L - Research Methods

Demonstrate understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods, the ability to design a research project, and the ability to evaluate and synthesize research literature.

Introduction and Explication

The Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science defines research as the “systematic, painstaking investigation of a topic, or in a field of study, often employing hypothesis and experimentation, undertaken by a person intent on revealing new facts, theories, or principles, or determining the current state of knowledge of the subject” (Reitz, n.d.). A scholarly research project begins with the identification of a topic of study that – from the library and information science (LIS) professional’s perspective­ – emerges from the information needs stated by a researcher. This topic should be placed within the theoretical context of a relevant knowledge domain with the intention of furthering that domain's knowledge base.

Once a topical area is identified, an effective information professional assists the researcher by locating recent, topically-pertinent scholarship via a systematic review and analysis of tertiary, primary, and secondary resources. It is from this scholarly literature review that a nascent core research question emerges which functions as a guide for the researcher’s next steps, including selecting a research methodology; identifying data subjects; formulating a project budget and securing funding; data collection, management, and analysis; and documenting and reporting findings. Of critical importance, research projects that collect data from human subjects, "either through direct interaction (interviews, surveys, experimental interventions, etc.) or through the use of private records about individuals", must comply with those institutional policies, and state and federal regulations, which were "established to ensure the safety of research participants and the ethical and responsible conduct of investigators (Office of Research, n.d.).

Designing a Research Project

“The heart of every research project is the problem. It is paramount in importance to the success of the research effort. To see the problem with unwavering clarity and to state it in precise and unmistakable terms is the first requirement in the research process” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015, p. 43).

Evaluating and Synthesizing Research Literature

The research process involves a series of procedural steps beginning with initial identification of a subject-specific problem and a review of recent topically-relevant scholarly literature within a “theoretical or conceptual framework for the subsequent research project” (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 31).These steps evolve concurrently, with the scholarly literature review supporting both the identification of a gap in existing scholarship and the rationale for the project (Connaway & Radford, 2017, pp. 30; 38-39). Moreover, the literature review enables the researcher to identify the most effective approaches to resolve the identified problem through analysis of what is currently known about it, what research methods have been used previously, and which methods were most effective for problem resolution (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p.  31).

A research question or hypothesis emerges as a product of the researcher’s “conceptual thinking, inquiry, and insight”, and contextual information gleaned from the topical literature review (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 35). The purpose of this theoretically-situated statement is to act as a project guide, and to define the project’s scope, purpose, and limitations (Connaway & Radford, 2017, pp. 31; 37-38). The researcher identifies and defines key subject-specific concepts and terms, often employing a controlled vocabulary (e.g., Library of Congress Subject Headings) to facilitate their ongoing investigation of current scholarship and to ensure the findability and usability of their project outcomes by future researchers.

Upon completing the initial literature review, and development of a hypothesis or research question, the researcher defines their methodological approach to the collection and analysis of evidence. The methodology should be a systematic, procedural process aimed at answering the research question in a manner that is applicable to their problem, relevant to a domain of knowledge, repeatable, and replicable by future researchers (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 213).

Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative research methods collect evidence; answer a problem-based question; are systematic procedural processes that do not have pre-determined findings; are applicable to a domain of knowledge; and can be replicated by other researchers repeatable (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 213). Both quantitative and qualitative research methods meet these criteria, and both methods may be used together, an approach often employed by social science researchers  (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 62).

Quantitative research methods are deductive in nature, typically reliant upon numerical data, and considered more structured and objective than qualitative methods (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 62). In quantitative methodology, researchers test their theory-based hypothesis to achieve an “unambiguous and relational statement of the extent of a [causal] relationship between [two or more] variables” that explains the specific phenomena under observation (Connaway & Radford, 2017,pp. 31; 70). Generally, quantitative methods rely on statistical analysis of numerical data to categorize findings. Examples include citation analysis and surveys.

Effective qualitative research methods represent a causal relationship (Connaway & Radford, 2017, p. 35). As a methodology, qualitative research relies upon inductive, subjective observation and interpretation of relationships. “The underlying ideology is that behavior can be explained only by the perspectives and highly subjective constructions of respondent(s) or participant(s), not by any objective truth” (Connaway & Radford, 2017. p. 61). Rather than testing a hypothesis, qualitative research develops a contextual hypothesis from the dataset (Connaway & Radford, 2017, pp. 212-213). Examples include card sorting and ethnography.

Regardless of methodology, scholarly research should be (1) universal in that it will produce the same (or close to the same) results when conducted by other researchers; (2) replicable, meaning the project can be repeated; (3) critical elements are controlled so as to enable replication; and (4) measured, meaning observations of a phenomenon are recorded (Connaway & Radford, 2017, pp. 40-42). However, as Connaway and Radford (2017, pp. 42) note, qualitative research is challenging to control, and measurement if the social sciences and humanities is often imprecise.

Evidence

Evidence 1:   Coding Summary of Semi-Structured Interviews: DFGF Library and Research Evaluation Project

This coding summary is one component of a final research project report (itself only a component of the entire project), written by a team of LIS professionals and student researchers for our independent study project, A Science Librarian in Africa (INFO 298, F22). The document summarizes the information gleaned from gathering data from a series of semi-structured, qualitative interviews with key leadership involved in an emerging science research library in Rwanda. Prior to developing this comprehensive summary of categories and concepts which emerged from the dataset, I developed the methodology section of the team's annotated bibliography; obtained informed consent from human subjects; co-interviewed participants; transcribed interviews; identified emerging categories and concepts; and developed this codes summary for use in the final report presented to the emerging library's leadership.

This summary provides evidence of my mastery of Competency L by articulating my capacity to strategically engage in ethical data collection and analysis; synthesize and articulate existing scholarship within a theoretical framework; and identify and describe core evidence-based concepts and categories with the aim of providing new, topically relevant information to an existing knowledge area and offer practical, actionable recommendations in support of an emerging function within an existing organizational structure.

Evidence 2:     All the Things: A History of the Meaning of Material Objects to Western Historiography

Written for Applied Historical Research Methods (INFO 285, F23), All the Things: A History of the Meaning of Material Objects to Western Historiography is a research project proposal addressing the ways that material objects of the past have informed Western historical scholarship in throughout the modern era. The proposal includes a research question reflecting of a gap in current history scholarship as identified from my review of primary, secondary, and tertiary resources. A historiographic analysis elucidates key contextualizing information gleaned from the literature review and proposes a possible answer to the core research question. Specific examples from primary sources are described, theoretical issues and approaches addressed, and a methodological approach identified and elaborated upon. In addition to these project elements, a tentative chapter outline, bibliography, and proposed project timeline and project budget are presented.

This research project proposal is evidence of my knowledge and skills related to Competency L in that it represents my capacity to apply my information science resource identification, analysis, documentation, and synthesizing skills to design a viable, evidence-based history research project inclusive of all necessary high-level elements and those more practical considerations such as a project cost projection, timeline, and a chapter outline.

Evidence 3: Conducting User Research: Card Sorting  Links to an external site.

Conducting User Research: Card Sorting is a group project completed in the course, Information Retrieval System Design (INFO 202, F21). Each group member participated collaboratively on all aspects of the project, including engaging with stakeholders, collecting and analyzing data, and writing the report.

The user-centered, generative technique of card sorting is utilized by researchers seeking to develop an intuitive, usable, and satisfying system interface r understanding users’ mental models. For this assignment, our group was asked to conduct an actual card sorting experiment to support the development of a hypothetical user-centric website meant to catalog and contextually represent the life of an individual. Eleven data participants were provided a stack of cards representing single objects from a personal collection. Each subject was asked to sort these documents into categories that made sense to them. No other direction for the process was supplied to the subjects. Once all data was collected, the group of student investigators compared and contrasted the groupings/categories, and developed a working hypothesis about participant’s mental sorting methods and reasoning.

This project represents my knowledge and skills in Competency L as it presents a collaborative research project utilizing the technique of card sorting. Card sorting is a reliable qualitative research method that poses very little risk to data privacy and protection, yet underpins effective identification and consideration of user-generated patterns, thus facilitating the design of an intuitive and satisfying user experience and, in turn, ensuring accurate and useful information retrieval.

Evidence 4: Literature Review Matrix Links to an external site.

Written for Information Communities (INFO 200, F21), this Literature Review Matrix evaluates and synthesizes current, existing scholarly literature regarding the information behaviors and expectations of participants in the virtual Time Team information community, an international network of virtually connected, serious leisure hobbyists who are collectively interested in contextualizing the truth of human experience and history through varying levels of participation in three-day, community-based archaeological evaluations. The matrix includes a definition of the information community, an explanation of significance to the study of information behaviors, and a research statement. Further, in incorporates a review and synthesis of thirteen resources which address the subject areas of participatory culture; community archaeology; open access and open data; and the impact of Web 2.0 tools on participant expectations and behaviors regarding informational management by traditional, hierarchical institutions. In addition to annotating these secondary resources, I included notes on my analysis of each source within the context of my subject area, including future research implications and implications for professional information practice.

This matrix is evidence of my Competency L as it is a detailed, topically-situated scholarly literature review and analysis grounded in LIS theories. The literature review is an essential task when designing a research project as it enables the researcher to assess and reflect on current, existing research on a subject; understand the usefulness of previously used research methods; identify a gap in existing research; and learn which research methods have proven to be most effective for achieving problem resolution. 

Conclusion

All scholarly research projects begin with a review of current subject-specific information and, as such, information professionals act as critical resources to researchers seeking to gain contextual, current, and topically-relevant information to support their investigative process. Additionally, as directed by our professional associations, LIS professionals actively contribute to our domain's knowledge base by providing new, theory-based knowledge and interpretations to that base which supports our mission to provide broad, inclusive, and equitable access to and use of those resources which underpin meaningful research projects in all domains.

References

Cervone, H. F. (2018). Managing data and data analysis in information organizations. In Information services today : an introduction (pp. 314–330). Rowman & Littlefield.

Chu, H. (2015). Research methods in library and information science: A content analysis. Library & Information Science Research, 37(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2014.09.003 Links to an external site.

Connaway, L. S., & Radford, M. L. (2017). Research methods in library and information science. Libraries Unlimited.

Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2015). Practical research: Planning and design. Pearson Education Limited.

Luo, L. (2017). Diversified research methods education in LIS: Thinking outside the box. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Online, 58(2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.12783/issn.2328-2967/58/2/1 Links to an external site.

Office of Research. (n.d.). About the IRB. San Jose State University. https://www.sjsu.edu/research/research-compliance/irb/irb-about.php Links to an external site.

Reitz, J. M. (n.d.). research. In Dictionary for Library and Information Science. ABC CLIO. https://odlis.abc-clio.com/odlis_r.html Links to an external site.