Academic library research can be traced back to the first major research library, the Library of Alexandria (circa 300 B.C.E.) (Rubin, 2008, p 5). For the academic library, research has always been considered a cornerstone of its identity (Gorman, 2012, p 123). Research papers are designed upon a research question grounded within a literature review (Luo, Brancolini, & Kennedy, 2017, p 41). The narrative literature review presents a “theme-based discussion of how our research topic has been investigated by others and how our study relates to the literature” (Luo et al, 2017, p 30). The literature review serves to provide an overview of the topic that points towards future inquiries, identifies gaps in the literature that a study might explore, and gives context to the research (Luo et al, 2017, p 59).
The research process begins by identifying a research need, articulating what to study (in the form of a research question), giving context and support for the basis of that study through a thorough literature review, and then based on that literature review, determining research methods and design particulars (Luo et al, 2017, p 20).
Research design is an “overall strategy” or blueprint for collecting and analyzing the study’s data (Luo et al, 2017, p 31), and the four most popular design types used in academic library research are:
- cross-sectional design
- longitudinal design
- experimental/quasi-experimental design, and
- case studies (Luo et al, 2017, p 62).
The features of cross-sectional design are, a) that it collects data at one point in time (though it might include many samples), b) that it describes things as they happen or as they exist, and c) that they are appropriate for correlating between variables (Luo et al, 2017, p 62). Longitudinal design collects data from two or more points at a time over time, uses the same data collection instrument, and looks at the same variables (Luo et al, 2017, p 65). Experimental/quasi-experimental design studies “the causal relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable,” and is often used when there is some doubt about a causal relationship. (Luo et al, 2017, p 70). Experimental design tends to use a quantitative methodology (Powell, 2008, p 172). Case study allows for the in-depth study and theory testing of a specific situation or phenomenon (Luo et al, 2017, p 78), and tends towards the use of qualitative methodology (Powell, 2008, pp 172-173).
Quantitative data can be “measured in some objective manner,” whereas qualitative data cannot, but can be “categorized or interpreted” (Cervone, 2018, p 325). Each form of data (quantitative/qualitative) may be collected by a corresponding quantitative or qualitative technique, in the form of a research method (Luo et al, 2017, p 31). Quantitative research methods involve aggregating, interpreting, and presenting data with numbers rather than with narration; qualitative research seeks to narratively express ineffable aspects of what is essentially “textual or visual data” (Luo et al, 2017, p 31). Well-known quantitative research methods are the survey, quantitative observations, and analysis of existing statistics; common qualitative research methods include the in-depth interview, the focus group interview, field observations, and content analysis (Luo et al, 2017, p 31).
Surveys are questionnaires made up of multiple-choice, primarily closed questions, and are used to “collect a broad range of data such as attitudes, opinions, beliefs, values, and behavior (Luo et al, 2017, p 80). Surveys tend to be quantitative in nature (Powell, 2008, p 171). “Analysis of existing statistics” is a method that analyzes data (often quantitative but sometimes qualitative) that has already been aggregated, for example website traffic logs or institutional survey results (Luo et al, 2017, pp 87-88). Content analysis analyzes the recorded (usually textual) content (regardless of format) of humans, in specific units (individuals, groups, social organizations) (Luo et al, 2017, pp 90-91). Content analysis done quantitatively is akin to another research method, bibliometrics (Luo et al, 2017, p 92), which measures both written communication and bibliographic data (Powell, 2008, p 174). An interesting example of content analysis that utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (mixed method), is a comparative study of 36 library code of ethics based on Gorman’s Enduring Values (Foster & McMenemy, 2012). In-depth interviews are a qualitative research method that delves into the “how and why” of social interactions and the more ephemeral aspects of “human experience, behavior, perceptions, and beliefs” (Luo et al, 2017, p 95). Focus groups are a “form of group interview” which seek to tease out qualitative data on a particular topic (Luo et al, 2017, p 100), that is “feelings, attitudes, and behaviors” rather than “generalizable descriptive data” (Powell, 2008, p 173)
Research methodology matters. It can affect the information professions directly. This can be shown through a short history of academic research applied to library reference services. Extensive quantitative analysis of library reference services took place from the late 1970s and 1980s via user surveys, in an attempt to measure how accurately reference librarians answered questions. (Tyckoson, 2012, pp 595-596; Palmer, 1999, p 4). A dismal and consistent result of 55% led to a calling into question the relevance and worth of reference librarians, culminating in the 1992 call for the removal of not only the reference desk, but of the human interface altogether (Campbell, 1992, pp 29-35). A contentious debate at the 2007 Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) National Conference brought the question of the reference desk out in public (Nolen, 2010, p 1).
Three years later in a survey of the literature, Nolen compared the principle pro- and anti-desk forces, showing how both camps essentially proposed similar methodological changes for desk service (2010, pp 2-6). He credits Carlin’s 2007 bibliography of 1980’s reference literature for reawakening analysis amongst reference service professionals and cites Palmer’s philosophical examination (1999) as having been influential on the pro-desk side (Nolen, 2010). Nolen shows that those actually arguing for an elimination of the reference desk were not only in a very small minority, but also largely agreed with pro-desk forces on the need to retain the human-to-human component (2010, pp 6-8). Reaction and response to this quantitative wave, and the seeming dismissal of the human element, arrived in the 1990s in the form of a RUSA task force who developed formalized behavioral guidelines for reference librarians, based on Joan Durrance’s qualitatively oriented, willingness-to-return research methodology (Tyckoson, 2012, p 597).
The ideas and values undergirding the information profession are built upon academic research, and that research wields its power based on how it is designed, and the research methods deployed. Research that is popular will be picked up and used by information professionals in the field, and this activity becomes the environment in which new research questions are sown. The soil of our professional fields is only as healthy and fruitful as the theory which seeds and nourishes it. It is therefore important for information professionals and organizations, to take the time to cultivate research that will sustain our values, which is the only soil in which a sustainable research environment can take root.
Preparation to Understand Competency L: Coursework and Work Experience
My Information Communities (INFO 200) class allowed me a great deal of liberty in terms of researching articles, evaluating them, and synthesizing the material. One paper I wrote on reference librarians as an information community, exposed me to the way research papers were organized, to different research methods (quantitative and qualitative), to the different ways papers were analyzed (design), and other differences like study populations or methods of collection data (instruments). A literature review on reference librarians that I wrote for the same class, awoke me to the idea of aggregating other’s research (“analysis of existing statistics,” content analysis, and other literature reviews). For instance, I found a paper that utilized several citation studies and six perception surveys of LIS journals, to propose a methodology for ranking LIS journals, for use by academic promotion review committees (Nixon, 2014, pp 71-74). I also learned a great deal writing what amounted to a literature review on Google Scholar (GS), for my Online Searching class (INFO 244). What deeply impressed me, writing this paper, was the tremendous amount of completed research simply sitting in databases, waiting to be sifted through and analyzed. It was a pleasure to have the time and means to search and retrieve material based solely on one focused research question: what are GS’s search capabilities and limitations?
I chose to present one paper I wrote for a class discussion followed by three, research proposal drafts I produced for my Applied Research Methods class (INFO 285), in the order they were created. The discussion paper on research procedures served as a preparation for the research proposal drafts. Each draft dealt with a slightly different project design aspect of the research process, allowing me to discuss what I learned, and what I achieved, as I worked from draft to draft.
Evidence
Discussion: Research Procedures
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af2021137-9d93-425a-982f-32d702c5fa13
In this discussion that I presented to my INFO 285 class, I provide some preliminary research and give some historical context regarding a topic of interest to me, referencing the literature as I proceed. Essentially, what I am doing in the first section is pointing to gaps in both the history and the literature, making a case that there might be a proper research question to be found in the interstices. For instance, I make the argument that the literature itself shows that very few researchers have called for the elimination of face-to-face (F2F) reference services, yet at the same time, since the initial wave of quantitative studies, the defacto approach to research has been to assume that F2F reference services are on the way out, and thus not worth studying. Furthermore, I note the glaring lack of any studies from the information professional’s point-of-view. My observations and analysis finally lead me to propose a research question.
My reasoning behind choosing a qualitative research method, the in-depth interview (preceded by a short quantitative survey to clarify who fits the variable of a specifically defined ‘academic reference librarian’), was mostly alluded to in the Research Topic section. Basically, because the literature was inundated for over a decade with quantitative analyses of reference librarian’s behavior, some balance and perspective should be brought to bear through new and imaginative qualitative analyses that could fill in the gaps identified in the literature. Based on my choice of the in-depth interview, I began to consider my study population, and formulate a sample plan to find academic reference librarians to interview. I indicate that I will develop research questions for an interview guide, and these will be based on variables found in the research question, as well as variables and indicators gleaned from the literature review. Finally, I state that I hope to generate a body of recorded text from the interviews which will be coded and used for content analysis.
This two-page preliminary inquiry to the research process shows that I grasp how to begin the design process through a reading and absorbing of professional literature, that I understand how to critically analyze the literature in search of gaps or openings where new inquires might take root, and that I am capable of formulating a research question based on my analysis. Furthermore, this discussion paper demonstrates that I comprehend how to choose a research methodology or methodologies that fit my project, in this instance both qualitatively-derived in-depth interviews, and a follow-up quantitatively-derived content analysis of the results.
Research Proposal Draft 1
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ad28db094-0800-4aeb-bc10-886d2c96fb35
In my research proposal’s first draft I repeat and expand upon my initial foray into the literature and expand up it. This time, rather than set out the research topic, I take it as a given, and instead present the information in the form of a research problem. The research problem I elaborate on develops directly from the research question I formulated. Here I make my arguments that there are gaps in the literature even more explicit, and make a case why research should take place. The inclusion of short and long-term problems into the research problem came after discussions with my professor. I perceived and felt, after my dialogue with her, that I was over-reaching with the scope of my research problem, proposing to learn more from the project than the accumulation of data would actually allow. By including the terms “long-term values” and “short-term values” in the title of the research proposal, as operational definitions, and as variables to be included within interview questions, I made my research design much more precise and therefore capable of retrieving useful data.
The operational definitions were the hardest part of the first draft and required some conversations with my professor to ensure that I was on track. Part of the challenge I found with creating operational definitions was not only defining the terms but ensuring that the definitions were crafted as distinct but related concepts. Finally, I had to make sure that the operational definitions would still do what I wanted them to do when applied as interview questions. My inclusion of the terms, “perceptions” and “searching ability” came from dialogue with my professor, who pushed me to bring out more complexity and difficulty with these terms.
This research proposal draft shows that I understand how to take a general research topic and a chosen research method, and using my research questions as a guide, develop a cogent, detailed research problem with matching operational definitions. The work in this draft also demonstrates that I grasp how to produce a working research problem and operational definitions with a) an orientation to the research question, with b) the foresight that the research problem will inform the literature review, and that the operational definitions will play a central role in the construction of interview questions. Finally, this draft shows my ability to work with others in a collaborative fashion, learning as I go along.
Research Proposal Draft 2
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ad4d3c10e-0c50-4c71-a2eb-4cc2d4d5f929
The bulk of the work I performed for the research proposal’s second draft was to research, analyze, evaluate, organize, and present a literature review pertinent to the research question. I spent a great deal of time pouring through databases and search engines, searching for timely peer-reviewed papers relevant to the research question. I went through many more papers than I eventually selected, reading with a critical eye, and weighing the merits of each, and assessing their overall relevance. After I honed that list down to about ten papers, I reread each of them, and reassessed their value in relation to each other, to the research question, and to the literature as a whole.
In the end I was able to put the literature into four broad categories related to the research question. This paper shows that I organized the presentation of my analysis of the literature review under these four headings. Under the headings of the literature review I explore the research papers regarding their research design and methodologies (both quantitative and qualitative), their research question and findings, how they relate to each other, and to what degree their contents can inform my own research question and project. In the section that evaluates research comparing human and CAI interfaces, I note how a previously discussed qualitative research methodology I identified, might be useful in future efforts to study the interactions within the academic reference librarian’s environment. In the same section I also describe a study using citation analysis (quantitative methodology) in a research consultation service environment. At the end of draft 2 I reiterate the research problem and, based on the literature review, reaffirm my reasoning for choosing a predominantly qualitative, or perhaps mixed methodological approach.
This third evidentiary item proves that I understand how to conduct and produce a literature review for a research project, analyzing and evaluating extant literature with the aim of giving context to the research design, and providing material content for the in-depth interviews to follow. I show an awareness for how qualitative and quantitative research methodologies could be applied within specific environments and am able to articulate why such research methods would be particularly applicable
Research Proposal Draft 3
Discussion of Evidentiary Items
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Af678aca0-58cd-46fe-9d5b-7f5a53a7d9ec
For the final draft I used my research question and literature review as a basis for designing the research project. I describe my chosen research methodology at length, lay out a schedule for the project, provide my qualifications to perform this research, and explain why the work is important. I include a sample cover letter to be sent out to potential interviewees, a survey questionnaire and consent form, an interview guide for use with the in-depth interviews, and references for all the works cited in the proposal.
I delineate my proposed research methodology’s study population, sample design, data collection instrument, and data analysis techniques. For the section on study population I worked with my professor to fully articulate the reasoning behind the demographic ratio I chose to select my interviewees, especially with how the reasons link back to the research question. Because I foresaw only interviewing a small number of individuals among a small subset of the population related to my research question, I chose to use a non-probabilistic sampling method, purposive sampling (Luo et al, 2017, p 108).
While I had known since the second draft that the data collection instrument would be the in-depth interview, here I go into great detail explaining how I generated the 23-question interview guide that makes up the heart of that instrument. I describe how interview questions were formulated by cross-checking the 6 variables in the research question with 18 different variables (values), the majority of which were drawn from the literature review. I spell out my reasoning behind the arrangement order of the questions and clarify why certain exceptions were made. For instance, Question 17 & 18 are described as a way to take cognitive load into consideration. Finally, I briefly describe how data analysis will proceed after the interviews have concluded.
Draft 3 demonstrates that I am capable of bridging the gulf between concept (or research question) and a fully designed research project. I show that I am familiar with the component parts of a working research methodology and, based on a properly formulated research question and attendant literature review, can articulate the steps and requirements necessary to locate a suitable study population, and design an appropriate data collection instrument. I also demonstrate that I could plan and organize such research project over time.
Conclusion
Armed only with ideas, I am capable of critically surveying the literature and identifying gaps which might provide for new areas of research. I know the difference between quantitative and qualitative research methods, and how they can be applied in a given situation. I have the ability to formulate a cogent research question and properly explore it with further forays into the literature. I have the ability to construct clear operational definitions that strengthen the research question, and the project as a whole. I understand how to use a literature review as a foundation for, and a bridge to, a coherent research project. And I have shown myself capable of locating a suitable study population, designing an appropriate data collection instrument, and organizing the collection of data from that study population over time. Like any professional discipline, the information profession rests upon a foundation of applied research. The skills and abilities I describe here will benefit me anywhere such research continues to be pursued.
References
Campbell, J. D. (1992). Shaking the conceptual foundations of reference: A perspective. RSR:
Reference Services Review, 20(4), 29-36. Retrieved from https://www-emerald-com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/insight/content/doi/10.1108/eb049164/full/pdf?title=shaking-the-conceptual-foundations-of-reference-a-perspective
Carlin, A. (2007). Success, failure, innovation and uncertainty in changing times: A selective bibliography of literature on reference services since the 1980s. The Reference Librarian, 48(2), 31-40. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1300/J120v48n02_07?needAccess=true
Cervone, H.F. (2018). Managing data and data analysis in information organizations. In Hirsh, S. (Ed.). Information services today: An introduction. Lanham, Maryland; Rowman & Littlefield.
Foster, C., & McMenemy, D. (2012). Do librarians have a shared set of values? A comparative
study of 36 codes of ethics based on Gorman’s enduring values. Journal of librarianship and information science, 44(4), 249-262. Retrieved from https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/34315/1/proof_of_1st_draft_for_dept_website.pdf
Gorman, M. (2012). The prince’s dream. SCONUL Focus, 54, pp. 11-6. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Gorman5/publication/271605679_The_Prince's_Dream_A_Future_For_Academic_Libraries/links/5a9c01f6a6fdcc3cbacd3d91/The-Princes-Dream-A-Future-For-Academic-Libraries.pdf
Luo, L., Brancolini, K.R., & Kennedy, M.R. (2017). Enhancing library and information research
skills: A guide for academic librarians. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited
Nixon, J. M. (2014). Core journals in library and information science: Developing a
methodology for ranking LIS journals. College & Research Libraries, 75(1), 66-90. Retrieved from https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/viewFile/16352/17798
Nolen, D. S. (2010). Reforming or rejecting the reference desk: Conflict and continuity in the
concept of reference. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1. Retrieved from https://web-b-ebscohost-com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=eeb54dfb-b943-4e7c-811d-1d9e696f9460%40pdc-v-sessmgr01
Palmer, S. S. (1999, April). Creating our roles as reference librarians of the future: Choice or
fate? In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries. pp. 1-12. Retrieved from https://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/palmer99.pdf
Powell, R. (2008). Research. In Haycock, K. & Sheldon, B.E. (Eds.). The portable
MLIS. Westport, Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Rubin, R.E. (2008). Stepping back and looking forward: Reflections on the foundations of
libraries and librarianship. In Haycock, K. & Romaniuk, M. J. (Eds.). The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.
Tyckoson, D. A. (2011). Issues and trends in the management of reference services: A historical
perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 51(3), 259-278. Retrieved from https://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=503012446&S=R&D=lls&EbscoContent=dGJyMNLr40Sep7U4y9fwOLCmsEiep7ZSsK64TbCWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGtsVCuprFLuePfgeyx4YXr2QAA