Researchers long ago demonstrated that top-down, inference-based
approaches to research have comfortably co-existed with more traditional
bottom-up, hypotheses-driven research. Yet most faculty omit any mention of
top-down approaches in direct instruction or training of students, despite
these approaches being both relatively common, occasionally necessary, and
considerably more efficient than traditional bottom-up research. The growing
sophistication of search engine algorithms, like those used by Google Scholar,
makes possible highly efficient, inter-disciplinary top-down research. This
article explores both the existence and operation of top-down approaches to
research in the sciences and the ways in which Google Scholar could work with
top-down research strategies to transform collaboration and inter-disciplinary
research, particularly in the sciences.
Cite this paper
Douglas, Y. (2016). Top-Down Research, Generalists, and Google Scholar: Does Google Scholar Facilitate Breakthrough Research?. Open Access Library Journal, 3, e2629. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102629.
Marshall,
B., Warren, J.R., Blincow, E., Phillips, M., Goodwin, C.S., Murray, R., et al. (1988) Prospective Double- Blind
Trial of Duodenal Ulcer Relapse after Eradication of Campylobacter pylori. The
Lancet, 332,
1437-1442. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(88)90929-4
Johnson, S.
(2006) The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic—And How It Changed
Science, Cities, and the Modern World. Riverhead, New York.
Kell, D.B. and Oliver,
S.G. (2004) Here Is the Evidence, Now What Is the Hypothesis? The Complementary
Roles of Inductive and Hypothesis-Driven Science in the Post-Genomic Era. Bioessays, 26, 99-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.10385
Josephson, J.R. (2000) Smart Inductive
Generalizations Are Abductions. In: Flach, P.A. and Kakas, A.C., Eds., Abduction and Induction: Essays in Their Relation and Integration,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 31-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0606-3_2
Dunbar, K. (2000) How Scientists Think in the
Real World: Implications
for Science Education. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology,21, 49-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7
Hargadon, A.B. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) Technology
Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,
716-749. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393655
Hargadon, A.B. and
Douglas, Y. (2001) When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison
and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative
Science Quarterly,46, 476-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094872
Suresh, S., Sujatha,
M., Mishra, G., Hanumanthu, G.R., Suresh, M., et al. (2005) Proteomic Resources: Integrating
Biomedical Information in Humans. Gene,364,
13-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2005.07.021
Klahr, D., Fay, A.L.
and Dunbar, K. (1993) Heuristics for Scientific Experimentation: A
Developmental Study. Cognitive Psychology,25,
111-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1003
Furukawa, K. (1998)
On the Completion of the Most Specific Hypothesis Computation in Inverse
Entailment for Mutual Recursion. In: Arikawa, S. and Motoda, H., Eds., Discovery Science: Lecture Notes in Computer Science,Springer,
Berlin,
315-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49292-5_28
Pylyshyn, Z.W. (1979)
Metaphorical Imprecision and the “Top-Down” Research
Strategy. In:
Ortony, A.,
Ed., Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 420-436.
Gigerenzer, G. and
Goldstein, D.G. (1996) Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded
Rationality. Psychological Review,103,
650-689. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650
Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J. and Wei, L.
(2006) Three Options for Citation Tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of
Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries,3,
7-11.
Adlington, J. and Benda, C. (2005) Checking
under the Hood: Evaluating Google Scholar for Reference Use. Internet Reference Services Quarterly,10,
135-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J136v10n03_12
Hodge, D.R. and
Lacasse, J.R. (2011) Ranking Disciplinary Journals with the Google Scholar
H-Index: A New Tool for Constructing Cases for Tenure, Promotion, and Other
Professional Decisions. Journal of Social
Work Education,47, 579-596.
Neuhaus, C., Neuhaus,
E., Asher, A. and Wrede, C. (2006) The Depth and Breadth of
Google Scholar: An Empirical Study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 6,
127-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pla.2006.0026
Cathcart, R. and Roberts, A. (2005)
Evaluating Google Scholar as a Tool for Information Literacy. Internet Reference Services Quarterly,10, 167-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J136v10n03_15
York, M.C. (2005)
Calling the Scholars Home: Google Scholar as a Tool for Rediscovering the
Academic Library. Internet Reference
Services Quarterly,10, 117-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J136v10n03_11
Koffel, J., Magarrell, K., Raber, E. and
Thormodson, K. (2013) Liaison Connection: Building a Better Community. College & Research Libraries News,74,
534-536.
Collins, R. (2002) Credential Inflation and
the Future of Universities. In: Brint, S.G., Ed., The
Future of the City of Intellect: The
Changing American University,Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 23-46.
Levinson, W. and
Linzer, M. (2002) What Is an Academic General Internist? JAMA: The Journal of the American
Medical Association,288, 2045-2048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.16.2045
Custodio, C., Ferreira, M.A. and Matos, P.
(2013) Generalists versus Specialists: Lifetime Work Experience and Chief Executive
Officer Pay. Journal of Financial
Economics,108, 471-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2013.01.001