Total views : 319

A Study on the Impact of Google Search on the Reading Habits of Academicians


  • Department of Communication, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham [Amrita University], Coimbatore – 641112, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham [Amrita University], Coimbatore – 641112, Tamil Nadu, India


Background/Objectives: The present day students, research supervisors and faculty members depend on Google search engine as a tool for collecting information on any specific topic of interest. There is a need to understand what extent the materials selected is relevant for their work under consideration. This study investigates the outcome of the use of Google search engine for the choice of material and the reading habits among the research supervisors, research scholars, faculty members and graduate students. Methods: Questionnaires were used to conduct the survey. The responses were obtained through telephonic interviews or receiving duly filled in questionnaire through E-mail. Findings: It has been identified that search engines like Google has reduced the level of lateral thinking and force the academicians to depend on Google for information. This actively reduces the thinking process and developing innovative research ideas. Applications/Improvements: The use of search engine has resulted in thinking less and searching more when it comes to academic purpose, which also drastically reduces the analytical capability.


Google Search, Page Rank Algorithm, Phrase Based Search, Reading Habits, Survey Method.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 334)


  • Ramesh N, Andrews J. Personalized search engine using social networking activity. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Feb; 8(4):301–6.
  • Jansen BJ, Spink A. An analysis of Web information seeking and use: Documents retrieved versus documents viewed. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Internet Computing; Las Vegas, NV. 2003 Feb. p. 65–9.
  • Jansen BJ, Spink A, Saracevic T. Real life, real users and real needs: A study and analysis of users queries on the Web. Information Processing and Management. 2000 Mar; 36(2):207–27.
  • Silverstein C, Henzinger M, Marais H, Moricz M. Analysis of a very large Web search engine query log. ACM SIGIR Forum. 1999 Sep; 33(1):6–12.
  • Wolfram D, Spink A, Jansen BJ, Saracevic T. Vox populi: The public searching of the Web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2001 Jul; 52(12):1073–4.
  • Henzinger M. Finding near-duplicate Web pages: A large-scale evaluation of algorithms. Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; Seattle, Washington, USA. 2006 Aug. p. 284–91.
  • Waller V. Not just information: Who Searchers for What on the Search Engine Google? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2011 Feb; 62(4):761–75.
  • Karimi M, Esfahani FS, Noorafza N. Improving response time of Web service composition based on QoS properties. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jul; 8(16):1–8.
  • Dutton WH, Heslper EJ, Gerber MM. The Internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; 2009.
  • Fallows D. Search engine users: Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting but they are also unaware and naive. Pew Internet and American Life Project; Washington DC. 2005.
  • Liang X, Ladwig P, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Xenos MA. Issues framing online: A content analysis of Google’s results page. Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Communication and Technology Division; Boston. 2011.
  • Wirth W, Bocking T, Karnowski V, Von Pape T. Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2007 Apr; 12(3):778–800.
  • Elmer G. Re-tooling the network: Parsing the links and codes of the web world. Convergence. 2006 Feb; 12(1):9–19.
  • Hargittai E. Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday. 2002 Apr; 7(4):1–23.
  • Introna L, Nissenbaum H. The public good vision of the Internet and the politics of search engines. R. Rogers (Ed). Preferred placement. Knowledge politics on the Web. Maastricht: Jan van Eyck Academy; 2000. p. 25–47.
  • Mager A. Health information mediated health: Socio-technical practices of providing and using online health information. New Media and Society. 2009 Oct; 11(7):1123–42.
  • Seale C. New directions for critical Internet health studies: Representing cancer experience on the Web. Sociology of Health and Illness. 2005 May; 27(4):515–40.
  • Hindman M, Tsioutsiouliklis K, Johnson JJ. Googlearchy: How a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the Web. Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; Chicago, IL. 2015. Available from:
  • Pedro J. A collection of samples for research in Google: Design and application of a sample selection method. Results and problems of research. GMJ: Mediterranean Edition. 2012; 7(1):29–40.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.