Skill: Seeking Relevant Information
Key Skill: The ability to find the needed information effectively and efficiently
Figure 1: Image generated using Copilot from prompt: "Image of Searching".
The quality and relevance of the information you find has a direct effect upon the arguments you make (Walliman, 2005). But the books, journal articles, newspaper articles that you read do not exist in a vacuum; information exists in a relationship with other information (Grix and Watkins, 2010, p. 52). You can see the evidence of these relationships in the reference lists that appear in books and in journal articles, or in citations in journalistic reports.
Authors, researchers, and students must use the work and opinions of others to inform their own ways of approaching a topic (Gash, 2000, p. 1-3). That’s just good academic practice, and you will be assessed by how well you can demonstrate this skill in your own work—remember the marking schemes that you saw earlier in this guide.
The good news is that finding the information you need is straightforward—if you know what information you want, where to look for it, and why you are looking in your chosen location. In other words, you believe that the literature exists, but you need to know where to look for it and the best way to find it.
The following example puts itself in your position as a member of the University of Derby. The example uses books and peer-reviewed journal articles, but you can apply the same theory to other sources of information, too: like newspapers, dissertations, and magazine articles. The idea is to get you to think about the different ways that you can find the information you need. Some methods are more efficient and effective than others, and you may recognise your own practice in the different approaches.
Method 1: using Library Search (most effective and most efficient)
Figure 2: “Logo Montage Publishers and Databases” and user using Library Search which draws draw from publishers' websites and databases (image of user generated using Copilot from prompt: "Image of Person Using a Computer").
Library Search is a highly effective and very efficient way to find the information you need. It is the main interface that the library provides you here at the University of Derby. Here is a link to Library Search.
PROS: First, it incorporates many different resources from lots of different sources, including publishers’ websites and databases. Second, it automatically shows you what is available to you from the library—both physically and electronically. To access the electronic content, all you need to do is follow the links and enter your log in when prompted—it’s that easy.
CONS: First, Library Search does not integrate every database to which the library provides you access. Many healthcare databases—let’s use Medline as an example—do not provide their content to Library Search. It may still be the case that a publisher is providing the same content as a missing database, but you cannot always guarantee it. Here is a list of what Library Search does and does not integrate. Second, Library Search cannot replicate the search functionality of host databases. For example, the database Web of Science provides its content to Library Search, but you may still want to use some of the technical search features that Web of Science has. The same is true for newspapers, which are easier to search using dedicated newspaper databases.
Method 2: using specialist databases (effective and efficient)
Figure 3: “Logo Montage Publishers” ; “Logo Montage Databases”; and user accessing databases that draw from publishers' websites (image of user generated using Copilot from prompt: "Image of Person Using a Computer").
Specialist databases incorporate the content that academic publishers provide. Databases exist in all disciplines. You can think of them as different film streaming channels: they each have a slightly different theme. Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Disney Plus all show films, but the type of films they show differs—sometimes they will have the same film. The same is true of academic databases. Depending on the subject that you study, databases you have heard of may be JSTOR (English), CINAHL (Nursing), and Web of Science (Sciences). You can find a list of academic databases on the library homepage. You can use your university log-in to access databases and the journals and books that they contain.
PROS: First, databases are an effective and efficient way to conduct a literature search in a particular academic discipline. Lots of different publishers will provide content to databases so you can learn a lot about a topic very quickly. You will only need to log in with your university account once, and you will be able to see clearly what resources are available to you—which you will then be able to access. Second, if you want to access certain types of resources, for example, newspapers, a database will be your best option because it will be specifically designed for working with specific information types.
CONS: First, different databases are more user friendly than others, and databases may have slightly different search features. Second, you will need to access multiple databases to conduct a systematic search of the literature—this sounds daunting, but it is quite straightforward with a little practice.
Method 3: Google Scholar (somewhat effective and efficient)
Figure 4: “Logo Montage Publishers”; “Google Scholar”; and user using Google Scholar which draws draw from publishers' websites (image of user generated using Copilot from prompt: "Image of Person Using a Computer").
Google Scholar is an academic version of Google that is popular with researchers.
PROS: First, Google Scholar is easy to use, and it looks very user friendly. It will do a very good job of finding research about a topic of your choice because the information you find will come from publishers’ websites, which will include journal articles and books. Second, Google Scholar will also draw material from a variety of other sources, which can include university websites.
CONS: First, it is easy to confuse Google Scholar with Library Search because they can both provide the same content. This can give the impression that searching Google Scholar alone is all that you need to do; this is not the case. Second, Google Scholar does not provide a clear indication of what is available to you, and you must not assume that everything it provides will have undergone academic review. Lean Library can mitigate against these access problems, but Google Scholar should be used in addition to Library Search.
Method 4: visit the publishers’ websites (least effective and least efficient)
Figure 5: “Logo Montage Publishers” and user accessing publishers' websites (image of user generated using Copilot from prompt: "Image of Person Using a Computer").
It is possible to visit a publisher’s website directly to try to access the books and journal articles that they have. For example, you may go to the homepage of the journal History (hosted on the publisher’s website), or you might visit Cambridge University Press—an important academic publisher—to find books about mathematics.
PROS: You may have a favourite journal title or publisher, and you want to browse the latest research. Perhaps you are preparing for a job interview, and you want to acquire quick knowledge about current articles and book titles. Perhaps you just want to scan the latest content to keep up to date.
CONS: First, you need to visit many different publishers individually to conduct a systematic search of the literature. Second, if you find a piece of information you want, you need to sign in with your university log-in details. Sometimes this will work—because the University of Derby will have paid for the content—but you will sometimes see messages that ask you to pay for what you want. Lean Library can mitigate against some of these access problems, but, overall, searching individual publishers is not that efficient and not that effective.
How does AI fit into all of this?
Figure 6: Image generated using Copilot from prompt: "Image of Robot Working in a Library".
The utility of AI will undoubtedly play a part in your ability to conduct a systematic search in the resources available to you from the library in the coming years (Cox, Pinfield, and Rutter, 2018). AI, however, has not yet fully integrated with resources like Library Search from the perspective of either the user interface or from the perspective of search functionality. Resources like Library Search are not designed well, for example, to search using natural language prompts: ‘find me articles about electric vehicles and traffic congestion’ (see the guide Conceptualisation and Contextualisation for more on prompts).
AI sources like ChatGPT, Gemini, and CoPilot are, however, available today, and you may be considering using these sources as effective and efficient tools for finding data[1]. You may even be using them now to search for literature because they do allow you to use natural language when searching them. AI can help you think of synonyms when you develop a search strategy (James and Filgo, 2023, p. 338). But a serious problem can exist for AI sources like ChatGPT: they can invent references. These appear to point to legitimate sources—like journal articles and books—but they are just fictions (Giray, 2024). Please refer to the library’s guide about AI, but if you are conducting a literature search using AI—which is not recommended at this stage—be very careful! Apply due diligence for all information you find—i.e. ensure that you fully appraise and evaluate it!
References
Copilot (2025) Image of person using a computer [Digital Art], response to Steven Bembridge, 28 March 2025.
Copilot (2025) Image of searching [Digital Art], response to Steven Bembridge, 28 March 2025.
Cox, A. M., Pinfield, S., and Rutter, S. (2018) ‘The intelligent library: Thought leaders’ views on the likely impact of artificial intelligence on academic libraries’, Library Hi Tech 37(3), pp. 418-435.
Gash, S. (2000) Effective Literature Searching for Research. 2nd edn. Aldershot: Gower.
Giray, L. (2023) ‘ChatGPT References Unveiled: Distinguishing the Reliable from the Fake’, Internet Reference Service Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 9-18.
Grix, J. and Watkins, G. (2010) Information Skills: Finding and Using the Right Resources. London: Palgrave.
James, A. B. and Filgo, E. H. (2023) ‘Where does ChatGPT fit into the Framework
for Information Literacy?’, C&RL News 84(9), pp. 334-341.
Walliman, N. (2005) Your Research Project: A Step-By-Step Guide for the First-Time Researcher. 2nd edn. London: Sage.
[1] CoPilot integrates some of the same technology as ChatGPT. However, CoPilot is designed to work seamlessly with the Microsoft 365 applications that the University of Derby provides you. If you do want to explore the use of AI to support your work—remember to use it responsibly— then CoPilot is your safest option in terms of using a resource that the university endorses.