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