research methods

STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY

Through research, librarians explore, describe, and/or explain chosen dimensions of librarianship, from both theoretical and practical perspectives (Babbie, 2016, pp. 90-93). Research can be primary or secondary in nature, can be conducted within one’s own institution or beyond, and can incorporate a balance of quantitative and qualitative methods. Findings are often published in the form of research articles in peer-reviewed journals, or presented publicly at professional development events and conferences. Silva, et al. (2017) indicate that academic institutions often require a certain quota of published research activity, before considering librarians for tenure-track faculty status; as such, while research serves to further knowledge within the field, it is often motivated in part by career aspirations (p. 430). Research additionally functions to improve institutional services, particularly when localized participants or data are studied. Luo and McKinney (2015) find that common research topics within academic librarianship include information literacy, information behavior, personnel issues, scholarly communications, and digital resources (p. 127).

Upon noting an absence of published literature in a given area, from a specific perspective, or within a chosen institutional context, researchers initiate a study by identifying a research problem (Luo, et al., 2017, pp. 20-22). By extension, a carefully worded research question aims to apply conceptual focus to the problem at hand, identify a key variable to be tested, guide the structure and methodology of the research process, frame potential findings, and “[prevent the study] from aimless floating” (p. 23). The research question anchors the research proposal: a document or presentation designed with the intention of attaining administrative approval for research, which pitches the topic, perspective, and parameters of the study at hand, establishes existing knowledge in the form of a literature review, proposes quantitative and/or qualitative data-collection methods according to key variables indicated in the research question, offers a schedule for completion, and estimates required financial resources (Babbie, 2016, pp. 118-120).

Additionally, given that primary research often requires the participation of human subjects, research proposals indicate the nature and degree of human subject involvement, and account for ethical considerations such as attaining informed consent from subjects, assuring their anonymity and/or confidentiality within published research, and mitigating any potential for physical or psychological harm (pp. 62-66). In a process separate from—but parallel to—research proposals, approval for human subjects research is attained from Institutional Review Boards (IRBs): faculty and staff panels, mandated by federal law within all institutions seeking federal grants for research initiatives (p. 70). Types of review processes depend on the degree to which a given study requires the participation of subjects deemed as vulnerable, or places physical and psychological stress upon participants; studies demonstrating increased risk, in this regard, trigger a full review, while studies demonstrating a low level of risk are eligible for expedited review or exempt review (Luo, et al., 2017, p. 31).

Depending on the nature and parameters of a given study, research methods are typically either quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative methods imply the collection and analysis of numerical data, while qualitative methods take a comparatively interpretive, narrative approach (Luo, et al., 2017; Sutton, 2017). Surveys and questionnaires are common examples of quantitative research methods, while common qualitative research methods include in-depth interviews, focus groups, and usability testing. Other research methods are interchangeably quantitative or qualitative, depending on their application. Experimental research seeks to evaluate the effects of independent variables (e.g., library instruction sessions) upon dependent variables (e.g., information literacy among college students), and can achieve this within both numerical and narrative contexts (p. 67). Content analysis involves the interpretation of existing data, text, or other forms of communication, and can be achieved by quantitative means (e.g., bibliometrics) or qualitative means (e.g., the establishment of recurring themes within data) (pp. 80-81).

The decision to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods depends largely on the nature of a given study. Quantitative methods are often preferable in cases where previous research has firmly established patterns, behaviors, attitudes, or other variables central to a given topic, while qualitative methods are often used when previous research is lacking, or when previous findings are ambiguous (p. 28). Additionally, quantitative methods can establish generalizations about populations beyond the scope of a given study through statistical means, while qualitative methods can achieve a greater depth of analysis within limited pools of participants, through narrative, exploratory tactics (p. 89). 

Suppose, for example, that a researcher seeks to determine user attitudes toward virtual reference services; a survey presents a quantitative method by which the researcher can attain a wide—albeit shallow—range of feedback, while a focus group presents a qualitative method by which the researcher can reach a more comprehensive depth of understanding, but on a narrower scale. As such, researchers might employ a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, so as to achieve depth and breadth of understanding regarding their study population. Upon selecting one or more research methods, researchers choose or design a specific data collection instrument which corresponds to the larger method. For example, while usability testing is a qualitative method, a specific usability testing process—which may comprise a series of prototypes, along with user prompts and observation guidelines—qualifies as a data collection instrument.

The process of selecting a study population depends largely upon chosen research methods and data collection instruments, and is known as sampling. Incorporating statistical and demographic data, probability sampling primarily serves quantitative methods, and seeks to produce a study population representative of and proportionate to a larger population, so that generalizations can be drawn based on research findings (Babbie, 2016, pp. 190-193). Probability sampling can be a technically demanding, resource-intensive process; as such, nonprobability sampling—which tasks researchers with composing a study population according to their best judgement—is often a more practical option, and often preferable within the context of qualitative methods (p. 186). Nonprobability sampling takes various forms, depending on the study population required. Purposive sampling involves the composition of a study population based upon a researcher’s understanding of a larger demographic group (p. 187). Quota sampling resembles purposive sampling, yet relies on harder demographic data to identify traits of relevant participants based on data points (p. 188); researchers often undertake snowball sampling when subjects are perceived as difficult to find, by tasking a few key subjects to locate and recruit participants from shared communities (p. 188).

After using chosen data collection instruments to conduct research upon chosen data or populations, findings are analyzed and synthesized. In quantitative contexts, researchers typically analyze findings by establishing the frequency of given occurrences within their resulting data, and/or correlations between given values (Luo, et al., 2017, p. 35). In qualitative contexts, textual material—often achieved through transcription—is typically analyzed for patterns, correlations, and recurring themes (p. 35). Researchers subsequently address their analyses by way of synthesis, which “closes the loop” between the research problem, question, process, and findings (p. 36). Synthesis is reflected within journal articles submitted for peer-review, conference proposals, and other means; through these avenues, research findings are publicized, and contribute to ongoing knowledge and understanding within the field.

COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT

My understanding of research within librarianship began during INFO 200 (Information Communities), in which I was tasked with writing a research paper that centered the unobtrusive, qualitative method of content analysis. This process introduced me to the purpose of literature reviews, as well as the standards of analysis and synthesis they require. During INFO 244 (Online Searching), I learned a variety of search strategies which can prove useful when investigating existing literature at the beginning stages of a research process. INFO 230 (Issues in Academic Libraries) introduced me to scholarly communications topics, including open-access publishing, institutional repositories, publishing cooperatives, and the relationship between published research and tenure-track faculty status. INFO 285-11 (Research in Academic Librarianship) greatly improved my understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods, probability and nonprobability sampling, and other issues central to academic library research, including ethical oversight of human subjects.

CONCLUSION

Through research practices, librarians can continually improve services within their own institutions, while contributing to peer-reviewed literature and conference proceedings which serve to develop knowledge and understanding within the greater field of LIS. Librarians can utilize quantitative research methods to assess frequency distribution and correlations within numerical data, and qualitative methods to analyze textual and spoken information via interpretive means. When conducting human subjects research, librarians utilize sampling design to achieve a pool of participants which meets the demands of the study at hand, and obtain ethical clearance by seeking approval from their institution’s IRB. By developing research questions which reflect under-explored topics, themes, perspectives, and localized needs, and conducting processes of research, analysis, and synthesis which competently fill those gaps, librarians can meaningfully participate in, and advance, discourse central to their profession.

REFERENCES

Babbie, E. (2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Luo, L. & McKinney, M. (2015). JAL in the past decade: A comprehensive analysis of academic library research. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(2), 123-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.01.003

Luo, L., Brancolini, K., & Kennedy, M. R. (2017). Enhancing library and information research skills: A guide for academic librarians. Libraries Unlimited.

Silva, E., Galbraith, Q., & Groesbeck, M. (2017). Academic librarians’ changing perceptions of faculty status and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 428-441. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.4.428

Sutton, B. (2017). Qualitative research methods in library and information science. In J. D. McDonald & M. Levine-Clark (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information sciences (4th ed., pp. 3806-3819). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS4