On 12/19/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
All these things are sliding scales. It's easy to objectively say "all the victims were women". It's just *harder* to objectively say "all the papers supported notion X". Maybe it's ok. Maybe it isn't.
For one thing, if a source exhaustively lists all X, it's a definitive claim that can be sourced. Stating that all of them have something in common is simply a collation and editing function, IMO.
A database search like that described is different; it's not definitive and not a single source that can be cited. It's headed into original research to deem the results definitive and decisive; there is no guarantee whatsoever that the results have to be exhaustive and complete.
-Matt
Well stated; there's also another difference -- the contents of databases change. The printed list of serial killers will always be the same in that particular book; the database search may yield different results next year. As for availability, I don't know about HeinOnline, but there are different subsets of LexisNexis and most folks other than lawyers and law students don't have access to the really good and expensive one.
Two more notes: I don't know if there's specific protocol for legal databases; generally one cites a DB search with the name of the database, date of search, and your search string: "(au=brown) and (wd="serial killer*")". As for the not-finding-anything search... notoriously hard to prove or do definitively, yes. A very similar question was given to us in library school as homework :)
-- phoebe