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...
Friday, June 22, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, June 08, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)