Demonstrate understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods, the ability to design a research project, and the ability to evaluate and synthesize research literature

Introduction

Library and information science professionals (LISP) must demonstrate they know how to do research to advance their organizations’ services and programs. Like the standards they teach users to achieve, LISPs should prove themselves able to use both quantitative and qualitative research methods, design research projects, and evaluate and use existing research literature. Should there be a shortage of such literature, an LISP can choose to do primary research that involves designing and executing original research studies.

Quantitative and qualitative research methods

Quantitative research methods concern the relationships between variables worked through a hypothesis, usually expressed as maths and statistics (Stevenson Library, n.d.). An example would be Murphy et al.’s (2007) Benefit Study of the San Francisco Public Library that partly uses quantifiable benefits received by the City through SFPL services. Qualitative research methods try to make sense of circumstances through subjective evidence, like interviews and observations. An example would be Bolam’s (2021) study on how the social order in higher education classrooms have changed since going from in-person to virtual instruction.

As compelling as either method can be, the addition of the other, even if modestly, could make research conclusions and recommendations more thorough. LISPs can apply any measure of impressive numbers or graphs at an issue, but stakeholders still need a humanistic context to buy-in. Similarly, new ideas based only on how research participants had felt, no matter how deeply, is not hard enough evidence to encourage the support needed to creating or changing services and programs.

Primary research

Primary research, also known as “original research”, is when the synthesizing of data is done by the same researcher(s) who gathered it. This is usually done to generate new knowledge, answers, and questions (Bouchrika, 2022). A lot of empirical research –where conclusions are only drawn from verifiable evidence- is done this way (Bouchrika, 2022).

Two prevalent ways that LISPs do primary research are through surveys and interviews. Surveys are where people in a population sample are given research questions –mostly yes/no, true/false, or scale-of-1-to-10 kinds- carefully tailored to not infer bias or negatively affect (SEE: trigger) the participant. Interviews are more formal, where the researcher engages with the participant in real time to ask the questions and gather answers, instead of just offering a paper hand-out to be turned in or a webpage to visit.

Secondary research, using information generated by someone else, is cheaper and easier than primary research. However, LIS users, professionals, and technologies are evolving exponentially faster. An example are the developments in computer programming, information science education, and social relationships in anticipation of the paradigm shift that could be Web3, where information is expected to become even more decentralized, and security and value redefined by distributed ledger technologies. Thus, in order to conduct research that could contribute to improving services and programs, LISPs should aim to gather the most recent data themselves.

Research design and searching professional literature

Action research design is a cycle of discovery to be repeated until enough is learned to solve the issue, which will also change each time the researcher assimilates what has been observed. This way, this research strategy adopts berrypicking, an information-seeking behavior where a user’s understanding of their investigation will change as they learn more (SEE: Competency J essay). Action research design is effective in creating practical solutions, but researchers must learn where to draw the line between encouraging change and over-involving themselves in the process that they may bias results (SHU, n.d.).

An annotated bibliography is an essential part of action research design, because before any method is established researchers must make an assessment of published, peer-reviewed literature relevant to the issue. The citations (in any valid format) are annotated with a summary, analysis of the literature’s strengths and limitations to the research design, and how the information contained can be applied.

LIS organizations evolve, and so, too, do their issues. Thus, action research design is fitting for LISPs to adopt for developing programs and services.

Evidence

INFO 200 – Information Communities – Peer-reviewed study summary: the Korean mukbang

For INFO 200, Information Communities, I reviewed Choe’s (2019) study on mukbang, an initially South Korean social media trend that involved eating on camera (Kang et al., 2020). This performance is live-streamed, then posted on a video sharing platform.

In mukbang (“eating” [먹는; meogneun], and “broadcast” [방송; bangsong]) (Hong & Park, 2016), the performer will text-chat or answer their online audience by camera. These viewing events likely took hold in South Korea as a rebellion against its society’s eating norms’ reproach to dining alone.

Choe’s study, “Eating together multimodally” (2019), focused on interactions between the eating Broadcast Jockey (BJ) and their audience, analyzing the former through the concepts of recruitment –receiving cues to alter behavior- and footing –how to find and maintain one’s place during social interactions. She used 67 of BJ ChangHyun’s videos to evaluate his popularity that had garnered him over 200,000 YouTube subscribers through 505 uploaded mukbang videos, and an average of 1,400 viewers per livestream. Not only has her quantitative research shed light on why mukbang-ers were so irresistible, Choe also invited discussion about how we may act differently when confronted with an audience. The way BJ ChangHyun would coyly “agree” to eat something requested by a viewer is a behavior that LISPs can file away for how to direct reference interviews with shy or embarrassed library patrons.

This review is evidence I understand how to apply quantitative research on social interactions to LIS user-related situations.

INFO 200 – Information Communities – Literature Matrix to define Foodie Community

I completed this literature matrix to define my selected information community, Food Enthusiasts, for INFO 200, Information Communities.

In the introduction, I rebranded them as “escaphiles”. They are people who make and consume not only food, but also pictures, videos, food tourism television, broadcast cooking competitions, and books on recipes, history, nutrition, culinary science, social, political and economic theories. This community goes to culinary schools, bookstores, kitchenware retailers, groceries, bakeries, knife sharpeners, and websites to learn, create, and teach.

Escaphiles, so open with their food interests and obsessions, are ripe for exploration. With the qualitative secondary research I had conducted through these eight peer-reviewed research and review articles, I gathered that the foodie community’s range of enthusiasm for partaking, sharing, and all forms of participation covering both analog and digital media can give LISPs various benchmarks for designing services and programs to meet the needs of other information communities, too.

This literature matrix is evidence I understand how qualitative secondary research on information communities can be applied to developing LIS services and programs.

INFO 247 – Vocabulary Design – Domain analysis

I discussed domain analysis according to Hjorland (2017) for INFO 247, Vocabulary Design. His explanations of document and genre studies, and historical studies had resonated with me the most.

I outlined how I would analyze a domain of audiophiles by investigating the semantics   in advertisements and professional product reviews for consumers shopping for speakers. This document review will let me know the range of education levels, how much buyers could be willing to spend, where they live, what other technologies they are interested in, and more.

Though Hjorland had not written this in his article, I believe domain analysis can be used to support primary research. As mentioned in this essay’s Introduction, LISPs do much primary research through surveys and interviews. In order to write questions that are clear and safe for the research population to answer, LISPs should do a domain analysis to identify related concepts, trends, and concerns. This can put participants at ease and more willing to contribute what they know and feel, which will help design more valuable programs and services.

This discussion is evidence I know how domain analysis can support primary research.

INFO 285 – Applied Research Methods – Evaluating library resources

I wrote this action research study proposal (ARSP) for INFO 285, Applied Research Methods. Allowed the time and resources, this would have been the first in a series to evaluate SJSU’s King Library’s student-accessible materials and human power for passing the Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR, n.d).

To prepare for deciding on and designing a research method, I completed an
in-depth annotated bibliography based on peer-reviewed LIS papers. Each source was cited in APA7 (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7^th edition), summarized, analyzed for strengths and weaknesses, and reasoned to how the information was useful to the Action Research Study.

This ARSP is evidence I understand how to research professional literature in order to design research for evaluating library programs and services.

Conclusion

LISPs must be able to do their own research when it comes to improving services and programs. In the process of gathering and incorporating data, they can remain aware of how their user populations are evolving, and what their likes, needs, and interests are developing towards. Doing this kind of research will be a tall order to fill in my future professional life. I imagine between all the hours stabilizing budgets, developing systems, and maintaining infrastructure, the administration and/or stakeholders would not allow much time to do even secondary research, let alone the extra preparation to make the primary kind possible. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to get a staff subscription to an LIS database so my colleagues and I have access to and can discuss together the most recent explorations into research design and methods.

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 2020: the official guide to APA style (7^th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Bolam, C. (2021). “The recording has started”: Notes on the sudden move to online teaching. Ethnographic Studies. 18, 20-42. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5805473

Bouchrika, I. (October 14, 2022). Primary research vs secondary research: Definitions, differences, and examples. Research.com. https://research.com/research/primary-research-vs-secondary-research

Bouchrika, I. (October 14, 2022). What is empirical research? Definition, types & samples. Research.com. https://research.com/research/what-is-empirical-research

Choe, H. (February 22, 2019). Eating together multimodally: Collaborative eating in mukbang, a Korean livestream of eating. Language in Society. 48(2), 171-208. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404518001355

Hjorland, B. (2017). Domain analysis. Knowledge Organization. 44(6), 436-464. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2017-6-436

Hong, S. K., & Park, S. J. (February, 2016). Food and hegemony process in media culture: Emergence of internet mukbang (foodcasting) and its hegemonic process in media culture. Media and Society, 24(1), 105-150. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE06616212&language=ko_KR&language=ko_KR

Kang, E., Lee, J., Kim, K. H., & Yun, Y. H. (January 29, 2020). The popularity of eating broadcast: Content analysis of “mukbang” YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang” on public. Health Informatics Journal, 26(3), 2237-2248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458220901360

Murphy, B., Glavin, M., & Natali, E. (2007). Providing for knowledge, growth, and prosperity: A benefit study of the San Francisco Public Library. Berk and Associates. https://sfpl.org/pdf/news/benefitstudy2007.pdf

Sacred Heart University Library. (n.d.). Organizing academic research papers: Types of research designs. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185902

San Jose State University. (2022). Undergraduate university graduation requirements. 2021-2022 Academic Catalogue. https://catalog.sjsu.edu/content.php?catoid=12&navoid=4149

Stevenson University Library. (n.d.). Qualitative vs. quantitative research: Overview. Retrieved November 11, 2022, from https://stevenson.libguides.com/c.php?g=236343

For Competency M essay, please click ‘Previous Post’ below.