Facet Publishing

Summary

Only good girls keep diaries. Bad girls don't have time.

(Tallulah Brockman Bankhead, 1903–68, from Lobenthal, 2004)

Introduction

The use of participant diaries as a data collection technique within LIS research has been largely overlooked, and where they are mentioned they are not looked on approvingly. Slater (1990) regards them as recorded self-observations and because of this places less value on their role in research in comparison with researcher observations. It is precisely the ‘systemization and editing by their creators, at the conscious or unconscious level’ (123) that Slater claims as a disadvantage, which provides the added data that may be valuable to the research. Ellis warns that diaries or logs rely ‘on the willingness and ability of the [research participants] to complete the diaries’ and that it is ‘questionable whether they would [be] able to [do] so comprehensively and accurately’ (Ellis, 1993, 475). Asking the participants in the research to keep logbooks or diaries of their behaviour can add to data collection in two ways: these records can provide confirmation of observations made by the researcher, and they can fill in gaps when the researcher cannot be present. Diaries can offer insight into the behaviour, feelings and thoughts of research participants. However, it is not easy to encourage participants to maintain dairies; you are asking for quite a commitment in terms of time and effort. Participants need to be convinced there is a good reason for giving this much of their time to your research.

Participant diaries are not the only form of diary in the research process; researchers’ diaries have long been used as a tool, although it is not strictly a data collection technique. I will discuss the use of researchers’ diaries in this chapter as I feel it is an essential part of the research process. It is rare to find researchers’ logs discussed in the methodology of any study but again this form of data collection has not received much attention in LIS research. Even in action research, which is heavily dependent on reflective thinking, we rarely find any real discussion about the use of a researcher's diary.

Summary

Survey data are usually obtained by means of a questionnaire, a series of pre-determined questions that can be either self-administered, administered by mail, or asked interviewers. When the questionnaire is to be administered by interview, it is often called an interview schedule. The use of questionnaires in research is based on one basic underlying assumption: that the respondent will be both willing and able to give truthful answers.

(Burns, 2000, 571)

Introduction

Questionnaires are without doubt the single most popular data collection tools in any research involving human subjects. I usually begin any lecture on questionnaire design by saying that so much of what you are about to hear (or in this case read) would appear to be ‘common sense’. It's amazing how common sense can fly out of the window when researchers becomes so steeped in their subject and are eager to gather data that they lose their objective eye when it comes to critically analysing data collection instruments. A lot of the discussion in this chapter may appear to be ‘common sense’; if that is indeed the case then try to ensure that you use your common sense well.

There are a number of reasons for using questionnaires in your research: you can reach a large and geographically dispersed community at relatively low cost, you can harvest data from a larger sample than would be possible using any other technique, anonymity can be offered as well as confidentiality, and the data analysis can be determined from the outset, even as far as coding before the questionnaires have been distributed. Having said all of that, the most usual reason I am given by new researchers for the choice of questionnaire for data collection is ‘I won't have to talk to anybody’. This may well be a very good reason in the eyes of the neophyte researcher; it is not a good enough reason in terms of research credibility. Identify the purpose of your investigation and what you hope to do with your data once it has been analysed; base your choice on the aim of the research (although we all know personal preference will enter into the decision-making process).

Summary

Introduction

As I said in the introduction to Part 4, there is neither the space nor the necessity for me to provide a guide to each statistical process and test discussed in this chapter. There is a plethora of information available on these procedures, explaining how to perform them and indeed even explaining the software to perform them. Some internet sites will even perform certain tests on datasets without the need to purchase specific software. The purpose of this chapter is to present a discussion on the nature of numerical datasets, the appropriateness of statistical analysis and the fundamental principles involved in the procedures for this analysis. This chapter is concerned with techniques for processing and displaying data, ways of exploring datasets and analysis of relationships between datasets; it is not about how to do it. The discussion is concerned with when to do what to your data and why you do it. I would strongly urge that you use one or more of the recommended texts listed at the end of this chapter to become familiar with the processes involved.

It has become relatively simple to apply complicated tests to datasets using particular software; we discuss SPSS in more detail later in this chapter, and my concern is that you understand why you are performing these tests and what is actually happening to the data when you do it. I still teach statistical analysis in a ‘classroom’ setting with students, calculating many tests by hand before going on to use software for larger datasets, rather than in a computer laboratory using dedicated software; that comes later. I do this because I feel it is essential to understand what is being done if you are to provide a real description of what the results are showing us, so that you understand what has happened to your data and what your findings actually say about that data. You may now be pleased that I do not have the space here to go over these procedures but please take the time to understand the statistical procedures you apply to your data; even something as simple as a manual exercise using a very small dataset can clarify what is going on when you run a particular operation on your data in SPSS or some other dedicated software package.

Summary

This section will deal with individual techniques for collecting empirical data. As I said in the opening section of this book, data collection techniques are not necessarily directly associated with specific research methods. Very often particular techniques for the collection of empirical data are presented as if they are synonymous with particular research methods, for example a questionnaire or a survey. I do not regard these as the same and hope that the distinction is made clear in this text. Your choice of research method does not necessarily restrict you to a particular technique for the collection of your empirical data, although sometimes this may be the case. This is usually because a particular technique is the most commonly applied, not because it is the only choice available. As I have pointed out in earlier chapters, research is a constantly evolving process; just because something has ‘always been done that way’ is not a good enough reason to continue doing it that way. We learn by trying and adapting what tools we have. I am going to discuss the most common of those tools here. How you apply them and in what context to choose to apply them is up to you within whatever constraints are imposed on you by academic or organizational requirements. Remember, success and failure in research are very tenuous concepts; finding out what does not work can be as useful as finding out what does.

Here is my understanding and interpretation of a selection of data collection techniques. Consider your research question, your research focus, your data sources and your own life experience and make your selection based on ‘best fit for purpose’. I would urge you to take the occasional risk and sometimes take the less common approach, but that does not mean I would want you to jeopardize the success of your research in an attempt to be overly adventurous. Weigh up your experience and your goals, seek advice from your supervisors or mentors then go out and collect your data in the most appropriate way for you. This can often be the most challenging element of the research process but in my opinion it is also the most exciting and rewarding. It is amazing what you see when you start looking.

Summary

Conversation is a basic mode of human interaction. Human beings talk to each other…. Through conversations we get to know other people, get to learn about their experiences, feelings, and hopes and the world they live in.

(Kvale, 1996, 5)

Introduction

The research interview can take a number of different forms, from the very structured, formal interview which is usually a researcher-administered questionnaire, to the very informal, purposeful conversation (Dexter, 1970; Lincoln and Guba, 1985), usually led by the participant with the researcher not taking control of the process until it comes to the analysis and interpretation (Tagg, 1985). Between these extreme poles it is possible to design an interview that is appropriate to the topic of the research, the nature of the participant and the experience of the researcher. I would never recommend that a neophyte interviewer attempted a totally unstructured conversation as their first ever experience. Not only is the prospect a daunting one but also lack of experience could lead to very little being taken away from the interview situation.

The only way to become a good interviewer is to practise; there is no secret formula to becoming an expert interviewer if there is such a thing. It is all down to knowing your topic and knowing yourself and how you react in the interview situation. Knowing your topic is the easy part; your literature review should have you ‘steeped’ in the topic. Knowing yourself is a different matter. If you decide to use interviews in your research then spend time practising your technique. The best way to start is to choose a topic you are very familiar with, then choose a friend who is also familiar with this topic. Design a set of questions, keep it as informal as you wish then engage in a purposeful conversation. The difference between this and any other conversation you might have with this friend on this topic is that this time you will collect data, and have evidence of what was said in the form of answers to your questions. We will look at formal piloting later; this interview practice is more concerned with gauging your own ability as an attentive, interested, alert and responsive interviewer.

Summary

Research is formalised curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose.

(Hurston, 1996, 143)

The purpose of this handbook is to provide a reference guide to the research process for students and practitioners in the fields of information studies, communications, records management, knowledge management and related disciplines. The importance of research within these disciplines should not be underestimated, as ‘research skills are a prerequisite for those who want to work successfully in information environments, an essential set of tools which enable information workers to become information professionals’ (Harvey, 2000, xiv). Knowledge and experience of research is a fundamental part of what makes the ‘information professional’. Harvey provides a number of reasons why research is so important in the workplace; not least of them is the need to meet the ever-increasing requirements of accountability of services. In order to maintain dynamic and appropriate services we need to be constantly examining what we do and how we do it. When attempting to improve these services, research often offers the answer; research can help us identify problems in the workplace and very often provide solutions to those problems (Harvey, 2000).

Two years after the publication of the first edition of this text the ‘Library and Information Science Research Coalition’ was formed as a three-year project to: ‘bring together information about LIS research opportunities and results; encourage dialogue between research funders; promote LIS practitioner research and the translation of research outcomes into practice; articulate a strategic approach to LIS research; promote the development of research capacity in LIS.’ (LIS Research Coalition, 2012). This initiative has highlighted the significance of research methods to the LIS community and the need to continue to develop professional research excellence.

These are very practical, ‘real’ benefits of research but there is also the need to increase the body of knowledge that makes up the profession, to continue to engage in the questioning process that allows the professional to grow. This should never be underestimated. Even if information professionals are not active researchers all of the time, it is an inescapable fact that they must certainly be intelligent and informed consumers of research.

Summary

Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size.

(John of Salisbury, 1159, McGarry translation, 167)

Introduction

Literature reviews can take on two roles, one is as a research method in itself and the other as preparation for further empirical investigation. This chapter does not focus on systematic reviews for evidence-based practice, which has a very particular design. Here I focus on ways of exploring the literature to identify what is already known and what needs to be explored further; once literature is identified the approach offered here can be used for any literature synthesis. If you think of your research as a grand adventure, then the literature review, in the form we discuss here, is the runway to that grand adventure; it is the thing that gets you off the ground and ready to fly. The literature review is an adventure in itself; discovering what is already known about a particular topic, sometimes from within a number of different disciplines, and bringing it together, often for the first time. It is obvious why Google Scholar™ uses a variation of the quote from John of Salisbury: we see further because we can explore the work of those who have gone before us, stand on the shoulders of their discoveries and see further as our own questions develop. This means exploring your topic both within your own academic discipline and across disciplines. For example, if you were interested in how young people interact with information you may find yourselves exploring the literature in information science, communication, education, psychology and sociology. It is the topic that drives the investigation and that means sometimes having to look outside the obvious to determine the state of knowledge. A literature review is a ‘runway’ because it should:

Summary

… a product or service is truly usable, that is the user can do what he or she wants to do the way he or she expects to be able to do it, without hindrance, hesitation or question.

(Ruben and Chisnell, 2008, 4)

Introduction

Usability testing and systems evaluations are about purpose, this purpose can be achieved by a number of research methods and a number of data collection techniques. Again, choice of data collection is based on ‘best fit for purpose’, not some predetermined law that associates a data collection technique with a research method just because that's the way it has always been done. Chowdhury and Chowdhury (2011) have provided a text specifically focused on usability in digital libraries which explores the many combinations of research methods and data collection techniques that can be applied to developing an understanding of our users and investigating systems to explore usability. There are many potential approaches to usability testing but many of these are simply an adaptation of existing research methods focused on the relationship between user and system. In LIS we associate type of research with ‘user behaviour’, ‘information seeking’ and ‘information need’ as well as systems testing. It is a combination of all aspects that provides us with the overall picture of usability. Ruben and Chisnell (2008, 23) talk about why usability cannot follow the ‘classical approach for conducting a controlled experiment.’ This is actually as much a discussion around qualitative and quantitative approaches to research as it is about approaches to usability testing. Quasi-experimental usability studies

User testing in this more formal sense can be more easily associated with the quasiexperiment, where behaviour is watched, recorded and analysed in a structured context. This context can vary from a sample group of users being asked to perform a set of predetermined tasks on a system in their natural setting to a sample group being invited into a laboratory to be watched and often recorded performing the tasks set by the evaluator. These tests usually involve the following stages although not all will be used in every user test.

Summary

Introduction

The way you present your research will depend on the nature of the research and the audience. My own experience is very much focused in two areas: preparing students for their academic dissertation and presenting my own research in the form of journal articles and conference papers. For the purposes of this chapter I am going to focus on the presentation of a research dissertation, as this is the research report that more often than not will be expected to cover every aspect of the research process. You will have to decide which elements to include and which to leave out depending on the form of presentation you are preparing. Having said that, even the shortest of research papers will usually include a section on each stage in the process, depending at which stage in the research the paper is written.

Before I discuss the stages of presentation I would like to say something about the writing process itself. Very often neophyte researchers make the very peculiar and to me totally incomprehensible decision to leave all of their writing until the end. I am still amazed when a student arrives at a tutorial without having sent me something to read beforehand; in they walk and say they would like to talk about ‘such and such’. They then tell me a lot about ‘such and such’ but it is very difficult for me to make any real contribution other than offer my verbal response to their ideas (it's also amazing that some of them have incredible memories and do not feel the need to take down any notes during the discussion!). I would strongly urge anyone engaged in research to write often and share what they have written. Identify a ‘critical friend’ early on; this may be a project supervisor or a line manager or a friend who understands something of what you are trying to do, someone to share your thoughts with in the form of written conversation.

For almost all new researchers the prospect of writing the report or dissertation is very daunting; instead of thinking of the whole, try arranging it in your mind as a series of essays on the stages of the research. You have engaged in a lot of hard work to reach the stage of presenting your research.

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of a Delphi study is to ‘obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts … by a series of intensive questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback’ (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963, 458). Helmer and Rescher were researchers employed by the RAND Corporation, the first organization ever to be called a ‘think-tank’, working for the US Air Force. The research project they were working on required the design of a method that would lead to predication of future events based on expert knowledge. Together they designed, justified and applied a method that was later to become known as the ‘Delphi’ method. In the first public dissemination of the development of this method, in 1959 Helmer and Rescher offered this explanation of why their method was best suited to prediction:

The informed expert, with his resources of background knowledge and his cultivated sense of relevance and bearing of the generalities in particular cases, is best able to carry out the application of the quasi-laws necessary for reasoned prediction in this field…. For the expert has at his ready disposal a large store of (mostly unarticulated) background knowledge and a refined sensitivity to its relevance, through the intuitive application of which he is often able to produce trustworthy personal probabilities regarding hypotheses in his area of expertness.

(Helmer and Rescher, 1959, 31)

The name ‘Delphi’ was first applied to this technique by Kaplan (Woundenberg, 1991), and the association with Greek mythology was no accident. The temple at Delphi was the supposed location where the oracle Pythia would consult the gods and interpret their responses for the waiting public. There is a hint here that this was a somewhat less than complimentary reference but nonetheless the name quickly became the accepted term for this research method.

The original purpose of a Delphi study was to predict future trends but over the past 50 years this method has been applied to many studies that sought a consensus of expert opinion, not always concerned with predicting future events, but always concerned with ‘expert opinion’.

Summary

Introduction – research data and its management Challenges

Research data management (RDM) comprises the activities that keep your data secure, accessible and usable. It is a fundamental part of good research practice. So what is the research data that needs to be managed? Unfortunately, a single definition of research data does not exist. One generic definition states that research data is ‘the evidence base on which … researchers build their analytic or other work’ (Fry et al., 2008). Another defines it as being ‘collected, observed, or created, for purposes of analysis to produce original research results’ (superior figures refer to the list of websites at the end of this chapter, on pages 85–6). More detailed definitions depend on the research discipline and the nature of the research being undertaken. The following definition of research shows the wide scope of this activity, and therefore the wide scope of research data:

… original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce, industry, and to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improve materials, devises, products and processes, including design and construction.

(HEFCE, 2005)

If we consider research data in this broad, inclusive context then it will mean different things to different researchers, and can effectively be many things. For example, a scientist will collect numerical data using instruments, a social scientist will obtain people's words from interviews, an artist will develop a work of art or a performance, using materials and observations to stimulate their creativity. Identifying what data will be created and used in the course of a research project is the first step in ensuring it is managed appropriately.

Table 6.1 provides examples of a wide range of data types and formats that are commonly created and/or used during a research project. It shows there is a lot of data to manage and protect and that it is not in one format or in one place.

Summary

By the term ‘qualitative research,’ we mean any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification.

(Strauss and Corbin, 1998, 10)

Introduction

Qualitative analysis is applied in any study that focuses on emerging theory, using the inductive analysis process to arrive at an understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. When applying qualitative analysis the purpose is to generate a hypothesis based on the data gathered and interpretation of that data. This chapter is concerned with the analysis of rich, detailed, qualitative data. In my opinion this does not include answers to open-ended questions in a questionnaire; this is rarely, if ever, qualitative data. We are talking here about the analysis of detailed responses to indepth interviewing, observation and focus group discussion. In qualitative research the gathering and analysis of data occurs concurrently; it is a constant interplay of data and analysis, data informing analysis, and analysis informing new data collection. Morse (1997, 26) believes that the process of qualitative analysis involves:

Summary

Why write a proposal?

There are a number of reasons for preparing a research proposal. In the case of funded research it is quite simply that there will be no funding without one. All funding bodies have their own framework for a submission of a research proposal; in many cases these frameworks are now in electronic form and very structured, often restricting the writer to a specific number of characters in each section. (For an example see Pickard (2009).) These proposal frameworks are created to ensure that all the necessary requirements of the funding body are covered in the proposal and to provide uniformity when examining their merits. This is usually a highly competitive arena and proposals will be seen by a number of referees, who will rate each one according to a predefined, criterion-based evaluation. Proposals that achieve the highest grades will usually be funded according to the budget available. This approach to bidding for research funding is clearly defined and the purpose of submitting the proposal is very clear. However, the role of a research proposal is far more extensive than this; it has a very important function in the research process whether or not funding is an issue. It may be that even though actual funding is not available, you will need to convince your line manager or tutor that this is a viable and worthwhile research project, one that is worthy of your time and effort. Smallscale, work-based projects are still costly. Even without direct funding, there is your time to consider, resources that may be needed and possibly the time of potential participants if they are in the same organization.

Academic research such as a dissertation will always require some form of proposal. Sometimes this is assessed as part of a taught course of study, other times it is an intrinsic part of a dissertation module. This chapter will not discuss specific proposal frameworks such as those provided by research funding bodies. Here we will look at the various elements of a research proposal: what needs to be said, why it needs to be said and how best to say it.

Summary

Introduction

Powell, Single and Lloyd define a focus group as, ‘a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research’ (1996, 499). The focus group technique has been used in social research since the late 1930s (Kreuger, 1988), but possibly the most obvious use of the technique has been in market research, where it is applied to investigate consumer preferences and habits. This technique is not usually recommended to new, inexperienced researchers as it demands a relatively high level of understanding.

In focus group research the researcher acts as a mediator between the question and the group and between the individual members of the group. Depending on their level of involvement in the topic this can be a rather difficult role. However, focus groups are becoming increasingly popular in qualitative research as a means of gathering data from a number of sources at the same time. A focus group allows ‘a variety of perspectives and explanations [to] be obtained from a single data-gathering session’ (Gorman and Clayton, 2005, 143).

Every researcher has to start somewhere and a number of my former students have conducted focus groups very successfully even though it was the first time they had attempted the technique and they were sometimes very nervous. As with every data collection technique, if it fits the purpose then I would recommend you go for it but not without testing your ability as a moderator first, and not without immersing yourself in the topic and being very clear about why you are there. You must remain in control of the situation and ensure that your research goals are achieved; you may be confronted with some strong characters and you must stay focused and keep the session on track.

Purpose of a focus group

There are many reasons for selecting focus groups as a data collection technique in qualitative research.

Summary

Introduction

The primary purpose of this text is to provide an overview of the research process and a guide to the options available to any researcher wishing to engage in that process. It has been said that too much time spent engaging in the ‘higher’ philosophical debate surrounding research limits the amount of actual research that gets done. All researchers have their work to do and ultimately it is the ‘doing’ that counts, but the debate is a fascinating one and it would be very remiss not to provide you with some level of introduction to it. If you find yourself reading this chapter and thinking ‘so what?’, take some time to examine the implications of a paradigm on the research process. What follows is a very brief discussion of the major research paradigms in the fields of information, communication and related disciplines.

We are going to take a tour of three research paradigms: positivism, postpositivism and interpretivism. I had considered revising this for this edition but after extensive investigation into the developing discourse, I have decided that my basic belief has not been altered by these debates. There are those that lament the absence of a fourth paradigm which covers the mixed-methods approach from this text, namely pragmatism, but try as I might I can find no philosophical underpinning for pragmatism that is not already argued within a postpositive axiology. For some this will be too much, for others too little. Those of you who want more can follow the leads at the end of the chapter; those of you who want less, please bear with me for the brief tour of the major research traditions of our dis cipline. Having at least a basic understanding of different research paradigms is important at any level, if for no other reason than making you aware of the potential implications of the choices you make: ‘Being aware of paradigmatic blinders is a first step towards greater situational responsiveness and creativity in making methods decisions’ (Patton, 1988, 118).

Guba and Lincoln go further and claim that ‘paradigm issues are crucial; no inquir - er ought to go about the business of inquiry without being clear about just what paradigm informs and guides his or her approach’ (1998, 218).

Facet Publishing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Actions for selected content:

6023 results in Facet Publishing

20 - Diaries

Summary

18 - Questionnaires

Summary

24 - Quantitative analysis

Summary

Contents

References

Index

Part 3 - Data collection techniques

Summary

17 - Interviews

Summary

Introduction

Summary

Glossary of research terms

2 - Reviewing literature

Summary

11 - Usability testing

Summary

25 - Presenting the research

Summary

13 - Delphi study

Summary

6 - Research Data Management

Summary

23 - Qualitative analysis

Summary

Frontmatter

4 - The research proposal

Summary

21 - Focus groups

Summary

1 - Major research paradigms

Summary

Facet Publishing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary

Summary