Reflection Log 8

This week we read about putting research results to work. The one thing that stuck out most in my mind after reading the
Van Fleet and Durrance article about public libraries is that communication is key. There needs to be thoughtful and deliberate communication between researchers and practitioners in the public library setting. I have always found it somewhat strange that public librarians aren't required to contribute to the research of the field, like academic librarians are. I may be wrong about that but it seems to me that public library administrators are the ones doing the research about matters concerning public librarianship. Regardless, there needs to be some kind of mechanism in place to keep all involved in the know about trends and developments in the field. The authors cite several common communication activities, such as networking at conferences, that help those in public librarianship keep up to date on the current research. Most of the respondents still felt that there was a huge communication gap between administration/researchers and public library practitioners. The authors offer recommendations, given by the survey respondents, for closing the communication gap. This task seems pretty monumental to me but, I think, if everyone involved realizes the significance of the dissemination of research results and makes it a priority, everything should fall into place more easily.

Wallace and Van Fleet write about evaluation. They tell us that "No system is an island" (Wallace and Van Fleet 2001, 1). I really, truly agree with this idea but I also enjoyed Line's perverse take on Ranganathan's 5 laws. Like most people who work in libraries (I assume), I too have been guilty of one or more of these. But this all goes back to the systems thinking described by Wallace and Van Fleet. Everything is connected and, if everyone were as optimistic and idealistic as Ranganathan's 5 laws at all times, there would be no need or desire to "waste the time of the reader" (Wallace and Van Fleet 2001, 3). Anyway, Line's laws really hit home and made me laugh... What the authors wish to convey, in my opinion, is that in order to successfully and meaningfully evaluate something, the effort that goes into the evaluation must be thorough. Otherwise the end result will be essentially meaningless.

Reflection Log 7

This week we read about statistics and data analysis. Who knew there were so many ways to lie with statistics? I know it's done all the time, for example to sell things, but I was honestly surprised there were so many different ways to do it. Math and numbers have never been my strong suit and I never took a statistics course in college, so the first part of the lecture was kind of overwhelming. I liked the second part better; about statistical testing and inferential statistics, which are about relationships between variables. I can understand things like testing hypotheses and probability a lot better than dispersion and curves, where you have to use formulas to makes sense of them. That's just me though. Although, as with anything, I have to actually do something to really understand it. I think I would find it interesting to use statistics in a library study; to see what's "normal" for a specific group of library users in trying to complete some task or other.

It's almost time for our conference proposals. I am enjoying this assignment because, I assume, I will have to do this for real at some point in my career. Like I said earlier, I learn more by doing than by reading about it, so I feel this is really helping me. After this class is over, it's time to find a job. I'm really looking forward to it but also nervous as hell. I think I need to take some interview lessons...

Reflection Log 6

This week's (well, last week's) readings were about funding for research. This is also my last late blog entry of the semester (sorry 'bout that). I admit I just skimmed the Grant Writing Handbook reading (partly because of a major printing malfunction - tried to be green by printing on the backsides of used paper - ugh, nevermind) but the gist of it is that researchers need to keep themselves aware of current "giving trends." I like the sound of that... This means "understanding business and economic trends...when researching what funders - especially corporate funders - will be a good match for your project" (Wason 2004, 69). The author gives some helpful tips - a list of newsletters, listservs, databases, and other publications that can help researchers focus on giving trends in their search for funding. One common thread I noticed in the readings was that personal contacts (board members, executives, etc.) are very important because "they may know of initiatives that are on the horizon but not yet publicized" (Wason 2004, 76). It's who you know, as they say... The author even gives tips on how to search databases for funding - for example, there is a list of Boolean search terms, each with detailed explanations on what results you can expect when using them.

The two readings from Geever present similar tips for research funding but go into a little more detail with regard to making contact. The author gives pointers for not annoying potential funders, which I thought might be particularly useful. I'm sure funders have plenty of stories to tell about researchers who have gone about things in the wrong way. That can be such a turn off.

I think the readings provide a solid foundation for someone looking for funding opportunities. It really helps to put everything into context, like thinking about your project from the funder's point of view.

Reflection Log 5

This week was about citation analysis and bibliometrics. I have a friend who is a professor in the social sciences and I've heard her talk about citation counts before - it really is a big deal when you're going up for tenure. Luckily, she gets cited all over the place, so I'm sure she'll have no problem when the time comes for her. After reading the articles, it's easy to see how citations could be manipulated for good or for evil...just like anything else in the world, I guess. (Jeez, cynical much? Sorry.)

The part I found the most interesting was the questions addressed by citation studies: i.e. the author's motivation for citing, the relationship between the cited works, the reason(s) for citing, differences in citation practices by discipline, etc. Also, the assumptions of most citation studies - all the works cited have been used, the cited work exhibits quality, only the best possible works have been used, the cited work is related to the citing work, and that all citations are equal. It's a lot to think about, that's for sure. Like evaluation and experimental research (last week), this is not an exact science either because of all the human factors involved. Regardless, it's a pretty interesting thing to study, I think - to see the patterns and relationships between works/people/places/etc.

Reflection Log 4

OK, so I'm a week late on this one. Sorry... Comps and other life stress stuff. I won't bore you with the details.

Anyway, last week's readings were about experimental and qualitative/evaluation research. I liked Sharon Baker's article about experimental research. It's interesting to learn what can and can't be trusted in library experiments. The reference question experiment is one I've heard of before but the others were pretty interesting. I think it's especially interesting how males and females differ in their interpretation of others' behavior, well at least in the reference experiment example. I also found the notion of internal and external validity in library experiments very interesting. It would seem to me that both would be very hard to establish in library experiments, although external would definitely be more difficult, if not impossible.

The other article was about evaluating items and services for inclusion or exclusion in a library collection. I never had to take Collection Development, even though my specialization is academic libraries (I know!), so I thought this article might be a useful one for me to hang on to in case I need to know about these things for my job someday. Anyway, it seems like a good idea to know what questions to ask and how to keep all the other factors in mind that might influence decision making. A lot of the information in this article reminded me of stuff I learned in management class - planning, evaluation, mission, goals, that type of thing.

Reflection Log 3

This week's readings focused on historical and descriptive research. Historical research focuses on some phenomenon of the past, whereas descriptive research describes a particular phenomenon or concern and can be either qualitative or quantitative in nature. There are many issues surrounding both types of research, including validity, reliability, accuracy, bias, expense, etc. that have to be taken into consideration by researchers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both kinds of research and their data-gathering tools; one would simply have to decide which methodology would work best for the phenomenon being studied. There are so many things to think about when conducting research - more than I would have ever imagined. For example, before this course, it never would have entered my mind that asking someone's age on a questionnaire could be offensive. The course textbook has valuable tips that could serve as a wonderful guide to someone conducting research for the first time, or any time, for that matter.

Sorry for the rather meager entry this week. Been studying/stressing out for the comps...

Reflection Log 2

This week got a little deeper into research - how to do it and how to understand it. I found Dr. Carl Drott's "How to Read Research: An Approach to the Literature for Practitioners" to be very helpful. I appreciate how he broke it down into four sections - Literature Review, Methodology, Analysis and Findings. I foresee going back to this article again and again as I'm reading articles and studies for my own research. Drott's systematic approach will be a useful tool for understanding the research of others. Along with Drott's article, Dr. Shirley Aaron's article, "Applying Drott's Criteria for Reading Research," puts Drott's method into practice on a study about interactive technologies in schools. This was an interesting article because, even though the study Aaron used was not available to me, I gained an understanding of it through her application of Drott's approach. I believe this will also be of great help to me as I read research articles for this class. I always find it particularly useful to see a plan in action when it comes to abstract concepts like the ones Drott discusses.

The textbook also had valuable advice for writing research proposals and reports. There were some great tips on where to look for library and information science sources for the introduction and statement of the problem. I got my initial problem statement back today and, as I feared, it was too broad in scope. That's always my problem; I really have a hard time narrowing things down. But I'm talking with Dr. Wallace on Monday so I'm sure that will help.

REFERENCES

Aaron, Shirley L. 1985. Applying Drott's criteria for reading research. School Library Media Quarterly 13 (Winter): 64-68.

Drott, M. Carl. 1984. How to read research: An approach to the literature for practitioners. School Library Media Quarterly 12 (Fall): 445-49.

Powell, Ronald R. and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. Basic Research Methods for Librarians, 4th ed. Chapters 10 & 11.

Reflection Log 1

Aaaahhh, Research Methods - I've been looking forward to this class. Not only because it's my last class in the program but also because I will need to know how to properly conduct research when I'm an academic librarian on the tenure track, which I hope to be SOON (hint to anyone hiring out there...) This is my first of several reflection logs I will write over the course of this summer class.

What first struck me as I read through the articles and chapters for this week is what I've noticed some on my own, working in an academic library - the state of research in library and information science. I've seen both sides of it, I guess. On one hand, I see the research efforts of librarians with whom I work every day. On the other hand, being in grad school, I read current research by information professionals from around the world. It's pretty interesting to see the dichotomy between the two. I'm not saying I know every bit of research that every librarian is doing where I work but what I do know of is nothing like the articles we have read in the MLIS program. Then again, most of the librarians here at the university aren't PhDs and are merely satisfying tenure requirements. Maybe that's why their research (at least, the research of which I am aware) is of a more practical or bibliographic, rather than scholarly or scientific nature. That's not to say that one is better than the other; just that most of what I read in the MLIS program was more scholarly.

Now on to the readings. I tend to agree with Hernon and Schwartz's editorial. Then again, the article is 14 years old and a lot has changed in library and information science since then. I would think that with the advances in technology, it would be easier to collect scientific data now than it was before. For example, I would think it would be easier to collect circulation data and search terms input into catalogs now that it's all electronic. But this is just the first week of class; I could be way off...

I completely agree with O'Connor and Park's plea for the "perfect librarian." I agree that ALA should be involved in the MLIS cirriculum and that it should always require a research methods course, especially for students on the academic track.

I also agree with everything that Van Fleet and Wallace had to say, not because one of them is the professor for this course, ha ha. I find the notion of anti-research quite fascinating, actually. Why anyone would be against research, for any reason, really mystifies me. Near the end of the article, the authors state, "The call in Ms. Paietta's letter is to 'combine all our energies in eradicating illiteracy.' As laudible and as forceful as this charge is, however, it is fraught with dangers" (304). This would be, to me, like blindly going along with the "War on Drugs" or "War on Terror" campaigns, as opposed to getting to the real root of the perceived problem(s) to find out why things like illiteracy, drug abuse and terrorism exist in the first place. What's funny is that, without the continued funding of library programs, there would very likely be much more illiteracy as more and more library users would be further displaced by the digital divide. Ugh. Anyway.

Well, those are my thoughts thus far. I actually enjoyed reading the textbook. I get kind of excited when I enjoy a textbook. It is very well written and easy to understand and I like that it is specifically for librarians. I'm looking forward to learning how to become a real researcher. I've got a lot of ideas for future research...

REFERENCES

Hernon, Peter and Candy Schwartz. 1993. Library and information science research: Is it misunderstood? Library & Information Science Research 15: 215-17.

O'Connor, Dan and Soyeon Park. 2002. On my mind: Research methods as essential knowledge. American Libraries 33 (January): 50.

Powell, Ronald R. and Lynn Silipigni Connaway. 2004. Basic Research Methods for Librarians, Fourth Ed., Chapters 1-3.

Van Fleet, Connie and Danny P. Wallace. 1992. Beals revisited: Sad tidings, lamentation, and anti-research. RQ 31 (Spring): 301-05.