- Email: [email protected]
Qualitative research in information management
188
Reviews
or examples but this should not lead one to presume that the content is limited to a particular group of information professionals. It is useful to anyone concerned with applying research to practice. Most of the articles are written at a very basic operational level and require little reflection. Exceptions to this include Cronin’s discussion of “When Is a Problem a Research Problem?” which challenges the reader to thiuk about the purpose and process of research. Kimmel, in her article, raises questions about the status of research in the field and then places library and notation science research in the larger context or interdisciplinary research. Bradley’s article on choosing methodologies, upon thoughtful reading, provides an underpinning for the research process. The three articles presenting information on ways to identify and approach potential funding sources are based on the summary of a panel discussion by representatives of funding agencies. Useful and timely formation about funding priorities is included as is information on preparation and presentation of proposals. Do these articles achieve their purpose? They do provide basic information about the research process and they do make a strong case for the importance of conducting research in order to improve library management. A few articles for example, Kimmel and Cronin, go beyond the operational level and cause readers to think about research, its value, and their role iu the process. Research is a creative process and its pursuit can be enjoyable, something that almost got lost in the piling on of technique. Overall, the papers provide clearly written, basic, and timely information about the process of research.
Glazier, Jack D. & Powell, RonaId R., Eds. ~u~~~~~~ &~ea?& in r~~o~~~~n Management. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1992.238 pp. $35.00 ($42.00 outside North America) (ISBN O-87287-806-6. ). Reviewed by Pamela Effreh Sandstrom, Ph.D. candidate, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Btoomington, Indiana 474%. These 13 essays on qualitative research offer a mix of perspectives from librarians, library school faculty, sociologists, journalists, and communication specialists. The book aims to reach a professional audience, including those teaching research methods courses. A new collection of readings on this subject would suggest that the editors have attempted to advance the research methodol~~ currently available to librarians, information scientists, and others in allied fields. This expectation is, unfortunately, not fulfilled by this volume. The collection fails to offer any evaluative synthesis among conflicting “qualitative” perspectives, as promised in the penultimate chapter by coeditor Glazier. The major value of this book is to be found in some of the research projects reported on by individual contributors. Here the reader will find hints of the exciting potential qualitative research holds for library and formation science (LIS). The most worthwhile articles are those that report empirical findings from actual projects based on qualitative data collection and analysis. Better yet are those few contributors who make au effort to use their findings to clarify conceptual problems deriving from the published research literature. Raya Fidel, in a 1984 article on the case-study method reprinted here, addresses interviewing and observation procedures
Review8
187
along with problems of entering the field setting, reliability, validity, and bias in the context of her study of online searchers’ styles. Karen Markey Drabenstott traces the historical development and mechanics of focused group interviewing in relation to an OCLC study of online catalog use. She argues for methods of thematic analysis in hypothesis formation, research design, questionnaire construction, as well as to explain unexpected survey results. Patricia Dewdney addresses ethical concerns and reactivity in describing how she recorded reference interviews for an experimental study to test two training techniques (neutral questioning and microcounseling). Mark Sandler offers an abstract but concise overview of ways that observation, interviewing, content analysis, and historical analysis serve practitioners assessing library practices. The updated 1984 article by Edward Brent on qualitative computing discusses the advantages and disadvantages of text, database, and knowledge-based programs. The reader’s confidence is undermined, however, when he uses the phrase “topology formation” in place of “typology formation” throughout the discussion. The article by Robert Grover and Jack Glazier is based on an ethnomethodological approach, and illustrates their participant-observation techniques for gathering data on information use and communication practices among city managers. Their project is a quantitative time-motion study that would be applicable to the analysis of other information user groups. However, these authors inadvertently reveal a major flaw in the type of qualitative research that focuses exclusively on “viewing experiences from the perspective of those involved” (p. xi)+he claim for most of the articles in this volume. Grover and Glazier underline the disparity between interview data and observation data (between what people say and what they do) when they report that the subjects of their study misidentified their sources of job-related information and inaccurately reported handling time for various information tasks. Likewise, the other contributors-ho include Marianne Cooper (on studying information-resource management in organizations), Brenda Dervin (with another articulation of her sense-making model), Steve Weinberg (outlining documentary techniques for investigative journalism), Herbert Achleitner and Roger Wyatt (who promote visualization technology but make no argument for its use in LIS data analysis or presentation), and another article by Grover (on LIS education)---do not discuss how researchers resolve the inherent conflicts arising between idealized, self-reported verbal data and observable, behavioral categories of data. The critical issue of verifiability is overlooked except by those few who mention triangulation among multiple sources of evidence. The final chapter by Gemma DeViiey is an annotated bibliography of 78 articles and books on research methods. This diverse list covers participant and unobtrusive observational techniques, interviewing methods, conversational and content analysis, symbolic interactionism, life history, and historical research. Sources draw mainly from educational and organizational research, sociology, history, and LIS, along with a few contributions from anthropological ethnography (essentially ignoring this important heritage that provides rich examples of both scientific and interpretive research strategies). Mentioned along with other recent LIS texts is co-editor Powell’s Basic Research Methoa!sfor Librarians (1991), which covers observation, interviewing, and historical research. Readers may wonder why so few of these resources are cited in the bibliographies of the essays collected here, or what Powell’s editorial involvement was because he contributes no original or reprinted essay nor any summary material.
188
Reviews
Although the index is an optimal length for this book, there are frustrating omissions. Cross-references are nonexistent, and entries with exhaustive subheadings (e.g., “Qualitative research-Politics of ethics”) lack grammatical cons~uction. Other entries are incomplete (e.g., “Ethics,” “Ethnography,” or “Interpretative research*) or absent altogether, as for example, entries on inter-rater agreement or types of observation; Items in the annotated bibliography are indexed only by title and not by content of the annotations, an unfortunate decision. The lack of narrative thread tying together these articles of varying quality, the capes ~mputer~enerat~ i&&rations throughout, and errors such as the discrepancy between the text and graph in Grover and Glazier’s article (p. 1X3), make this volume seem more mixed up than the stimulating mix it promises to be. REFEREiNCES PowelI, Ronald R. (1991). Basic researchmethods for librarians (2nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Lance, Keith Curry, Welborn, Lynda & Hamilton-Pennell, Christine. The hpuct of Wuwl Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing, 1992.125 pp. $25.00 (ISBN 0-931510-48-l). Reviewed by Carol k Doll, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 133 Suzxallo Library, FM-30, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. Based on data for the 1988-1989 school year in the state of Colorado, Lance, Welbom, and Hamilton-Pennell attempted to show that quality library media centers do, indeed, improve student academic performance. Data were gathered from four sources. The first two, the 1980 U.S. census data for the school districts and the 1988-1989 buildinglevel school statistics, were readily available for all Colorado schools. These sources provided information about community demographics and economics, school expenditures, and support and community services. Third, about 50% of the school library media centers completed a state library survey that provided information about media center collections, staff@, services, and budgets. Fourth, reports from schools that had admiitered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) or Tests of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) provided a measure of academic achievement. Because not all schools completed the survey or administered the standardized tests, 221 of 1,331 Colorado schools were in the final sample. Correlation analysis, factor analysis, and path analysis via multiple regression were the statistical techniques used to manipulate the data by grade levels for lst, 2nd, 4th 5th, 7th, and 10th grades. The authors conclude that “The size of a library media center’s staff and collection is the best school predictor of academic achievement” (p. 92). An annotated bib~o~aphy, timeline of the pertinent research, list of schools in the fmal sample, copy of the state hbrary’s media center questionnaire, and a suggested procedure and overhead masters for presenting the results of this study are appended. There is no index. Although the topic of this study is undoubtedly important, the study itself has some weaknesses. The first chapter contains a section that briefly annotates previous
Reviews
or examples but this should not lead one to presume that the content is limited to a particular group of information professionals. It is useful to anyone concerned with applying research to practice. Most of the articles are written at a very basic operational level and require little reflection. Exceptions to this include Cronin’s discussion of “When Is a Problem a Research Problem?” which challenges the reader to thiuk about the purpose and process of research. Kimmel, in her article, raises questions about the status of research in the field and then places library and notation science research in the larger context or interdisciplinary research. Bradley’s article on choosing methodologies, upon thoughtful reading, provides an underpinning for the research process. The three articles presenting information on ways to identify and approach potential funding sources are based on the summary of a panel discussion by representatives of funding agencies. Useful and timely formation about funding priorities is included as is information on preparation and presentation of proposals. Do these articles achieve their purpose? They do provide basic information about the research process and they do make a strong case for the importance of conducting research in order to improve library management. A few articles for example, Kimmel and Cronin, go beyond the operational level and cause readers to think about research, its value, and their role iu the process. Research is a creative process and its pursuit can be enjoyable, something that almost got lost in the piling on of technique. Overall, the papers provide clearly written, basic, and timely information about the process of research.
Glazier, Jack D. & Powell, RonaId R., Eds. ~u~~~~~~ &~ea?& in r~~o~~~~n Management. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1992.238 pp. $35.00 ($42.00 outside North America) (ISBN O-87287-806-6. ). Reviewed by Pamela Effreh Sandstrom, Ph.D. candidate, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Btoomington, Indiana 474%. These 13 essays on qualitative research offer a mix of perspectives from librarians, library school faculty, sociologists, journalists, and communication specialists. The book aims to reach a professional audience, including those teaching research methods courses. A new collection of readings on this subject would suggest that the editors have attempted to advance the research methodol~~ currently available to librarians, information scientists, and others in allied fields. This expectation is, unfortunately, not fulfilled by this volume. The collection fails to offer any evaluative synthesis among conflicting “qualitative” perspectives, as promised in the penultimate chapter by coeditor Glazier. The major value of this book is to be found in some of the research projects reported on by individual contributors. Here the reader will find hints of the exciting potential qualitative research holds for library and formation science (LIS). The most worthwhile articles are those that report empirical findings from actual projects based on qualitative data collection and analysis. Better yet are those few contributors who make au effort to use their findings to clarify conceptual problems deriving from the published research literature. Raya Fidel, in a 1984 article on the case-study method reprinted here, addresses interviewing and observation procedures
Review8
187
along with problems of entering the field setting, reliability, validity, and bias in the context of her study of online searchers’ styles. Karen Markey Drabenstott traces the historical development and mechanics of focused group interviewing in relation to an OCLC study of online catalog use. She argues for methods of thematic analysis in hypothesis formation, research design, questionnaire construction, as well as to explain unexpected survey results. Patricia Dewdney addresses ethical concerns and reactivity in describing how she recorded reference interviews for an experimental study to test two training techniques (neutral questioning and microcounseling). Mark Sandler offers an abstract but concise overview of ways that observation, interviewing, content analysis, and historical analysis serve practitioners assessing library practices. The updated 1984 article by Edward Brent on qualitative computing discusses the advantages and disadvantages of text, database, and knowledge-based programs. The reader’s confidence is undermined, however, when he uses the phrase “topology formation” in place of “typology formation” throughout the discussion. The article by Robert Grover and Jack Glazier is based on an ethnomethodological approach, and illustrates their participant-observation techniques for gathering data on information use and communication practices among city managers. Their project is a quantitative time-motion study that would be applicable to the analysis of other information user groups. However, these authors inadvertently reveal a major flaw in the type of qualitative research that focuses exclusively on “viewing experiences from the perspective of those involved” (p. xi)+he claim for most of the articles in this volume. Grover and Glazier underline the disparity between interview data and observation data (between what people say and what they do) when they report that the subjects of their study misidentified their sources of job-related information and inaccurately reported handling time for various information tasks. Likewise, the other contributors-ho include Marianne Cooper (on studying information-resource management in organizations), Brenda Dervin (with another articulation of her sense-making model), Steve Weinberg (outlining documentary techniques for investigative journalism), Herbert Achleitner and Roger Wyatt (who promote visualization technology but make no argument for its use in LIS data analysis or presentation), and another article by Grover (on LIS education)---do not discuss how researchers resolve the inherent conflicts arising between idealized, self-reported verbal data and observable, behavioral categories of data. The critical issue of verifiability is overlooked except by those few who mention triangulation among multiple sources of evidence. The final chapter by Gemma DeViiey is an annotated bibliography of 78 articles and books on research methods. This diverse list covers participant and unobtrusive observational techniques, interviewing methods, conversational and content analysis, symbolic interactionism, life history, and historical research. Sources draw mainly from educational and organizational research, sociology, history, and LIS, along with a few contributions from anthropological ethnography (essentially ignoring this important heritage that provides rich examples of both scientific and interpretive research strategies). Mentioned along with other recent LIS texts is co-editor Powell’s Basic Research Methoa!sfor Librarians (1991), which covers observation, interviewing, and historical research. Readers may wonder why so few of these resources are cited in the bibliographies of the essays collected here, or what Powell’s editorial involvement was because he contributes no original or reprinted essay nor any summary material.
188
Reviews
Although the index is an optimal length for this book, there are frustrating omissions. Cross-references are nonexistent, and entries with exhaustive subheadings (e.g., “Qualitative research-Politics of ethics”) lack grammatical cons~uction. Other entries are incomplete (e.g., “Ethics,” “Ethnography,” or “Interpretative research*) or absent altogether, as for example, entries on inter-rater agreement or types of observation; Items in the annotated bibliography are indexed only by title and not by content of the annotations, an unfortunate decision. The lack of narrative thread tying together these articles of varying quality, the capes ~mputer~enerat~ i&&rations throughout, and errors such as the discrepancy between the text and graph in Grover and Glazier’s article (p. 1X3), make this volume seem more mixed up than the stimulating mix it promises to be. REFEREiNCES PowelI, Ronald R. (1991). Basic researchmethods for librarians (2nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Lance, Keith Curry, Welborn, Lynda & Hamilton-Pennell, Christine. The hpuct of Wuwl Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement. Castle Rock, CO: Hi Willow Research and Publishing, 1992.125 pp. $25.00 (ISBN 0-931510-48-l). Reviewed by Carol k Doll, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 133 Suzxallo Library, FM-30, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. Based on data for the 1988-1989 school year in the state of Colorado, Lance, Welbom, and Hamilton-Pennell attempted to show that quality library media centers do, indeed, improve student academic performance. Data were gathered from four sources. The first two, the 1980 U.S. census data for the school districts and the 1988-1989 buildinglevel school statistics, were readily available for all Colorado schools. These sources provided information about community demographics and economics, school expenditures, and support and community services. Third, about 50% of the school library media centers completed a state library survey that provided information about media center collections, staff@, services, and budgets. Fourth, reports from schools that had admiitered the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) or Tests of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) provided a measure of academic achievement. Because not all schools completed the survey or administered the standardized tests, 221 of 1,331 Colorado schools were in the final sample. Correlation analysis, factor analysis, and path analysis via multiple regression were the statistical techniques used to manipulate the data by grade levels for lst, 2nd, 4th 5th, 7th, and 10th grades. The authors conclude that “The size of a library media center’s staff and collection is the best school predictor of academic achievement” (p. 92). An annotated bib~o~aphy, timeline of the pertinent research, list of schools in the fmal sample, copy of the state hbrary’s media center questionnaire, and a suggested procedure and overhead masters for presenting the results of this study are appended. There is no index. Although the topic of this study is undoubtedly important, the study itself has some weaknesses. The first chapter contains a section that briefly annotates previous