Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Page 196 of 302

  • 19 - Observation

  • from Part 3 - Data collection techniques
  • Alison Jane Pickard
  • Book:
    Research Methods in Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 January 2013, pp 225-234

  • Summary

    A major advantage of direct observation … is that it provides here-and-now experience in depth.

    (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, 273)

    Introduction

    Observations are carried out in order to provide evidence of the ‘here and now’, to discover how people behave and interact in particular situations. Almost all research involves observation of some sort, from the most formulaic laboratory experiment to the most natural ethnographic observation. In this chapter I want to focus on observ - ation as a direct and stated technique of data collection, not as a casual observation of the activity taking place. In this sense the observation needs to be designed, constructed and implemented as you would any other data collection instrument. Casually watching what takes place in a research setting is unlikely to lead to any real evidence that can be analysed and interpreted. The human memory is extremely selective; even the most experienced observer needs some form of aide-memoire to counteract the possibility of selective remembering.

    It is difficult to say when it is appropriate to use observational techniques in data collection. ‘As the actions and behaviours of people are a central aspect in virtually any enquiry, a natural and obvious technique is to watch what they do, to record this in some way and then describe, analyse and interpret that we have observed’ (Robson, 1997, 190). There are very few research situations that could not benefit from some form of observation, but your decision isn't really ‘is it appropriate?’ but more ‘is it the most appropriate?’ Once you decide it is the most appropriate technique then you need to decide on the form and structure.

    Patton (1987, 81) describes five dimensions of variation in approaches to observation:

  • • the role of the observer

  • • portrayal of that role to others

  • • portrayal of the purpose of the research

  • • duration of the observations

  • • focus of the observations.

    • These five dimensions provide a useful framework for discussing your option choices when considering how to observe, your role in the process of observing, and what to observe.

  • Part 2 - Research methods

  • Alison Jane Pickard
  • Book:
    Research Methods in Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 January 2013, pp 97-100

  • Summary

    Part 2 focuses on research methods, which we have already defined as the bounded system created by the researcher to engage in empirical investigation, the overall approach to the investigation. Often the choice of method is dictated by a number of factors, not least of which is the individual researcher's own paradigm preference. That said, very often external forces can drive our choices – the purpose of the research, the audience, resource constraints and so on. This second part describes and illustrates eight research methods. I am not claiming these are the only methods available but they are by far the most commonly used; some are more common than others within information and communication-related fields. I accept that what follows will have other labels within the research methods literature; they may be referred to as research strategies, research approaches or methodologies. I have already explained why I have chosen this particular terminology and can only say that, particularly for neophyte researchers, this has proved to be a logical approach to organizing an empirical investigation.

    Part 2 will focus on defining, designing and conducting eight research methods. In any single research study it is possible to use one or more of these methods. A single study is not restricted to a single method; depending on the purpose of the research and the resources available more than one method may be applied to the research design: ‘Methods are selected because they will provide the data you require to produce a complete piece of research. Decisions have to be made about which methods are best for particular purposes and then data-collecting instruments must be designed to do the job’ (Bell, 1999, 101).

    During the planning stages for this book I had intended to discuss online research in every chapter, looking at a ‘virtual’ case study as if it were inherently different from any other case study. The truth is, it is not. A research method follows the process and structure of that method regardless of the environment in which the method is applied. A research method remains that method regardless of location. A case study and ethnography continue to be just that; what changes is the nature of data collection within the method. The true implications of computer-mediated communication (CMC) are manifest in data collection, not in research method.

  • Part 4 - Data analysis and research presentation

  • Alison Jane Pickard
  • Book:
    Research Methods in Information
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 January 2013, pp 263-266

  • Summary

    In this section the aim is to discuss quantitative and qualitative analysis and how to present research. You have already been advised to read widely on the method and techniques of your choice, and this is emphasized even more in this section. It is outwith the scope of this text to provide the detail and depth necessary for you to master any of the methods of analysis covered here. My aim is to introduce you to these procedures and provide you with enough detail to identify appropriateness, making sure you understand the nature of your data and how you can use that data. There are entire texts dedicated to statistical and narrative analysis procedures, and now a great deal of free software on the internet that performs particular tests on your data. I do not repeat these procedures here but rather discuss how they can be applied in terms of their appropriateness to the data gathered.

  • Strand Four - Mapping and evaluating the information landscape

    • By Clare McCluskey, Clare McCluskey has worked in academic libraries since 2001 and in an academic librarian role since 2008, focusing on enquiry services prior to this.
  • Edited by Jane Secker, Emma Coonan
  • Book:
    Rethinking Information Literacy
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 41-54

  • Summary

    Strand Four focuses on developing students’ awareness of the range of academic information formats available, together with their characteristics and their relative benefits. These include traditional formats such as monographs, textbooks and peer-reviewed journal articles, but in the digital age also embrace researcher blogs, open access journals and preprint repositories as well as open web pages.

    A significant element in this strand is equipping students with the ability not only to recognize the variety of formats available and where and how to find them, but also to evaluate their appropriateness in the context of a specific task – e.g. an essay, a presentation, a dissertation. As in other strands, the focus is on enabling students to go beyond directed learning and achieve independent competence, mapping out the landscape of their subject for themselves and understanding the changing features of the information types within it.

    We met Clare at the first of a series of workshops we delivered on ANCIL in 2011 and 2012, and were immediately struck by her work. Not only is she a prolific and articulate advocate of a broad, holistic view of information literacy, but her research into partnerships and communities of practice in higher education aligns very closely with ANCIL's interprofessional vision. Here she describes how this approach has enhanced students’ understanding of the information landscape in education.

    Institutional context

    York St John University is a higher education institution with approximately 6000 students and 600 staff. Students study in one of four faculties/schools: the Faculty of Education and Theology, Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences or the York St John Business School. This case study takes place in the Faculty of Education and Theology, which is the largest in the university in terms of student numbers.

    The library service is part of a converged team with ICT, referred to as Information Learning Services, and sits in the resources stream, along with facilities. Four academic support librarians work to bridge the gap to the faculties, which sit in the academic stream, one per faculty.

    The approach outlined here is aligned with Initial Teacher Education courses, specifically the undergraduate BA(Hons) in Primary Education.

  • 5 - Getting things clear: objectives

  • from Part 2 - Evaluating Impact
  • David Streatfield, Sharon Markless
  • Book:
    Evaluating the Impact of Your Library
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 69-78

  • Summary

    This chapter focuses on the first stage of the model and explains how to work through it when evaluating the impact of your service. Impact evaluation is essentially about three things:

  • • Focus – being clear about the library's purposes; what you want the service to achieve and for whom (areas of impact turned into impact objectives)

  • • Indicators – deciding what will tell you that change has happened

  • • Evidence – being able to show that change has occurred.

    • The first stage of the evaluation process model is about focus.

    Choosing where to get involved

    If you are going to be more effective you need to choose how, where and with whom to get involved. Before you can make these decisions you should start with clarifying the impact you want to make – your objectives. However, you need to do this in the real world, so spelling out the objectives should take into account what is achievable. This means making careful choices and adopting clear priorities.

    The basic constraint for librarians is having to spend so much time on managing and operating the library infrastructure. This makes it difficult to step back and look critically at what the library is really trying to do: where should you concentrate your efforts? In which areas might you most fruitfully develop your service? The first step in impact evaluation calls for thought about key foci (success criteria) for your service which you can then turn into objectives.

    Lack of time is not the only problem; there are also issues of logistics. For example, in education librarianship there will always be many teachers and still more students to every librarian. Moreover, both teachers and students will spend much of their time out of physical reach of librarians, in the lecture room or classroom. Who should you target and how? Again, public library services are being called on to meet more and more externally imposed demands within existing resources. What should take priority and what should be left until later? Other types of libraries will encounter variations on these two constraints.

    Responding to both these constraints may well boil down to making choices about where to concentrate on being efficient (relying on traditional performance indicators to monitor performance) and where it is important to show yourselves or other people that you are being proactive and effective, rather than spreading limited time across too many initiatives.

  • 3 - The research base of this work

  • from Part 1 - The Context
  • David Streatfield, Sharon Markless
  • Book:
    Evaluating the Impact of Your Library
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 33-58

  • Summary

    If your main aim now is to get to grips with impact evaluation in your library, you may like to skip this chapter. On the other hand, if you are interested in what the literature has to say about impact evaluation and, more specifically, if you want to know about the research that underpins this book – please read on.

    This chapter looks at some of the main recent advances in evaluating impact in other sectors, how these have influenced our thinking and how they can help library service managers in evaluating impact. We then home in on the library and information research and what it tells us about the overall impact of various types of libraries. Finally, we outline the research base of our own work leading to this book.

    What we know about impact from the management literature

    Fortunately, perhaps, we don't have space here to trace all the twists and turns of researchers and management gurus who moved on from traditional performance measurement in a quest to determine the impact of services. Instead, we will look at a few important staging posts along the way.

    We have pointed to a shift in focus, away from monitoring processes and outputs using traditional performance indicators (busy-ness statistics) towards ‘higher-order outcomes’, ‘impact’ or ‘achievement’ – or from monitoring efficiency to gauging effectiveness. Earlier we noted the danger of adopting too narrow a focus on value for money or costs as the determining factor. The two main approaches described next arise out of concern to get a broad perspective on effectiveness and to translate this into practical evaluation action. Both versions were generated in the world of business and both are sufficiently widely used to make it worth considering them here.

    The balanced scorecard

    A useful way of ensuring balance in generating indicators comes in the form of the ‘balanced scorecard’. This approach was developed in business in the USA as a result of concern that financially based performance measurement systems are likely to produce a ‘control bias’ (as noted in section 1.3.2 above):

    The balanced scorecard, on the other hand … puts strategy and vision, not control, at the center. It establishes goals but assumes that people will adopt whatever behaviors and take whatever actions are necessary to arrive at those goals.

    Kaplan and Norton (1992)

  • Appendix 4 - ANCIL Institutional Audit: interview questions

  • Edited by Jane Secker, Emma Coonan
  • Book:
    Rethinking Information Literacy
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 161-164

  • Summary

    These questions were used in the pilot audit undertaken at York St John University and University of Worcester. They may be used in interviews (this is the recommended data collection method), and may also be adapted for use as a questionnaire.

    1. What is your job title?

    2. How would you summarise your role?

    3. Do you support students?

    4. At which point(s) do you support them?

  • 1 Throughout their time in higher education

  • 2 At transition

  • 3 At first year

  • 4 At second year

  • 5 At third year

  • 6 At postgraduate level

  • 7 At leaving

    • 5. These are the strands of the new curriculum. Does your role involve delivering provision or supporting students formally within any of them at the moment?

  • 1 Transition to higher education

  • 2 Becoming an independent learner

  • 3 Developing academic literacies

  • 4 Mapping and evaluating the information landscape

  • 5 Resource discovery in a set discipline

  • 6 Managing information

  • 7 Ethical dimension of information

  • 8 Presenting and communicating information

  • 9 Synthesising information and creating new knowledge

  • 10 Social dimension of information

    • 6. Where ‘formally’ means timetabled sessions that students have to attend, and ‘informally’ means non-compulsory sessions, online materials or other support, do you formally or informally:

  • 1 Help students produce work at HE level

  • 2 Help students differentiate between a popular and an academic resource

  • 3 Help students find their academic voice

  • 4 Help students work out how to find resources and understand the process

  • 5 Help students think about how they research and why

  • 6 Help students identify how they learn and what strategies they can use

  • 7 Help students deal with negative learning experiences

  • 8 Help students identify support available

  • 9 Help students learn to influence through use of language

  • 10 Help students understand how they are influenced

  • 11 Help students develop reading techniques like skimming

  • 12 Help students learn they can find relevant information in a resource that isn't apparently about their topic

  • 13 Help students develop evaluation skills

  • 14 Help students learn who their subject experts are and why

  • 15 Help students muster their argument with supporting evidence

  • 16 Help students know what the best tools are for them to use

  • Strand Eight - Presenting and communicating knowledge

    • By Andy Priestner, Andy Priestner is Information and Library Services Manager at Cambridge University's Judge Business School, where he has made radical changes to resource provision and service levels.
  • Edited by Jane Secker, Emma Coonan
  • Book:
    Rethinking Information Literacy
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 95-106

  • Summary

    Strand Eight covers all aspects of presenting and communicating knowledge – one of the less traditional aspects of information literacy, but also probably one of the most important in terms of a transferable and life skill. This strand includes finding your voice, learning to use language appropriately in academic and other types of writing, and using evidence to justify a position. In a digital environment how you present yourself and manage your online identity is an increasingly important facet of information literacy. This includes an awareness of how you appear to others online, deciding on an appropriate level of information to communicate with different audiences, managing your ‘digital footprint’ and evaluating the suitability of different locations and tools for presenting your online presence. The strand also includes an understanding of how to communicate appropriately, choosing appropriate writing styles and formats for a specific audience, as well as understanding the methods of publishing research in your discipline and the relationship between writing style, audience and publication platform.

    Andy was another member of the expert group consulted during the ANCIL research to provide input into both how to teach the curriculum and what to include in it. Strand Eight of the curriculum focuses on how to present and communicate knowledge in the broadest sense, and in many institutions teaching these skills has fallen outside the responsibility of librarians. However, the two examples of teaching sessions from Judge Business School show how librarians are often pioneering and leading the way in terms of being advocates of social media. Andy's approach also highlights the subtle but important shift from teacher to facilitator of learning, and the importance of allowing students to be active in the learning process.

    Institutional context

    Judge Business School is a leading provider of innovative and practical business and management education to executives, graduates and undergraduates. It is a fully integrated department of the University of Cambridge and boasts a world-class faculty of 50 members, many of whom are leaders in their field. In 2011 it was ranked second in the UK and seventh globally for one-year MBA programmes by the Financial Times. Our flagship MBA and Masters in Finance programmes have course fees of £36–38,000 per annum.

  • 6 - Success criteria and impact indicators: how you know you are making a difference

  • from Part 2 - Evaluating Impact
  • David Streatfield, Sharon Markless
  • Book:
    Evaluating the Impact of Your Library
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 79-104

  • Summary

    This chapter guides you through stage two of your quest to evaluate impact: choosing success criteria and using them to write specific impact indicators. The key question at this stage is ‘How can I tell if I am making a difference?’ or, to put it another way, ‘What do I want to be judged on in relation to each of my service objectives?’ Designing indicators is one of the most critical steps in the whole process of evaluating impact.

    Let us start with two more traps for the unwary.

    When we talk about the elephant trap in section 5.4.4, this is because we have seen so many library service managers slide from writing objectives into listing what they expect to do to achieve them. We've come to the conclusion that this happens because the driving motivation for most library managers is to provide as wide a range of services as possible for everyone. Where this is feasible there is no problem, but when resource limitations kick in it is necessary to start asking questions about what works best.

    The same problem crops up at this stage, but with the subtle difference that people slide from ‘How can I tell if the service is making a difference’ to ‘How well are we doing this?’ As Linley and Usherwood (1998) say:

    Even where people have sought to assess the libraries’ performance against goals … the emphasis [is] on developing indicators of administrative effectiveness, that is of process.

    The second trap to beware of is that it is easy to slide into the problems of collecting the evidence needed to inform your indicators, rather than sorting out the indicators and then worrying about the evidence. This leads to library managers shying away from indicators that might be difficult to measure.

    Working through this chapter should help you to avoid these traps.

    Laws Of Impact Evaluation 4

    When you are thinking about what impact you would like to see, don't inhibit yourself by worrying about how you will gather the evidence – yet!

    Formulating success criteria: getting the balance right

    You should now be ready to translate your service objectives into success criteria. If you have written clear objectives, you should be able to answer the questions:

  • • What sort of changes am I looking for in the people that I want to reach with this service objective? or

  • 8 - Thinking about evidence

  • from Part 2 - Evaluating Impact
  • David Streatfield, Sharon Markless
  • Book:
    Evaluating the Impact of Your Library
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    23 December 2012, pp 113-126

  • Summary

    If you are working systematically through this section of the book, you have already done much of the main thinking that you need for evidence gathering. Assuming that you have thought clearly about what you are trying to achieve, how you can tell that changes are happening and what will tell you that the changes have happened, you are more than halfway to cracking the problem of gathering evidence. You now need to decide how much evidence to gather.

    Deciding your approach to gathering evidence

    When people are faced with the prospect of gathering evidence the first reaction is often to panic. How can busy practitioners do the work of professional researchers as well? The answer is that you don't have to. Effective impact evaluation involves careful focus on what is important and then gathering the minimum amount of evidence needed to tell you what you need to know. It should be reassuring to recognize that evidence is not a separate category of information; it is information chosen by someone and gathered for a particular purpose.

    The organizational context

    The same evidence-collection activities may work in one place and fail somewhere else. When choosing how to gather your evidence, you need to take account of the culture of your organization, current work pressures and how ready your staff are to get involved in this work. Some of the factors to consider are:

  • Other current or imminent evidence gathering elsewhere in the organization that may compete or conflict with your efforts. (For example, when a university library decides to conduct a survey of part-time and off-campus students it knows that services to these users are a big issue for the university. It suddenly becomes a bigger issue. The governors call for a survey and the central audit team jump straight in with a hurried and poorly designed effort. This produces little of worth, but the library team has to wait for several months for the dust to settle before doing its own survey.)

  • Timing: what are the best and worst times of day, week, month or year to engage with your target respondents?

  • Whether your target respondents favour or dislike particular evidence gathering methods. Have they been over-exposed to any particular methods (e.g. are they ‘allergic’ to questionnaires)?

Page 196 of 302