Between ROCM and a hard research question

Like Mary I have recently had some personal matters to attend to (MOVING!), which gave me an untimely break from school obligations. Please forgive that I am currently two chapters behind in my readings. 

However, while unpacking I stumbled upon my syllabus from ROCM.  Truth be told, no matter what anyone says about the 2012 ROCM course, I enjoyed the philosophical meanderings that questioned Representation, Organization, Classification and Meaning-making in the information profession. Yes, the course was disorganized and a bit messy in its delivery but its pedagogy aimed to teach students how to think critically about information practices.  After ROCM I was able to ask ontological (what exists in the world) and epistemological (nature of human knowledge and understanding) questions about LIS and ARM practices.  The ability to confidently question the profession and its practices is undoubtedly how librarians have been able to stay relevant throughout the evolving technologies, mediums and user demands of yesterday and today (please note: with the exception of records managers, archivists adaptability has been a different story).  By asking difficult questions about why we classify information, how we determine subject headings and why these decisions might reflect or affect society, can help us to find better solutions and ultimately stay relevant. As a result, I now have the tools and ability to question theory and a means to identify best practices.

So in all this reflection on ROCM where does this leave my research proposal? Well, I had one of those Oprah "Ah Ha!" moments in Chapter 4 of Luker where she asks, "What Is This A Case Of, Anyway? She then asks readers four questions to help formulate a research question. These questions in turn prompted me to define how they related to the ROCM acronym. This approach was incredibly helpful for me to understand what it is exactly that I want to ask and answer in my research question. My rationale for making these connections is supported by the fact that there is no undergraduate equivalent to the MI degree and no canonical information methodologies prevalent across the field (hence the reason why we are reading a SOCIAL SCIENCES research methods text and not one about Information science). As a result, I found it necessary to formulate a research approach that I could understand purely from an information based perspective.

Additionally, I have combined Luker’s analogy that sociologists are like journalists (but slower) except they work to answer the HOW in addition to who, what, where, when and why (p.55).  Additionally, I will show you how these journalist/sociologist questions can be applied to ROCM topics and Research Methods.

Context - 

Who: Record Managers in Public sector/municipal government

What:  Records, administration and Risk Assessment tools

Figure 1.

Journalist	ROCM	Luker Chapter 4 (p. 51-52)	Researcher
Where	Representation	1. A research question asks for a set of relationships between or among concepts or “variables”.	WHERE are broad concepts represented together?
When	Organization	2. Understanding that relationship between variables help us to explain something important about… ARM/LIS theory and practices.	WHEN can broader concepts be organized to reveal narrower concepts?
Why	Classification	3. A true research question permits a range of possible answers that can be empirically or logically examined to see if some answers fit the data.	WHY is the act of classifying data results useful?
How	Meaning-making	4. A good research question, properly answered, advances some part in one or more intellectual conversations that are already going on in some part of the scholarly world that matters to you.	HOW is this question going to make relevant meaning to me and the profession?

 *The ROCM questions would use epistemological and ontological questions to inform a methodological approach.

Luker calls random sampling a voyage and warns that, "we do want to protect ourselves from the complaint that our small group of observations is totally idiosyncratic for one reason or another"  (p.46).  While my thoughts are logical observations about Information practices and research methods, it is not an empirical sample.  Therefore, I welcome further insight and would appreciate critical questions, suggestions or observations about the potential value of this research aid/organizer from other group members. Could this be a useful tool for others to organize research questions and concepts to formulate meaning-making? 

Re: Alyssa's post on Sources of information (Web 2.0) - Feb 11th

I would also suggest Kate Theimer's book called, A different kind of Web: new connections between archives and our users (2011). Theimer offers a user -friendly way to approach Twitter, Blogs, Facebook and a general web presence for archivists. As many of us know, it can be difficult to create a platform within an archival institution that warrants social media. For example, unlike a library which thrives on interactions with users about new books, resources, tutorials, events, etc. an archives tends to be more static in what it offers. As a result, Theimer's social-media savvy suggestions have been  inspirational for many practicing archivists who want to participate in online communities (for FREE!). Theimer is currently active on Twitter, facebook and runs a blog called www.archivesnext.com

Personally, I was quite excited about her book and eager to put it into practice. After I read the book  I tweeted: Just read "#Web2.0 Tools and Strategies for #Archives..." Happy to see @archivistsdotca and @LibraryArchives using #Flickr and#twitter!

To my excitement the ACA (Association of Canadian Archivists) retweeted my post.  I immediately felt part of an online community and experienced the results of Theimer's advice.  While what I said was short and sweet it brought further meaning to the importance of online communities.

I suggest others try (if you haven't already) making connections, no matter how small, with your own online professional affiliations!

In the spirit of Luker, welcome back from your week of Salsa Dancing.  I hope the week provided time for enjoying walks, books, movies, naps, and whatever else puts a little dance step into your life.  My mother broke her hip two weeks ago so I spent the week in a rehab with her trying to help her learn to walk again.  A break from all my other obligations and a chance to focus on the immediate.  And maybe it was with this mindset that I approached the three peer review articles which I simply read without any note-taking or highlighting.  The "Occupy Online..." looked to be engaging for it was not too long ago that I was in Washington DC with my iphone trying to log on to a server and I picked up the "Occupy" server.  But this research paper didn't hold my attention.  Despite the charts and graphs, I felt as though I was just being handed lots of summarized data without any argument or new information.  Perhaps that is what happens with some research projects--perhaps after the process of collecting data and analyzing data--the researcher realizes that nothing new has been revealed.  What does one do then?  Consider changing the method of data collection?  Consider changing the method of analyzing data?  I found myself wondering how another researcher might have approached the "Occupy Online" question.  Maybe my week with my parents has made me more impatient --I don't want descriptions, I want new information or insights.  My final comment, again likely related to my time with my mother and the staff, was that all three of these articles were collaborative projects.  In a sense, that is the purpose of the blog and the class discussions. In the second half of this term, I am going to try to give more feedback and respond to my fellow bloggers.  Whether it is learning ot walk or doing a research proposal, you can't do it alone.
Mary Power

Data Outcropping and Sampling

In chapter six of Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences, Kristen Luker explains how one of the main reasons to perform sampling is to come up with generalizations (e.g. if six out of ten people react a certain way in a random sample, it means that sixty percent of the population is likely to do so as well) (Luker 2008). While these generalizations seem to be substantiated by the sampling process, I am still troubled that we put so much faith into sampling to make these statements. What if the random sample is somehow tainted? What precautions are taken to make sure the sample is truly random?

In this chapter, Luker also explains the concept of data outcropping (2008) which involves sampling a group of people relevant to the research issue (e.g. sampling a group of pregnant women for research on pregnancy vs. sampling an entirely random population where some of the participants’ answers will not apply to the research). If data outcropping does help make sampling results more accurate, does this mean that generalizations that are a result of data outcropping should be trusted more than other research generalizations? Also, are we expected to always perform data outcropping or does the type of research we’re doing dictate the way that we would sample?

Luker, K. (2008). Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.

Mental Representation

In thinking about the “mere-measurement effect” I really had hoped someone would just ask me if I was intending on ever finishing the Research Methods paper. I really needed all the help I could get. But - no such luck … instead I am stuck with the “procrastination effect” mulling over ideas and interests as opposed to just writing down the damn question and getting to it. But reading onward in “When Questions Change Behaviour”, I began to re-think my paper’s focus. The more I read - the more I questioned. The more I questioned - The more I changed direction. In a positive light - I guess you could say that all of that questioning might move you to think in new, vast and lateral directions. But certainly, the inactivity of distraction cannot be a good thing. Perhaps it is a mixed bag. Regardless, it did seem to do the trick. Thinking about how information in the form of a question, statement or utterance of intent could alter future behaviours seems somehow relevant in my chosen area of addiction research. This automatic mental representation or thought simulation of intended behaviour helped me in a big way. It brought me far enough away from shuddering about Jesse Helms and closer to the reality of finishing my paper. I think I will actually be ok.

ps. I also really appreciated that Twitter guide from Alyssa. 

pps. Mary, the name of the video was People Are Knowledge and I couldn’t agree more with you about your thoughts on conversations as an essential resource.

Sources of information (Web 2.0)

I was thinking about Mary's post on sources of information and it reminded me of a recent link my professor at UBC posted about the networked researcher. It is part of the library at the University of York's Support for Researchers (Resources and useful information for researchers) and it offers information about using web 2.0 tools as part of your research. They have a comprehensive guide to using Twitter, which I found really interesting and useful. As I was reading it, I started thinking about my approach to research and how some of the approaches may be non-traditional. I rely on LISTSERVs to find articles, experts, and engage in conversation with other academics with similar research interests. I have also found interesting articles and people on Twitter through my own conversations or observing other conversations taking place in my feed. Even though Twitter didn't exist in 2002 when Knight was published, and it was only 2 years old when Luker was first published, it boils down to the conversation. Web 2.0 enables us to engage with others at the cocktail party with greater ease, I would argue. At least that is what I'm finding—does anyone else?

sources of information

I like to read acknowledgements in front of books--I like to hear who is thanked--usually family members for tolerating long absences or bad dinners....But the shout outs to colleagues have me thinking about sources of information.  I remember last year when we discussed the challenges of oral communities contributing to Wikipedia.  We all agreed that people were sources of information. (wasn't that the title of the video?)  And so when we talk about focus groups and interviews, I can't how think that these "conversations" are planned and while informative, I am more interested in the conversations we have with others--conversations that plant an idea or direct us to a resource and set us on the right or off the wrong path.  As "librarians" in the broadest sense, we will be called to direct others to sources of information or ideas.  At that same time, we need to develop skills to be able to accept ideas, corrections, and direction.  And so, as I think about research and do a literature review, I remember the acknowledgements and am reminded that I need to seek out others for feedback and ideas and at the same time, I need to share my time and ideas with others.  Go ahead, read the first few pages of any research-laden book and you will be inspired.  Mary

As I struggle with defining my research question, I have found that it has been helpful, not to write, but to sketch my decision making process.  So I have started with an idea, broad and interconnected and then with a series of decision tress, I find myself narrowing down my focus.  The decision tree works for me because I can go back and see at what point in the thought process, I took a turn.  I guess I am mapping more that talking to myself......

I think a lot about Critical Making and would like to incorporate this connecting with physical space in my question.  I think the productive engagement, with the emphasis on producing, is very important to information gathering and knowledge creation.  I think of my children when they were younger, would spend hours playing on the beach and building castles and other Dr. Suess like creations, only to have the tide wash away.  But they were exploring with ideas and experimenting.  It is that kind of "messing around" that I am interested in.

One of my interests is with browsing but browsing in rare book libraries.  With restricted access to the physical books, what happens to the stumbling upon discoveries? This isn't information seeking as much as the need to browse. Recognizing this, cataloging for a rare books library need provides information on the material aspects of the book.  Somehow this is tied up with the critical making, the physical object.

But, I can't seem to go anywhere with this idea and who cares about it?
So my other thought, that I have sketch out, is how do parents with children recently diagnosed with an illness or condition, find information?  I might do a pilot study of parents at Sick Kids.  Do these parents use the hospital supported web page (Caring for Kid) or do they search for blogs, support groups on the web or do they join associations and support groups?  Information seeking?  I guess, but I think first there needs to be lots of browsing and looking to assess the information/support environment.  I might focus on a particular condition (hemophilia.)  What does this have to do with rare books?  Nothing except maybe to reassure me that this issue is not a new one.  Parents have always need to find out information about caring for their children.  Initially this was done with the women at the well--an oral tradition of remedies.  By the mid 1800s, books and manuals were being published all entitled  with something sounding like "How to...."  Then there were the encyclopedias of family health matters and Dr. Spock's bible on infants. But now there is so much information( not all credible nor consistent)  How do parents manage?  Do they use the institutional sources or do they use more informal sources?
Mary

Rethinking the Focus Group

Lunt's explanation of the focus group  as either (Merton) a source of idea, a precursor to quantitative research or as as way to identify and draw conclusions about the prevalence and distribution of ideas and attitudes (especially with market research) had me wanting to question some of the assumptions, mainly that groups generate discussion.  I think that many in a group either filter what they say or maybe even what they acknowledge to themselves.  There just seemed to be this acceptance that individuals are able to articulate what they think, feel, believe and do.  judgements are made all the time about what to share/report and what to refrain from saying.  An example is market research.  If you asked me what I had for breakfast, I'd likely say a bowl of oatmeal rather than the oatmeal cookie.  Students will report studying more and watching TV/playing on the computer less.
Just a thought...
Mary

The Focus Group Method

This weeks reading, Rethinking the Focus Group in Media and Communication Research, by Lunt and Livingston, gives a great overview of the focus group method, explaining its advantageous to research. They explain that "the focus group method involves bringing together a group, or, more often, a series of groups, of subjects to discuss an issue in the presence of a moderator. A moderator ensures that the discussion remains on the issue at hand, while eliciting a wide range of opinions on that issue" (p 80). When discussing focus groups a number of criticism are often made, biases within the group, as well as conformity. Where as survey research appears to have less bias, however Lunt and Livingston show that a "group acts as a context that challenges, asks for elaboration demands examples of claims that people make. In rhetorical terms, the group acts as if conducting an inquiry, and there are, therefore, reliability checks in the operation of pragmatic norms for communication in groups. There are no such checks in survey research, which may be seen rhetorically as a highly reduced dialogue between researcher and researched" (p 93). I think bias is within every type of research, there is no real way to avoid it. 

Do you think Focus Groups are a good way to conduct research? What kind of methods are you thinking of using for your assignments? 

The Influence of the Researcher in User Surveys

In Peter Knight’s Small-Scale Research, he talks about the effects face-to-face surveying can have on one’s research when he says, “face-to-face contact may be necessary but may taint the work” while in other cases “the research is the main research instrument and the inquiry would be stunted” without the researcher’s presence (Knight, 2002, p. 50).

My research interest for this class is virtual reference and determining what motivates students to use it. Convenience is an obvious factor because the remote access offers library students services in their own home but I wonder if there are any other factors that compel students to use virtual reference instead of coming in to the reference desk.

One method that I think could successfully determine the students’ motivations for using VR would be to conduct user surveys in various locations (e.g. a print survey at the desk, a telephone interview, and an online survey on VR sites and ‘contact us’ webpages). While the researcher’s presence is not an issue for the surveys conducted online, telephone interviews and surveys offered in person must be conducted by a librarian, whose presence will inevitably have some sort of influence on the user’s responses (e.g. if they had a good in-person experience, perhaps they would already be in a good mood when answering the survey, and document a more positive virtual reference experience). I am wondering if there are ways to successfully eradicate the researcher’s presence as influencing survey responses, and if doing so would even make that significant a difference on the accuracy of user survey results.

Knight, Peter. (2002). Small-Scale Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications