My reaction to Chapman here was immediate, and visceral: “oh, bullshit, Chapman; change is not inherently bad!” But I’ve been trying to explore my strong reactions lately (in the hopes that will temper them?), so I re-read the beginning and tried to position myself in his perspective. Because, see, I remember the shift to web-based research. When I was in junior high and high school, I performed traditional library research for most projects. Web sites at the time were far less useful, and it wasn’t until I had LexisNexis access for my college debate team research that I understood the power online databases brought to the table. For someone trying to pull quantity to sift for quality, it was a boon.

But I never had to take a comp class, and by the time I got around to teaching one, this was just the way things were. Print-based library research had become the realm of specialists and scholars. And what Chapman says here, about students defaulting to the easiest sources they could find, whether or not they were better? As true then as now. But is that inherently a problem with the change in research types, or have we not found a way to teach students to manage time? Let me ask it this way: pre-Web and online databases, would a student have waited for a better book through Interlibrary Loan unless they were an advanced scholar? The problem, I feel, has remained the same; only the way Chapman demonizes it is different. His assumption that books and print materials are going to offer the better information speaks to his prejudice in favor of print, and what we gain in access seems, to me, to make up for any loss.

Speaking of how some things don’t change, though, the Aschauer reading just makes me tremendously sad. This was written when I was still a teenager, hinging on research from before then, and so little has changed in many ways. I can’t even make sentences about it yet.