THE SEVEN STEPS TO RESEARCH

Today in my Info Literacy class at Queens College we were introduced to the Cornell University Library's website tutorials. I brought it up in class that an article that I had used on the paper I turned in today also had seven steps. When I asked my professor about this discrepancy and suggested that the authors of the article I used had ripped off the idea from Cornell, my professor said that it was commonly accepted fact that the process (research) takes from six to seven steps. I found the online tutorials and the ancillary web pages that emanate from the index page of the 7 Steps of the Research Process to be quite helpful, even for a person about to finish a degree in Library Science. Check it out and let me know what you think because I would like to use this website at my job at Bronx Community College as a checklist for students that are conducting research themselves.

PROPOSED EMAIL OF INTEREST TO MFA PROGRAMS AT CUNY

Dear Sir/Madam

My name is Yago Cura and I am a gradute student in the Library and Information Science program at Queens College. In addition, I possess an MFA in Creative Writing with a concentration in Poetry from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

For my thesis, I am analyzing the C.U.N.Y.+ catalog to determine whether it has a proportional amount of materials on Latino literature to Latino students.

More importantly, I am interested in ascertaining how the acquisition of Latino Poetry books would help aspiring Latino poets in the M.F.A. programs at Hunter, Brooklyn, City, and Queens Colleges.

I have been able to procure graduate enrollment rates by Race/Ethnicity from the materials supplied by the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, but could use the departmental data on Race/Ethnicity that your program office has collected to arrive at very specific numbers.

This level of specificity will benefit my research and your programs because utlimately the better the library's collection of Latino Poetry, the better your students will be serviced. I am writing today to enlist your help in this process.

Thank You,

Yago Cura

MEHTA'S "MAXIMUM CITY"

Anosh Irani's review of Maximum City in The Globe and Mail calls Mehta's book, an "autopsy of a city that is morally dead" (2004, par. 2), a "gem" (Irani,2004, par. 8), and "a brilliant examination" (Irani, 2004, par. 2). In fact, all the reviewers allude to the noirish nature of Mehta's book. Akash Kapur subtitles his review in the N.Y. Times Book Review, Bombay Confidential(alluding to crime novels, and perhaps the movie L.A. Confidential) and Adam Hochschild writing in Harper's titles his review, UNDERWORLD, all in caps. A great part of Mehta's book centers on his dealings with underworld elements, like power-mad politicians (Shiv Sena's Bal Thackeray), movie stars (Sanjay Dutt), a bar dancer (Monalisa), gangsters, and Bombay's top cop on anti-terrorism (Ajay). In addition, Mehta's descriptions are precise literary renditions. Akash Kapur likens Mehta's writing to "Dicken's London" (Kapur, 2004, par. 3) while Adam Hoschild writes that "Mehta's eye on Bombay remind me of no one's so much as Balzac's on Paris" (Hochschild, 2005, par. 2).
While none of the reviewers comment on what type of libraries should carry Mehta's book, the book covers subjects that lie under the artifice of writing a book about Bombay's transition into Mumbai. For example, Mehta is a screenplay writer with credits for Mission Kashmir (2000) and a Merchant Ivory movie starring Tina Turner called The Goddess (2007, Suketu); and, part of Mehta's book chronicles his dealings with the Bollywood system as a writer and as a researcher. Therefore, it would be an easy leap to make the argument that Mehta's book would be just at home in an academic library as a special media library used by film producers and archivists, especially those pertaining working with Bollywood and East Asian film making. In addition, Mehta's book could just as easily be accessioned into a literature collection with a Victorian bent or specializing on Writers and the Cities they inhabit.



References:
Hochschild, A. (2005). UNDERWORLD. Harper's, 94, Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/results/results_single_ftPES.jhtml

Irani, A. (October 23, 2004). Autopsy for Bombay. The Globe and Mail, Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Kapur, A. (November 21, 2004). 'Maximum City': Bombay Confidential. The New York Times Book Review, Retrieved February 28, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/books/review/21KAPURL/html

(2007). Suketu Mehta. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.suketumehta.com/ Web site: http://www.suketumehta.com/about.html

JOHNSON'S "EVERYTHING BAD IS GOOD FOR YOU"

In terms of morality, objectionable characters, and corrupting influences, the most innocuous of the three books discussed in this essay is Steven Johnson's Everything Bad is Good for You (2005). Yet, the idea at its core, that playing video games and watching the "boob tube" is actually making us smarter, might seem more seedy to most parents. Smarter in the sense that playing video games requires that you use the scientific method to navigate a sequence of levels; smarter in the sense that Johnson compares the plots and narrative trajectories of several popular 70's shows, like The Love Boat, Starsky and Hutch, and Fantasy Island, to the plot lines of several current television shows like The Sopranos and landmark shows from the 80's like Hill Street Blues. What he finds is that despite the glaze-over look that seems to be embossed on the faces of gamers, there is actually some thinking going on in gamers' heads. Johnson explains that gaming actually requires a keen, dynamic mind that is willing to explore, investigate, and "read" physical cues embedded in a virtual realm; he makes it seem that playing video games are calisthenics for the mind.
According to the Library Journal review done on Everything, Johnson is a "Discovery magazine columnist" that has penned a "fascinating" book whose premise is simple: "contemporary culture is intellectually demanding, honing complex mental skills and encouraging well-reasoned decisions on the basis of available information" (Wood, 2005, pg.108). Library Journal</span> "Highly" recommends Johnson's book for "both public and academic libraries", but not until the reviewer (Suzanne Wood) has mentioned that Johnson draws on "research in neuroscience, literary theory, and economics" to make his arguments, substantiating Library Journal's zealous appraisal. The Journal might have us believe that Johnson's authored a tome of deliberate genius, but Walter Kirn of the N.Y. Times Book Review, sees gratuitous holes in many of Johnson's arguments.
Kirner commences by attacking Johnson's credentials as a scientist, implying that he really only has the credentials of a magazine correspondent, not a bona fide Doctor of Science. Kirner then downgrades Johnson's acumen to that of a junior research intern by writing that, "Johnson's argument isn't strictly scientific, relying on hypotheses and tests, but more observational and impressionistic" (Kirn, 2005, par. 3). Earlier in the review,though, Kirner calls Johnson's Everything an "elegant polemic" and calls Johnson himself a "cross-disciplinary thinker who has written about neuroscience, media studies and computer technology" (Kirner, 2005, par. 2). But the blow below the belt is when Kirner castigates Johnson by correcting him like a ruffled marm with the admonition that "Stimulation is not a virtue all by itself" It all reeks of feigned critical duress because in the end Kirn makes the whole thing about teaching an old dog, like Kirn, new tricks and Kirn states it plainly, "The old dogs won't be able to rest as easily, though, once they've read Everything Bad Is Good For You"
Tim Madigan's review of Everything in the Journal of Popular Culture is more evenhanded. Madigan understands that Johnson's book is not a textbook, but that it makes for riveting Reference reading. Madigan and Kirin both seem to question Johnson's research methods and particular inferences that Johnson makes, but it is Woods and Madigan that mention Johnson's current credentials (Wood credits his Discovery credentials while Madigan mentions the Wired quasi-column). Madigan has specific problems with Johnson's contention that "IQ scores have been increasing steadily over the past few decades, and that this could be correlated to changes in our 'mental diets'"(Madigan, 2006, par. 2), but he can still manage to suggest that Johnson's book could be put to great use in a Popular Culture Collection, "by drawing connections with the latest findings in cognitive development and brain research, Johnson has opened up a new venue for advocates of popular culture to explore" (Madigan, 2006).





References:

Kirn, W. (May 22, 2005). 'Everything Bad is Good for You: The Couch Potato Path to a Higher IQ.. The New York Times Book Review, Retrieved February 28,2009, from http://tv.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22KIRNL.html

Madigan, T. (2006). [Everything Bad Is Good For You]. Journal of Popular Culture, 39,no. 6, Retrieved February 28,2008, from http://libraries.cuny.edu/resource.htm/Wilson_Web

Wood, S. (April 15,2005). Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Acutally Making Us Smarter.. The New York Times Book Review, 130, no.7, Retrieved February 28,2009, from http://tv.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22KIRNL.html

TWO STICKERS COMING SOON!