Google Generation Draft #1

People have their own definition of what the “Google generation” is or has become. There however is no hard evidence to back most of these claims up. Yes there have been studies done, but they seem to come up without concrete evidence. Where is the proof? The claims many have tried to argue are not being backed up with competent evidence and therefore lead to the statement that people born after 1993 are not the so called “Google generation” that society has placed them under.

One of the first widely spoken claims is that the Google generation lacks analytical skills necessary to asses the information they find. This claim is false due to the fact that obviously they are able to analyze the information or there would be a drop in success rate of that generation. If the researchers and other people in society want to make such a claim they should back with up with hard evidence. One claim made by Antone Gonsalves of Information Week says that the Google generation can not develop a successful search strategy. Yet in another article by The Sunday Times the claim that the generation is expert searchers is said to be false. “This is a dangerous myth. Digital literacies and information literacies do not go hand in hand. A careful look at the literature over the past 25 years finds no improvement (or deterioration) in young people’s information skills” (Sunday Times, July 20, 2008). How can they not be able to have effective search strategies and yet there is not proof to say this is true. In fact, there is no deterioration in the skills they have developed to analyze the information found.

The Google generation is not that different from adults in other generations as some people think they are. One myth presented by the Christian Science Monitor reads that the Google generation finding their peers more credible as information sources than authority figures. How can you prove this? It is virtually impossible to ask every single person who they value most. “While in a social context youngsters may value the opinions of their peers more than of adults that apparently are not true regarding their academic lives."[W]e think this is a myth," the study says. "[T]eachers, relatives, and textbooks are consistently valued above the internet. (Times Online, July 9, 2008). If every student was asked their opinion there would then be conformation of the lack of validity of that myth. An allegation that has stepped up as a front runner is that people of the Google generation is impatient when it comes to dealing with search engines and navigation tools. Again, prove it. According to Jim Ashling ““We feel that this is a truism of our time and there is no hard evidence to suggest that young people are more impatient in this regard.” In keeping with this myth, researcher who wrote the report Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future, assert that impatience is now becoming the norm for all age-groups, from younger pupils and undergraduates through to professors.

The declaration that libraries need to step it up in their databases so that they have a “digital mindset” I argue to be flawed and just crazy. It is not up to the library to outshine and outdo the new digital technology. If the Google generation can delve deep into the information they find they why would it matter if the library had better deeper articles. It is in the hands of society to use the information as they see fit. Now this does not mean that the libraries should not keep up with modern technology, I am arguing that even if they did become more digital, according to the myth, the Google generation would still be as impatient and non-analytical as before.

All things considered, when researchers or society makes a claim about a generation, hard, factual evidence is what will turn that myth into a reality. Once there is proof that people born after 1993 are lazy, impatient and non analytical, only then can they be labeled as the “Google generation.