly journal, etc.) where you are able to narrow your search even more.

It is possible to use Google Scholar in combination with a Library database though.  For instance, when I used specific search terms, I managed to find a great article through Google Scholar, but I wasn’t able to access it unless I paid a fee.  So, then I searched the name of the article in one of the Library Databases and then luckily, I was able to access the article. 

I will probably use Library Databases in the future because I prefer to search in a way where I will get results specific to the field of study that my topic falls under.  Therefore, I believe that I will most likely be researching more efficiently when using a Library Database!

Search Strategies

For me, ProQuest is my “go to” database. I have been using it for the past four years. However, beginning research at a university level was originally very difficult for me. I was impatient, either too vague or too specific and easily discouraged. I would often give up after only a short ten minutes. However, since going to research workshops at the library within the last couple years, my research skills have improved tremendously. I understand that what I’m looking for isn’t going to call out to me from the screen and it is rarely the first link or search results that give me what I am looking for. 

I find Boolean logic very useful. It helps organize and separate your key search items into a logical and efficient order. This method ensures that your specific search terms will always be included in your results. This is done by using the word “and” to be certain both terms are used in your search. Also, the word “or” will make sure either one of your terms listed will be searched for. If you indicate what to exclude with the word “not” it will eliminate any essays that use this term and thus narrowing your results.  

When I first began to use it, it was not with such ease as I experience now. I remember having moments where I thought I would throw my computer out the window due to so much frustration. But research is a developing skill, and like any skill you learn it requires practice to become quicker, efficient and more enjoyable. I have been successful using Boolean logic and will definitely continue to in future research. 

Week 7: Google Scholar vs. Library Databases

While researching for the podcast episode I have had a lot of experience using Google Scholar and different library databases. Google Scholar provided scholarly articles and case law documents while library databases had a variety of sources that were both scholarly and popular. For the podcast I used both of these databases to search for scholarly journal articles and scholarly books. Though I had difficulty finding sources on either of these databases, for this podcast assignment I preferred to use Google Scholar.

Based on my experience researching the ‘I before e, except after c’ spelling rule I did not find many articles and books that were relevant to my topic on either database, however there were a few articles that I was able to locate on Google Scholar. When I found a scholarly journal article that I wanted to view that wasn’t available for free I would use the York University Library database and login to eResources to gain access to the same article. I continued the process of searching for scholarly journal articles on Google Scholar and then using my eResources account to find the article. I found that using them in combination was most helpful in the initial research process but I did not end up using these sources as part of my podcast.

I also found that the “advanced search”, content and search results of both Google Scholar and the York University Library database were the main differences between them. What was important to me was being able to narrow my search results to the most relevant sources and because of the limited “advanced search” that Google Scholar had, it limited my use of the database. Comparably, on the York library database, there were much more options for narrowing down search results. On Google Scholar the search results consisted of numerous pages but only the first few pages were relevant while on the York University Library database there was only one page of search results and they were not relevant at all. This surprised me considering that the York Library database had a range of sources from journal articles to films, whereas Google Scholar only had journal articles.

For the future, it is difficult to say which database I will rely on because for this particular assignment I found that, based on my topic neither of the databases were as helpful as JSTOR (jstor.org) and ProQuest, (search.proquest.com), however another topic may have created better search results. Google Scholar or library databases are useful in different situations, therefore my reliance on either of them would depend on what I am researching.

 

 

Search Strategies

I must admit, when it came down to actually researching for my podcast, I was very intimidated. Where do you start? When do you stop? How long will it take? All these questions left me uncertain about the situation so I  met up with my TA to get some pointers and build my confidence. The meeting helped me immensely and I was suddenly eager to get to the library and apply all the researching skills I had learned.

            During the research process, Google Scholar and the York University Library Databases were my best friends. A benefit to both is that they're online, thus being easily accessible no matter where you are...as long as there's Wi-Fi. Most of them also provide pdf files you can download, making the scholarly articles accessible whether you have Wi-Fi or not. Most of the articles found through these resources passed my credibility test and even provided a pre-made citation.

            The thing about library databases is that if you aren't a member of the particular database community, you have no access to the articles/books that it provides. Being a student at York University, I had access to its library database, but in terms of expanding my research to say, the University of Toronto's library, I'd have a bit of a challenge ahead of me. Another downfall surrounding library databases is that, to access some sources, you actually have to check out the book. It taunts you with information you have to go out of your way to get. The library database wasn't as easy to navigate as Google Scholar because of the Boolean system required to find relevant information. I just want to type and go!

            That is why I prefer Google Scholar. It is easier to navigate, I can type a phrase in the search bar and still find relevant sources, and I find that Google Scholar uncovers more sources than a library database would. One thing that annoys me with Google Scholar is that some articles are advertised as "abstracts" and require you to be a member of a company's database to access the information. Luckily, York University is subscribed to many of these databases so if I'm connected to the York University network, accessing information isn't a big concern. Ultimately, I will continue to rely on Google Scholar for future research.

            But let's not rule out library databases entirely. They're not useless. Some articles/books that I found on library databases referred me to experts or other works that I could search in Google Scholar. This method allowed me to acquire even more useful sources for my podcast. I found that examining the bibliographies of relevant texts allowed me to become more familiar with the experts of the particular field I was researching about. It's interesting to see how often these experts have actually worked together to produce these academic sources.

Search Strategies

Me oh my, fellow researchers!

These past few weeks have sure put me to the test with my research skills! I think I have spent more time on search engines and journal databases lately than I have spent eating... and thats a big problem because eating is my favourite thing to do! I have truly learnt a lot about my personal likes and dislikes when deciphering which database is appropriate for any given topic. I think I have exhausted all of the following databases and search engines for my podcast so I believe what I am about to reveal of each, can be extremely useful to the 'lost researcher'!

I have used Boolean logic in the past, as I was originally introduced to it in grade twelve. I remember the librarian giving us a lecture on it, and thinking to myself that class couldn't possibly be more boring, slash when would I ever use this!? HOW WRONG I WAS. I have used it countless times this year! Unfortunately I never had any research essays or assignments in first year so my skills were a little rusty, but they have definitely improved again this year. Boolean logic uses the words "and", "or" and "not". By using "and" you are able to group together search terms so that you can discover works that include both of your search terms. By using "or" you will broaden your search by combining concepts, giving results using either one of your search terms. By using "not" you will be able to focus your search between similar search terms to make your results even more specific. By using Boolean logic, one is supposed to gather results that are more specific to your topic by factoring out unwanted ones using the and, or and not function. I have found many articles this way, and will continue to use it.

By searching by subject, you must be extremely precise from the get go. It may be in your best interest to brainstorm words around what you believe your subject to be, and use that list to find the one that appears most controlled to the English language, not a made up word by society. It is very useful to have this tool in your knowledge because being able to define your topic will help you to search more effectively for resources. I have tried a few times, especially when I am searching a topic that appears to be newer, because by bringing it down to its most basic roots I am able to find some sort of article.

I much prefer using the library databases to Google Scholar. I find Google Scholar to give too big of a span of results. By using the library you can narrow your search right off the bat by choosing a database that is in the field of your topic. Not only that, but there are usually at least five databases to use if the first one you use does not give you the results you were looking for. Google Scholar works very well as another resource for sure, and can give you a lots of results; they may just not be the ones you were looking for or be available at York. Due to these reasons, I would rely on the York library database for future searches.

While this process has been very informative, I will appreciate the break from research for sure! 

Search Strategies, Boolean Logic

Hello

            Boolean logic, while completing research, can be a very useful tool. I have used it in the past and it has served me well before. Boolean logic helps to make specific research searches to get relevant hits on the internet.

            Putting “and” between search words would make a search engine look for results containing only BOTH parameters. Putting “or” would broaden the search to either parameter. Putting “not” between search words makes the results show stuff about the former, but anything containing the latter would be excluded. For a much more in-depth explanation, I recommend visiting this site. Putting “” will make the search engine try to find everything inside the quotation marks exactly the way it is written in the search engine. However, some search engines don’t adhere to the quotation marks.  

            For this assignment, the Boolean logic has not served me well. The results kept repeating or some results were just too out dated. It has helped me with other subjects and can still help me on this assignment I just need to find the right parameters. I will continue to use Boolean logic in the future.

Thanks for reading

Christopher Chin

Boolean Rhapsody

Hi all,

After consecutively spending a week straight in the Scott library I have come to the conclusion that I do not particularly like the use of Boolean Logic. My Partner and I tried it, of course, and after two days of attempting to get the correct wording we gave up. 

What is the Boolean Logic? Boolean logic is the use of “AND,” “NOT” and “OR” in between keywords to help narrow down a search result. The use of “AND” is to make sure the keywords are both found in the search results. The use of “OR” is to have either one of the words come up in the search results. While “NOT” is used to indicate that neither of the words should be included in the search.

Boolean Logic is supposed to be helpful by narrowing down search results but I prefer to use short phrases. I believe the reason behind my use of phrases it is because that is how I have been taught to search at a young age. I also think it is because sometimes the keywords do not bring up helpful results, even after background research and the use of the thesaurus.  Although, the idea of Boolean Logic does make sense and should be useful, but I don’t think it is useful for me. Perhaps, I will give it another try but for now I will stick with searching with short phrases. 

Search Strategies

Library databases work well for me so I do prefer it over Google Scholar. Although Google Scholar is useful at times, I’ve really become comfortable with library databases. I prefer library databases because I am able to conduct my research more easily, compared to Google Scholar. Library databases are much easier to navigate through and find relevant information in. I especially like how library databases gives you the option to filter your search results. You are able to narrow down your search by selecting the field of which the topic corresponds to.
A very useful database is the York University library database. In this specific database, you select the field of study under which your topic would fall under. Fields include anything from business writing, to biology, to marketing, and so many more. This small step makes a huge difference- you’d be surprised. It significantly narrows down results that come up, eliminating irrelevant information. After selecting the appropriate field, a list of other databases come up, only these ones are specific to the field that has been selected. For example, if you select that your field is biology, approximately 38 database results appear, which you can then choose from, ultimately narrowing down your search even more so.
I love the library database- you really are able to pinpoint what information will do justice for your topic, versus what will be useless. From what I know, Google Scholar unfortunately does not offer this feature, and you may therefore be left with an overwhelming number of results- few of which may actually apply to your topic. This makes the research process extremely lengthy and very difficult.
The key difference between the two lies here. It basically comes down to how much control you have over your results, and in this case, you do with library databases. Google is used for more general searches, and library databases are more for precise ones. Google Scholar just can’t do everything that a library database can. Library databases give you the option to simplify your results to special materials also. If you are looking for a book, you can filter your results based on that. You have so many other options of course too! You can narrow your results down to magazines, videos, articles, and more.
I do suppose that Google Scholar and library databases could be used in combination when conducting research. Perhaps, you might refer to Google Scholar first to actually help with selecting a topic. The results from google tend to be more general so they might give someone ideas as to the topic to settle on. From there you might refer to a library database to refine your search and actually begin the research process.
All in all, depending on the type of research I am conducting, both Google Scholar and library databases could be great, and I will continue to use them both- maybe even in combination. Without a doubt though, library databases is still my preference and this will continue to be the foundation of my research!

Aliecia Brisset: W14 Search Strategies

Well folks we're almost there! a few more weeks until we all can tune in and listen to each others podcasts! But the process to get ther isn't a joke. Still researching and figuring out which information is creditable and which arent seems to be the main focus for everyone, (along with figuring out how to record a podcast).

But with everyones research process, I'm sure we all have our own unique way how to go about accumulating information. Personally, I prefer to use library databases as oppopsed to Google scholar; why you may ask?...

Well firstly, becuase they have an array of differnt information streams that may suit your interest and pertain to what you're looking for. If I need a book, it would tell me where to locate the book at school, if I need a magazine, it would tell me where to find it in the library at school or give me a link to an online copy. They also have different academic streams that pertain to what it is you are looking for. For example, if I need an academic journal on the behaviour of children during the 19th century, I would simply go to the articles and databases tab, scroll to psychology, and it would give me options of psychology based databases where I would choose to start my search.

Secondly, library databases are catered to students and academic professionals. Some databases, or information, that could be found on Google scholar might not be found on a library database.

And thirdly, in my opinion, library databases are just alot easier to navagate through. Theres a tab, click it, start searching.

With Google scholar, there is alot of room for unessesary information to appear when you are searching for a topic, and also, they dont give you information about the article, book, or academic journal that you have chosen; like a library database would. For example, when I search a topic on a library based database, and I choose an article, or journal, that fits my topic, it gives me an abstract that I could read before reading the whole article text to see if the article is right for me. It also gives the date, volume number, page number, and any other useful information that could be used for your research and espcially for citing.

Although I prefer one over the other, both Google scholar and library databases could be used togther when needing a second or third opion on a topic; with library databases being your first option. Google scholar also offers videos that might be helpful with your search and other materilas that library databases might not offer.

So at the end of the day, I'm team library databases!

Week Seven: Search Strategies [Michelina Tersigni, W14]

"Subject", to me, is a sub-heading of "topic" — I used to conflate the two as the exact same thing, but within the context of journal and library databases, there seems to be more nuance. It's like, if you're researching "fire", simply entering the word as just that within the search bar is going to get you broad and varied results. Focusing more tightly on, say, "household fires" or "fire accidents" or "arson" or "firefighters" is what snaps it down into "subject" — the official area of study, the lens most intensely peered at and unpacked. For my podcast, I had to do the same and tighten my topic of "women" into "Western women", which still isn't the most specific I or anyone could go, but still lets my audience know that I don't mean women universally, because there are different cultural connotations to pay mind to.

Official subjects can be made even tighter through Boolean logic — using "and"/"or"/"not" between keywords, e.g. "household fires and firefighters", meaning I want information that links the two together (most likely articles on firefighters calming household fires); "household fires or fire accidents", meaning that I see a connection between the two, that the two are synonymous (most likely articles on how most household fires are accidents); "household fires not arson", meaning that in this case, I'm looking for just one, not both (again, most likely fire that is accidental, not the deliberate burning of a home).

I think library databases are more immediately productive than Google Scholar, because I can easily access all of this information, whereas Google Scholar gives me more of a tease of sources that I may or may not always have access to. However, I can combine Google Scholar putting me on the right track by using its nudges to (hopefully) find alternate and/or equally full versions in a database via YorkU. Either way, wherever I'm searching, "subjects" and the Boolean breakdowns you can do within them are highly useful; before, I'd operated on the belief that you can just put in a broad keyword and you'll get what you want eventually, when all this time all I had to do was add one more word to not only get what I really wanted, but get it faster.

Search Strategies: Graeme Scallion, W14

Although I did my best to apply the research strategies reviewed in class, I wasn’t able to find much using these traditional methods and had to search in more creative ways to uncover appropriate sources. This is largely because the strategies we were shown are largely used for scholarly research, and my topic is not particularly scholarly. Still, I understand the implicit value of these methods, and I intend to use them for research projects in the future.

That being said, my experience in searching through library catalogues and Google scholar has been an eye-opening experience. The library catalogues are a good place to go once you’ve narrowed your topic enough to be searching for the nitty-gritty specifics. You can select a database based on the subject your question falls under, and in that sense, you can weed through the largely irrelevant information from the get-go. Google scholar, however, seems to me to be best for the early stages of a project when you’re casting a wide net to see what scholars are saying, in general, about your topic. Google has access to the whole web, rather than articles published in specific databases, and can therefore provide a global perspective much more easily. Because of the differences between these methods of research, I can’t say I prefer one over the other. In fact, they’re best used in combination – Google scholar is a good place to start the researching process, and then once you’ve got your bearings and understand the direction you’re taking with your research, the library databases can carry you through the rest of your research process. That being said, given that I tend to focus my topic relatively quickly, I predict that I’ll be depending primarily on the library catalogues for future projects.

vii. search strategies.

Google Scholar vs. Library Databases

Honestly speaking, I do not know that I generally prefer one over the other. Sometimes, I prefer using the traditional library databases, and other times I prefer using Google scholar, just because it feels like familiar territory--I mean, Google is the first place I go to whenever I need to find something out--except more "scholarly," in terms of the search results.

It is always good to use them both when carrying out research though. I did some research on the comparison between Google Scholar and library databases, and a found a great study on the differences between the two. The study was based on two questions: 1) whether Google Scholar results are more or less scholarly than the library database results; 2) whether or not Google Scholar's scholarliness varied across disciplines (http://crl.acrl.org/content/70/3/227.full.pdf). They found that, on average, the results found only in Google Scholar were higher [mean = 17.6] than those found only in the library databases. They also found that the Google's Scholar's scholarliness did not vary significantly across disciplines. Furthermore, they found that any search results that came up in both Google Scholar and the traditional library databases were higher [in terms of scholarliness] than average in comparison to results that showed up only in Google Scholar or the library databases. So based on this study, it is definitely good to use both resources when carrying out research. 

I suppose there are no key differences between them except for the ones I have just mentioned based on the study. But one difference I have discovered from personal experience is accessibility. When we carry out research using York University's library database, we can access the resources that often require a paid registration due to the fact that we are York U. students. However, trying to access these same resources directly through Google Scholar may be a little more challenging.

In future, I will continue to rely on both; they are both useful, and there is no harm in using more than one search strategy. 

Search Strategies: Google Scholar vs Library Databases

Hello everyone!

When it comes to online research, I must say that I definitely prefer library databases, as opposed to Google Scholar. Library databases can be selected based on the subject of your research. My project is about the disappearance of honeybees, so I usually pick "Environmental Studies" or "Natural Science." I find that it is helpful to narrow down the field of study before I begin researching. For example, this option was helpful when researching the causes for the disappearance of the honeybees, I selected "Environmental Studies," but when I was researching the different uses for honeybees in the field of medicine (apitherapy), I selected "Health" as my topic of study. Furthermore, I know that the York Library will allow me to have access to all of the articles that come up using the library databases, but when using Google Scholar, I didn't have access to full articles from certain databases and it was more frustrating trying to find out which ones I could read. Although, Google Scholar does have a built-in library to which you can save articles, which is very useful, but the same thing can be achieved with RefWorks, which is more specific and helpful anyway.

Despite these differences, they can be used in combination. It might be helpful to look up your topic first on Google Scholar to ensure that you are searching using the correct terms. If the search results turn up articles that aren't helpful to your topic, you can refine your search terms from there, ensuring specificity, before heading to the library databases. However, when choosing between the two resources for online research purposes, I almost always choose to head straight to the York library databases because most of the time I'm not quite sure what I want to look up first, and having to choose a specific database topic often helps to narrow my focus.

Week 7

Boolean logic is a research strategy that employs the use of “and”, “or”, and “not” in combination with search terms. For example, if one is conducting research on antique furniture meant for sitting, perhaps to analyze the 16^th Century family’s desire for comfort and stylish decor, their Boolean search might look like this:

Antique sofas and antique loveseats

Antique chairs not antique tables

Antique stools or antique seats

This method of searching is supposed to be helpful because it filters through what the researcher does not need; by using “and”, “or”, and “not”, the researcher is able to expand or taper their search, and thus their search results.

I have used Boolean logic both successfully and unsuccessfully. Depending on what I am searching for, the filters are either a great help, or cause me to miss important resources. However, from this I’ve learned to use a variety of combinations, and then no combinations at all, to ensure I don’t miss anything important.

All in all, I believe Boolean logic is efficient and effective. In the past, it’s awarded me with some great resources in practically no time, and I will continue to use it in the future. 

Boolean only makes sense: Boolean Logic

Boolean logic can best be described as a system of filtering results to both expand or narrow concept sand terminology. Based on three simple "filters"--AND, OR, or NOT--people can open up or narrow their search results. 

For our topic of research, and considering how recently the Rob Ford scandal took place, it was not difficult to turn up numerous results with simple searches for popular sources. Boolean was most helpful on the library databases when looking for research on satirical news reporting. To search this topic I used such terms or combinations as: 

Satire OR Humour AND News or Reporting 

Jon Stewart And Satirical AND News 

Boolean was successful in finding not only a vast amount of sources, but sources that were more related and relevant to my article because of the "filters" I applied. 

I recently used Boolean searching for an art history assignment. I was looking into indigenous representation in the early artworks of Emily Carr. My knowledge of indigenous culture, history and art gives me the background to know that the identifier for indigenous people has changed almost as much as Rachel's hair cut on Friends. In the past 30 years the terms Aboriginal, First Nations, Native, Native American, and Indian have been applied as their cultural name. To this day they label differs based even on.region. Currently in Canada we use the term indigenous, while in the States the term American Indian is in practice. 

This is all to say that when I search for an article, for efficiency I search something like: 

Indigenous OR native OR aboriginal AND Emily Carr AND representation OR identity

Boolean searches are essential when subject take on multiple names, reference systems or terminology. 

Hello everyone. Welcome back to the blog.

I have used Boolean Logic. Boolean logic is a system that allows someone to research, in a database, specific relationships between keywords or concepts using the words AND, OR, and NOT. AND means that you are searching for a document that contains both the keywords you have entered. OR means that you are searching for a document that contains one or the other of the keywords. NOT means that you are searching for a document that contains certain keywords and not others (excluding other results).

I found success in using NOT to eradicate the results that were not relevant to my podcast topic The Psychology of Humour in Advertisements. Also, using AND was really useful is expanding the results when I needed more information after I found specific key terms that really proved useful. This strategy is extremely useful in narrowing down sources and excluding the irrelevant ones. I will definitely use the Boolean Logic again in any research project to enhance my research.

Besides the Boolean strategy, I did use Google Scholar and Library Databases. I found Google Scholar to be useful when searching for sources in general, but not being able to access all of them made it difficult; but I did find it useful to see what it available and find some key terms that helped me find other sources. The library databases were useful because I was able to access all of the articles I found using my tuition payments and I was able to get specific articles and case studies that really enhanced my research. 

An ode to Boolean logic

Buenas dias, amigos! (In other words, I spent reading week in Costa Rica and I'm still in denial over this delightful -30* weather we've been having since I came back.)

I have a confession to make, relevant to the discussions we've had in lecture regarding research strategies. I love Boolean phrases. Love them. They are the single most useful strategy I've used in the last four years. Boolean logic is the key to narrowing down vast and vague fields of inquiry into pointed searches that yield the information I'm trying to find.

The basic idea behind Boolean logic is that, at its most basic, there are three "gates" through which information can be filtered: NOT, AND and OR. There are further combinations -- as many as seven gates -- that can be implemented, but for most research purposes, the basic three are usually sufficient. Boolean phrases allow you to sift through different facets of a field of inquiry, separating out combinations of search terms to be included, and those to be excluded. Boolean phrases can get quite complex, depending on how many search terms you include and in what combination, but once you get the hang of it, it's simple and extremely rewarding.

I've used it with great success -- in particular, I find "OR" useful. Some topics yield different results depending what variation of a particular keyword I use (e.g. creativity vs imagination vs daydreaming vs idea formation, and so on). Instead of having to perform multiple searches, one for each keyword, I can simply embed a phrase ("creativity OR imagination OR daydreaming OR "idea formation"). Likewise, using "NOT" helps cut out results that may not be relevant. My research topic is dealing with the connection between boredom and creativity, and the effects of mobile technology on this connection. However, simply searching for articles on boredom and creativity yields a lot of studies on workplace boredom -- which is not exactly what I'm interested in. I've therefore tended to use the phrase "NOT workplace" or some variation thereof, so that I don't have to sift through all those pesky irrelevant results.