Formulating the research question

Last week, students in our SJSU Gateway PhD program gathered in San Jose for a one-week residency. This year we have 9 incoming students, and it’s great to chat with them about their research interests and share their passion and excitement of embarking on a new journey. I have two new students this year – one of them is interested in study the relevance of information literacy skills, and another one seeks to better understand the role of medical librarians in improving the public’s health literacy. We spent quite a bit of time talking about developing their research questions in the past week.

The formulation of research question, is probably the utmost important step in a research process. It anchors the entire research study. Yet I have seen too many studies that proceeded without a clearly defined research question. I always ask students to think about what they want to achieve with their study , what is the research problem they hope to resolve, and what their research objectives are. Answers to these questions are helpful for us to understand what exactly it is we try to study, and hence formulate a research question to properly reflect that. Once we have the research question, we can then move on to operationally define each concept and variables in the question, and then start thinking about research design and methodology.

In the many research methods textbooks I have read, research question formulation and development is a topic that’s often lacking. One book that addresses it relatively well is Babbie’s “The Practice of Social Research” (I wrote a blog post about it). And that’s one of the reasons I choose it to be the textbook for my research methods class. The new semester is starting in just a couple of weeks, and in the fall, I will be teaching a new research methods course that focuses on survey research. One of the course assignments is to complete a proposal for a research study that’s appropriate for survey research. Thus, students will need to come up with a research question that has to be answered by a survey study. I wonder how that will impact the question development process. Will make it harder or easier? I think it’s the latter. We’ll see.

2014 Institute for Research Design in Librarianship

In the last two weeks of June, the first IRDL cohort gathered in the beautiful library of the beautiful Loyola Marymount University and went through an intensive professional development program focusing on research design and methodology (see my previous post about this program). As a research methods geek, I was thrilled and honored to be one of the instructors there. I was impressed with the IRDL scholars’ motivation, interest and enthusiasm in conducting quality research and enhancing the rigor of LIS research and publications. Their research topics covered a variety of LIS practices, including the quickly emerging area of data librarianship. During my first two days there, I got to talk with all four members of the cohort whose topics were related to data management, data literacy and data service. Our conversations were illuminating and gave me a lot to think about in terms of preparing out students for this area. Among the twenty-five scholars, four were SJSU SLIS alum – one of them took the Reference and Information Services course with me, and another one was my advisee. It’s great to see them at IRDL and chat with them about their experience at SLIS. I’m so proud of what they have accomplished and what they will be accomplishing after IRDL.

There so many memorable moments throughout the program. The highlight was the scholars’ presentations on the last day, where they talked about their research idea and how it had taken shape during the two weeks. It’s very rewarding to see that they are leaving IRDL with a fairly concrete research plan and ready to dive in and churn out peer-reviewed articles one after another. Hopefully by the end of the three-year IRDL grant, we will be able to compile a list of publications resulting from the scholars’ research projects at IRDL.

In addition to the great discussions and interactions with the IRDL scholars and my co-instructors Greg and Michael, I really appreciated how well LMU library had taken care of us – the classroom was spacious with a great view, the catering service was wonderful, and our host Kris, Marie and Carol were so thoughtful and warm. I can’t thank them enough for making this experience a great memory of summer 2014. I’m already looking forward to 2015!

Oh, before I forget, I tweeted more in the past two weeks than I did in the previous five years, and I think I will keep tweeting at that frequency. Social media, I’m serious about you now.

Research topics from my research methods class in spring 2014

Part of the joy of teaching the Research Methods class is reading the various interesting research topics proposed by my students. I always gather them and put them into a list. Recently I have been sharing them in this blog. Here’s the list from spring 2014:

Do extensive recruitment efforts increase cultural diversity in the workplace for archives & special collections libraries?
What anticipated changes in operational factors such as budget, staff training, required staff volume, ease of assisting patrons, patron usability, processing time for returns and new books, and space usage lead managing librarians to decide on a materials classification and stacks organization scheme?
Do parents have a positive or negative view of graphic novels as tool for literacy for their children?
What are Mexican American immigrant patrons’ use and perception of public library services?
What are the factors that impact OPACs’ perceived user-friendliness and search outcomes from undergraduate students’ perspectives?
What are the information needs and behavior of practicing veterinarians in the Los Angeles area, and are these needs currently being met by available resources?
How does self-disclosure affect reference user satisfaction?
What is the relationship between archival collections available through online digital platforms, such as websites and catalogs, and the researcher and information seekers’ conception of the extent of an archival institutions’ full collection?
What technology tools do students prefer to use within the library to aid them in collaboration with their peers?
Is it beneficial for public libraries to join library consortia in order to share e-media?
What are patrons, specifically teens, looking for in terms of space design?
What is the relative value and impact of research and publication experience as compared to other factors on a selection committee’s decision to hire an entry-level candidate?
What are the definable goals for academic and research institutions like libraries and archives with regard to collecting and exhibiting art objects?
How are students, patrons, faculty and staff using the Online Archive of California and what is their success of using this resource?
Do public library users perceive a significant difference between the usefulness of information they receive from a professional librarian and information they retrieve themselves through common internet tools?
What are the qualities of a research room in a cultural institution desired by users, and how does the presence of a research room affect users’ perception of the cultural institution?
What approaches do libraries and archives use to improve user access to and awareness of audio resources within their collections?
Does open access to digital resources for objects in museum collections lessen the esteem that they receive from the general public?
Do programs implemented in the school library have a positive effect on students’ motivation?
Does library reference promotion and marketing encourage library users to utilize library reference services over quick online search engines such as Google or Yahoo?
How do various age groups respond to web tutorial information delivery methods in terms of perceived helpfulness and information retainment?

One of my students was interested in the qualities of a research room in a cultural institution desired by users, and I thought of her topic when I visited the Museum of Modern Arts in Istanbul. There is a research room/library inside of the museum and it’s interestingly designed. As you can see from the pictures, there were books hanging from the ceiling by a string piercing through the middle of each book. I wonder what this means. Well, this is modern art so it’s open to all kinds of interpretation. I have my own, but it’s too cynical so I’ll just keep it to myself.

Enhancing academic librarian’s research knowledge and skills – A lesson from South Africa

I’m currently working on a project to conduct content analysis of research articles published in the last decade in three popular journals among academic librarians, and the goal of the project is to understand the topics, trends, methods, strengths, and weaknesses of practitioner research (see previous post for more information about this project). Although it’s a lot of work, reading all these articles has been quite rewarding, particularly for my teaching – e.g. I have identified some really good candidates to use as readings for my courses.

One of the articles, “Darch, C. and De Jager, K. 2012. Making a difference in the Research Community: South Africa’s Library Academy Experience and the Researcher-Librarian relationship. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 38(3): 145-152. ”, talked about the organization, implementation and evaluation of a series of ‘Library Academy’ events within a Carnegie Corporation-funded project to improve library service to researchers in six South African universities. To some extent, the “Library Academy” series was similar to the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (see previous post for my involvement in this project), which seeks to assist librarians to develop the skills necessary to complete a research project of their design, and to construct a personal network of possible collaborators for future research projects.

The Library Academy aimed at “exposing participants to research content and methodologies in a wide range of non-LIS subject domains, and in requiring the production by each individual of an original and publishable research paper”, hoping to improve academic librarians’ research knowledge and enable them to provide better services to researchers, and thus ultimately enhance the researcher–librarian relationship.

Comprehensive assessment measures were used to understand the impact of The Library Academy. I particularly liked one of the self-assessment approaches – a process of real-time feedback was developed, using Post-It notes on a wall during or at the end of sessions, and the notes were then collected and transcribed. Maybe we can borrow this idea in the sessions of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship, so we can make real-time adjustment to our teaching.

At any rate, this article about The Library Academy series for academic librarians in South Africa was quite informative, and definitely worth reading, especially for those of us who are involved in developing the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship.

Books about Research Methods (5)

I have been thinking about developing a research methods course focusing on the survey method. Survey is a very old research technique. According to Earl Babbie’s “The Practice of Social Research”, the use of survey could be traced to the Old Testament – “After the plague the Lord said to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest, ‘Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, from twenty old and upward’” (Numbers 26: 1-2). Surveys are mainly used in studies that have individual people as the units of analysis, and to collect original data for describing a population too large to observe directly. In LIS research, survey is one of the most frequently used research methods. For example, survey research can be conducted to study user satisfaction with reference service, to assess student learning in information literacy instruction, to examine user awareness of mobile services provided by the library, etc.

To develop a course on survey research, the first thing is to find a textbook. I looked around and decided on “Internet, mail, and mixed-method surveys – the tailored design method”, by Don Dillman, Jolene Smyth and Leah Christian. It’s a comprehensive guide to designing and administering surveys. I particularly like how they talk about constructing survey questions – this is the most critical element in questionnaire design. I like their writing style too – straightforward and easy to understand. The only regret is that they did not include much discussion of analyzing survey responses. It’s understandable though – data analysis in survey research is a huge topic that warrants a book of its own. But I guess this means I will have to find other readings for this topic then. Time to dive back into the literature!

A grant project to help academic librarians improve research skills

I mentioned in the first post of this blog that in March I attended the “Research Day” event organized by Loyola Marymount University (LMU) Library and Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC), the purpose of which was to promote practitioner research and cultivate a research culture among academic librarians. Another important purpose this event served was to be a component in the grant application LMU submitted to IMLS to seek funding to create a learning opportunity and a support system for academic librarians who want to improve their research skills and increase their research output. Recently we learned that the project has received full funding from IMLS. How exciting!

SLIS is a partner in this grant application, and I will be involved as one of the project’s lead instructors. My responsibilities include developing, assessing, and refining Institute curriculum, identifying and addressing sustainability issues, and sharing project findings. The project will be three years long, and each year, LMU Library will host a nine-day Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL) in the summer, supplemented with pre-institute learning activities and ongoing support for the year following the institute to help participants conduct their research and share their findings. This means I will be going to LMU every summer and talk to librarians about research. I’m so glad to have this opportunity to work with practitioners about the research problems they encounter at work, and explore with them how to conducting research studies to solve the problems. Of course before the first institute, we will have to do a lot of work developing the curriculum. I can’t wait to get started!

Determining the proper research methods (3)

In the previous two posts, we looked at how we could choose a proper research method for our study needs, specifically, the qualitative or quantitative instruments we can use to gather data. But a research study’s methodological design is more than determining the specific data collection instruments. There is a broader consideration – the overall framework of the design. This framework could be a particular type of research design or a research paradigm that provides guidance for the data collection process.

For example, we are conducting a study to evaluate the impact of a new pedagogical approach on learning outcomes, and we may consider the experimental/semi-experimental design. In our study, we have an independent variable – new pedagogical approach, and a dependent variable – learning outcomes. We can treat the independent variable as the experimental stimulus, and see what happens when it’s present/absent. Given our resources, we may further consider whether a classical experiment is possible, or we should use semi-experimental designs like the time-series design or using non-equivalent control groups. Once we are clear about the design, we can further figure out the specific data gathering methods – methods we can use to collect data that measures the two variables.

Another example – let’s say we are interested in finding out what competencies are essential for reference librarians. Survey could be an appropriate method to use – we can send out surveys to reference librarians and ask them to self-report the competencies they consider essential to their work. But what if we are hoping to generate a consensus from the study, where the list of competencies is agreed upon by the study participants? In that case, we may use the Delphi study design as the design framework to guide the data collection process – the first step is to select a panel of experts (e.g. established authors in journals like RUSQ, leaders of the profession such as the head of RUSA), and then, we administer rounds of surveys among them to reach a consensus on what competencies are essential for reference librarians.

In qualitative research, there are numerous research paradigms that we can use as the framework of methodology –case study, grounded theory, participatory action research, institutional ethnography, ethnomethodology, and naturalism. These different paradigms represent different approaches to qualitative research. There are no specific methods attached to these paradigms. The distinctions are epistemological, having to do with what data mean, regardless of how they are collected.

Now it’s time to conclude the series of posts on determining the proper research methods – from the overall design to specific data collection methods, we need to understand both our own study needs/constraints and the characteristics and affordance of each method/design in order to make the best decision.

Determining the proper research methods (2)

Once we know whether we know what type of research we will be focusing one (qualitative vs. quantitative), the next step is to figure out the specific method for data collection. For quantitative research, the frequently used methods include survey, quantitative observations, and quantitative content analysis. There are different factors to consider, but the characteristics of each method carry the most weight. For example, we are conducting a study to find out if there’s any relationship between library users’ socio-economic status and their reading behavior. The socio-economic status is defined by annual income, and the reading behavior is indicated by the number of books they check out, the genres of the books, and check-out frequency, etc. We may distribute survey to all library users and ask them to provide information on these variables, but mail survey could be costly, and online survey often gets a very low response rate. Besides, it’s always imposing when we send out survey questionnaires. So, is there any other method that could overcome these limitations and get us the same data? One alternative is quantitative content analysis. If we have access to all library users’ library records, we can anonymize them, and then look at each user’s address (where people live could be an indicator of their level of income, and therefore socio-economic status) and their borrowing record. This method is completely unobtrusive, and will give us all the information we need on the two variables in the study, and maybe more accurately than a survey would because self-reported data is not always 100% precise (there might be memory lapses, incorrect interpretation of the question, etc.)

When it comes to qualitative research, the popular methods include field observations, focus group interview, and qualitative interview. Again, it’s important that we understand the affordance of each method in order to determine which one suits our needs best. For example, a library has a new teen space and we would like to find out how teenagers are using this space. We could go to the teen space and observe what teen library users are doing there (reading books, resting on the comfy couch, meeting in groups, etc.). Being a complete observer helps us maintain our objectivity, but the detachment from the phenomenon we are studying makes it difficult to get an in-depth understanding. So, we could invite teenagers to participate in focus group interviews and talk about how they are using the space and what they think about it. Such interview will surely provide us with a more in-depth view of the use of the teen space, but guiding and moderating a focused conversation is not easy and takes a lot practice and if not done properly, it would result in biased data.

Now we know that understanding each data collection method’s characteristics (advantages, disadvantages, etc.) is the most important factor in determining which method to use in our own study. There are also other factors, such as our access to the study population (how can we sample), the demographic of our study population (if we are studying children, we need to be super careful about surveying/interviewing them), and constraints like budget (do we have the money to provide incentives) and time frame (how much time do we have to complete the study).

(to be continued)

(picture source http://alephunky.deviantart.com/art/Choose-your-heart-190249846)

Determining the proper research methods (1)

In early August, our Gateway PhD students will come to San Jose for a one-week residency, and I was asked to give a talk to them about choosing proper research methods for their studies. To prepare for this talk, I will be sorting out my thoughts on this blog, and hopefully I will find the best way to cover this complex topic in the thirty minutes I’m given.

We all know that there are two types of research – quantitative and qualitative. Quantitative research seeks to describe observations of a phenomenon in quantitative measures, and results of quantitative research are usually numerical represented. Qualitative research, on the other hand, defies quantification and it captures the nuanced details of a phenomenon that cannot be observed by quantitative methods. Which type of research to pursue has everything to do with the nature of one’s research topic and research problem.

For example, we are studying people’s attitudes toward a new library policy, and we may approach it quantitatively. We may administer a survey among library patrons. On the survey, there are five statements representing different attitudes toward the policy, and patrons are asked to select the one they most agree with. Findings of the study can be described via measures like frequency distribution, mode, or even correlational measures (e.g. the relationship between demographic variables and the statement choice). For the same topic, we may also approach it qualitatively. Instead of using the survey instrument, we gather patrons in the library conference room to conduct focus group interviews. This means of inquiry will give us an in-depth view of their attitudes toward the policy, which will be a much fuller view than what the five statements can cover.

Now we are at a dilemma – which type of research should we engage in? Well, we need to go back to our original problem – people’s attitude toward the new library policy. How do we operationally define the variable “attitude toward the policy”? We may ask questions like – has there been any research about the new policy? Do we know enough about this policy to generate an exhaustive list of attributes for the variable (e.g. a list of statements to describe every possible attitude)? Is it our goal to find out how many people have what attitudes, or do we just want to understand how exactly patrons respond to this policy?

As you can see, these questions are helping us decide whether we want to pursue this topic deductively or inductively. The deductive approach allows us to go from general to specific – that is, we have a general theory, and we want to test it out in specific cases. The inductive approach is the other way around – we go from specific to general, and we make observations of specific cases and draw conclusions from that. So, if our answers to the above questions are – yes we do know enough to general an exhaustive list of attributes for the variable “attitude” and we do want to find out how many library patrons have what kinds of attitudes, it means we are approaching the topic deductively and should engage in quantitative research. On the other hand, we may approach the topic inductively and pursue qualitative research to find out what exactly are people’s attitudes toward the library policy.

(to be continued)

Phenomenology and LIS research

Phenomenology is a philosophy that qualitative researchers use to guide their own research. There are three schools of this phenomenology:

Edetic or descriptive phenomenology, guided by the work of Husserl
Hermeneutics, also referred to as interpretive or existential phenomenology, guided by the work of Heidegger and Gadmaer
The Dutch (Utrecht) school of phenomenology, which combines descriptive and interpretive phenomenology and raws on the work of Van Manean and Others.

An article I recently read (Dowling, M. & Cooney, A. (2012). Research approaches related to phenomenology: Negotiating a complex landscape. Nurse Researcher, 20(2), 21-27.) provided a detailed explanation of the three different perspectives and research approaches, and how they should be applied by nurse researchers.

One key difference between Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology and Heidegger’s interpretive phenomenology is that Husserl believed that a phenomenon and its essence can be objectively studied, requiring researchers to bracket out their perceived reality of world, whereas Heidegger rejected the notion of bracketing, claiming that a researcher cannot separate description from his her own interpretation. This difference bears resemblance to what distinguishes positivism from interpretivism. Researchers (at least nurse researchers nowadays) are trying to find the middle ground and focus more on understanding the reality of their experiences to the person as they engage with the phenomenon rather than the more objective reality of the nature of the phenomenon itself. In other words, phenomenology is most useful when the task at hand is to understand an experience as it is understood by those who are having it.

Reading this article made me want to find out how phenomenological research is done in LIS. I did a keyword search in Library Literature & Information Science Fulltext and came up with 32 results. Some were book reviews, some were reflection pieces and some others were empirical studies. Here is the list of citations – it will be very helpful if I ever teach a course on qualitative research and need to put together a list of class readings.

Burns, C., & Bossaller, J. (2012). Communication overload: a phenomenological inquiry into academic reference librarianship. Journal Of Documentation, 68(5), 597-617.
Chen, K., & Huang, I. (2012). Library Use by Medical Students Engaging in Problem-based Learning: A Taiwanese Case Study. Libri: International Journal Of Libraries & Information Services, 62(3), 248-258.
Budd, J. (2012). Phenomenological Critical Realism: A Practical Method for LIS. Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 53(1), 69-80.
Klentzin, J. (2010). Collective Success: A Phenomenological Case Study of Ohio Public Libraries. Public Library Quarterly, 29(4), 293-319.
Budd, J. M., Hill, H., & Shannon, B. (2010). Inquiring into the Real: A Realist Phenomenological Approach. Library Quarterly, 80(3), 267-284.
Hultgren, F. (2013). The stranger’s tale: information seeking as an outsider activity. Journal Of Documentation, 69(2), 275-294.
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. Internet & Higher Education, 1643-50.
Pietras, M., & Robinson, L. (2012). Three views of the “musical work”: bibliographical control in the music domain. Library Review, 61(8/9), 551-560.
Stephens, M. (2008). The Pragmatic Biblioblogger: Examining the Motivations and Observations of Early Adopter Librarian Bloggers. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 13(4), 311-345.
Budd, J. M. (2008). Cognitive Growth, Instruction, and Student Success. College & Research Libraries, 69(4), 319-330.
Templeton, T. (2008). Placing the Library: An Argument for the Phenomenological and Constructivist Approach to the Human Geography of the Library. Library Quarterly, 78(2), 195-209.
Julien, H., & Hoffman, C. (2008). Information Literacy Training in Canada’s Public Libraries. Library Quarterly, 78(1), 19-41.
Antell, K., & Engel, D. (2006). Conduciveness to Scholarship: The Essence of Academic Library as Place. College & Research Libraries, 67(6), 536-560.
Dalbello, M. (2005). A Phenomenological Study of an Emergent National Digital Library, Part I: Theory and Methodological Framework. Library Quarterly, 75(4), 391-420.
Brown, J., & Duke, T. (2005). Librarian and faculty collaborative instruction: A phenomenological self-study. Research Strategies, 20(3), 171-190.
Limberg, L., & Alexandersson, M. (2003). The School Library as a Space for Learning. School Libraries Worldwide, 9(1), 1-15.
Watson, J. (2001). Making sense of the stories of experience: methodology for research and teaching. Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 42(2), 137-148.
Horn, J. (1998). Qualitative research literature: a bibliographic essay. Library Trends, 46(4), 602-615.
Saab, D. J., & Riss, U. V. (2011). Information as ontologization. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science & Technology, 62(11), 2236-2246.