Library Information, the Importance of Critical Thinking - Assignment Example

Evaluating Research for Practice An Assignment Submitted by of Establishment XXXX, Section XXXX, Winter Evaluating Research for Practice Introduction The importance of critical thinking and evidence-based practice in librarianship (Partridge, Edwards, & Thorpe, 2010) makes knowledge of different research principles necessary for information specialists. Additionally, using research for library practice is highly recommended in dealing with special populations such as immigrants (Cuban, 2007, p. 41). Understanding of a variety of research principles and ability to assess their application seem crucial for a librarian serving immigrants. For this comparative report, two papers of different research designs have been selected. The first one by Burke (2008) is a quantitative survey directly related to the profession; it is undoubtedly significant but has several drawbacks in analysis techniques. The second one, by Shoham and Strauss (2008), deals with an interesting cultural and psychological issue which can be related to library and information services but is not limited to them. Being more developed formally, this article relies on appropriate qualitative research techniques, but the specificity of the sample and context makes the transferability limited. Research questions of both studies include the issue of the types of information needed by immigrants. Research Questions Both of the articles tend to represent immigrant’s informational needs as culturally specific. Burke (2008) assumes (though this is never stated as an assumption or a hypothesis) that difference in the patterns of informational needs of immigrants is caused by the difference in their cultural background, so the whole study is intended to find the possible measures of interdependence between the regions of the US immigrants’ origin and the ways in which these immigrants use libraries (conceptualized as “types of library use” (p. 34). The overarching question is stated clearly but it does not cover the whole range of results and discussion. The researcher asks whether there are “differences in types of use of U. S. Public libraries by households of people from different world regions” (Burke, 2008, p. 35). However, in fact this article answers the question what are these differences, not going into much detail about the reasons. If it was explicitly stated from the very beginning that the researcher’ assumption is cultural difference in patterns of library use, a beneficial structural change would be possible. The researcher could have added the section about “background information on the immigrant groups” (Burke, 2008, p. 36) to the literature review, not dispersing this information across the article and providing rationale for the selection of regions (South Asia, Southeast Asia, etc.). This rationale reappears in different sections of the discussion, making reading a bit confusing. At the same time, the sample strata (regions of immigrants’ origin) might be related to the questionnaire design of the Current Population Survey, on which this study heavily relies. Altogether, the scope of research and the information regarding library use of some groups of immigrants rarely addressed in literature (the ones from Asia, Europe, and the Caribbean region) add to the significance of the study. Burke’s (2008) important research goal is the assessment of the accuracy of existing literature against the quantitative data (p. 40). Finally, the absence of abstract and definitions of terms add to the confusion. Some of the terms are defined, such as the types of library use and the researcher’s working understanding of the households using libraries, but it is evident that the article lacks system in definitions. Actually, the article lacks an appropriate introduction with hypotheses and rationale (Asmundson, Norton, & Stein, 2002, pp. 41-42). Shoham and Strauss (2008) approach the same subject of cultural specificity of immigrants’ needs from the opposite side. While Burke (2008) intends to represent the broadest diversity, Shoham and Strauss (2008) focus on a very specific population with unique, exclusively cultural needs. They seem to take the case of the immigrants to Israel from the US to represent immigration as an issue of psychology of adaptation out of the context of such social tensions as wars or poverty (Shoham & Strauss, 2008). Consequently, satisfaction of information needs is “as essential as possible” for this immigrant community (Shoham & Strauss, 2008), and the researchers can focus on these needs without any psychological discomfort for their respondents. In dealing with this subject, the article has the same problem with overarching question as the previous one: it is clearly stated, but it is too general and not problematic. There is no need to prove that “satisfaction of information needs” is “important in the absorption process” (Shoham & Strauss, 2008); rather, this study answers the question which information needs are most important. Leedy and Ormrod (2010) warn against the problems with “yes” or “no” answers (p. 46) for the reason that posing such one-sided questions, researchers neglect the task of human mind to “struggle with data”, to extract the deep meaning of information out of its superficial level (p. 45). Altogether, the conceptual innovation of analysing the needs of immigrants in the framework of human motivation adds to the significance of the study, as it is new to library and information studies. Such attempts have been made in social studies (Berry, 2001, to name only one), but are rare if not unique in the library field. Both of the articles have comprehensive and well-organised literature review sections. Shoham and Strauss (2008) also provide a concise, well-structured abstract in line with all suggestions by Asmundson, Norton, and Stein (2002, p. 41). The quality of research presentation in both cases is slightly undermined by the fact that no details about the samples and/or the context are indicated in the titles, which is misleading for readers. Research Design and Techniques Bernard (2000) makes a useful distinction between data collection and data analysis: if they are viewed separately, the difference between qualitative data analysis of quantitative data and qualitative analysis of qualitative data becomes evident, and the same can be said about quantitative data collection and analysis (p. 418). Burke’s (2008) comparative analysis is not exclusively quantitative: she explains secondary hard data in terms of social tendencies, engaging in qualitative analysis, or the “search for… and presentation of meaning of the results of quantitative data” (Bernard, 2000, p. 419). At the same time, Shoham and Strauss (2008) actually use mixed methods of interviewing (data collection), introducing such quantitative technique as scales of assessment. This contributes to the triangulation of their study (Quinton & Smallbone, 2006, p. 131; Mertens & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 107). The ways in which the researchers collected data are significantly different in the degree of involvement. Burke (2008) uses secondary data, which means that the participants are not affected by the acknowledgement of the study goals, so that the research is more objective (Neuman, 2006, p. 225). On the contrary, the interviewees of Shoham and Strauss (2008) may have been well aware of the purposes of the research and modify their responses accordingly. Somehow, this is compensated by stronger control over the research process in the second case: while Burke has to rely on the borrowed data collection technique, the analysis technique of Shoham and Strauss’s (2008) research is better connected with their data collection method. Logically, the study of broader population has taken up the form of comparative analysis of CPS, a quantitative survey, as much so as this technique allows for studying geographically dispersed populations (Connaway & Powell, 2010, p. 108). The researcher analyzed the data from the probability sample (Wildemuth, 2009, p. 119). The high non-response rate (77% of households have not used libraries in the last month) affects the representativeness of the sample negatively (Wildemuth (2009, p. 123) considers the non-response level of 37% already troubling), but internal validity and reliability are added by the comparison of immigrant households with the US native households. To the researcher’s honour, she is aware of many limitations of the study related to CPS data collection technique: the impossibility of the analysis of individual library use due to the research units (Neuman, 2006, p. 95); the lack of data about the difference of new and old immigrants (Burke, 2008, p. 35), and the month interval (Burke, 2008, p. 35). The problems with sampling reach far beyond the cross-sectional survey design and such variables as individual preferences of immigrant library patrons. Sin and Kim (2008) conducted much more deliberate statistical analysis of library use and concluded that there are “43 independent variables on the household level” (p. 7) and that previous research based on national sample lacked inferentional analysis, being limited to “variable-by-variable” studies (p. 4) like Burke’s (2008) one. Burke (2008) claims to use comparative analysis for interpretation of these data (p.40). She reviews the content of existing literature to extract the main assertions, which corresponds to the case-oriented design of comparison; however, the CPS data she relies on are related to variable-oriented comparative research (Mills, Van de Bunt, & De Bruijn, 2006, p. 623). Moreover, the fact that Burke’s analysis covers a sample of the whole population of the US, while the previous research is mostly oriented on local communities (Burke, 2008, pp. 33-34), indicates the lack of construct equivalence (Mills, Van de Bunt, & De Bruijn, 2006, pp. 622-623). Unlike Burke, Shoham and Strauss (2008) do not state explicitly the limitations of their study, occasionally referring to them implicitly: for instance, they mention both “push” and “pull” factors of immigration, but state that their concern are the latter (Shoham & Strauss, 2008). Thus, the transferability of the study is very limited: it is not proven that the immigrants driven by “push” factors share the same motivation. While Burke (2008) includes in the survey the strata of the US citizens, Shoham and Strauss (2008) do not compare their sample with any other immigrant samples. Negative case analysis (Mertens & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 105) and thick description (Mertens & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 107) might add to the credibility and transferability of the study. However, broad generalizations are not always necessary (Quinton & Smallbone, 2006, p. 133): qualitative research as the design concerned with insider perspective is necessarily focused on diversity and unique experiences (Mertens & McLaughlin, 2004, p. 99). Shoham and Strauss (2008) have taken a productive approach to the cultural values of a specific group by selecting appropriate research design (qualitative research on the basis of grounded theory) and techniques (open-ended interviews) and enhanced the dependability of the study by limiting their non-probability “snowball” sample to the families of two that have children. This restriction could be useful for Burke’s (2008) study, as the diversity of age group in American households may have a significant impact on their types of library use (Sin & Kim, 2008). The only methodological necessity Shoham and Strauss (2008) seem to have overlooked is the description of the cultural context of immigration to Israel. Grounded theory is highly dependent on the context (Neuman, 2006, p. 69; Wildemuth, 2009, p. 131) and often requires longitudinal analysis (Wildemuth, 2009, p. 131). Both articles maintain the tone appropriate for their design and have accurate scholarly references. Burke (2008) provides analytical explanations of the hard data presented, while the study by Shoham and Strauss (2008) is rich in subjective remarks of the respondents. All these data are summarized appropriately and followed by concise conclusions, slightly less informative in Burke’s (2008) article. Value to Practitioners Being presented consistently and discussed in relation with existing literature, the findings of both articles can contribute to the library practice. For instance, Shoham and Strauss (2008) found that despite the abundance of various sources of information for immigrants, American families immigrating to Israel had trouble sustaining such general and personal needs as information about banking, education, and the health care system. So, the Israeli practitioners may concentrate on providing more information resources for immigrants on the stated topics. Another important observation is that immigrants usually conduct substantial preparatory research before moving to another country (Shoham & Strauss, 2008); therefore, libraries could have more online resources for such occasions. Burke (2008) also presents useful findings. She reveals that programs for children and ESL learning opportunities are not as widely used by immigrant households as suggested in literature (Burke, 2008, p. 37). More specific is the finding that ESL learning materials are mostly utilized by Hispanic immigrants, which suggests the importance of ESL materials in the Spanish language (Burke, 2008, p. 36). The most promising findings are related to the table 5. For instance, librarians clearly benefit from the knowledge that Asian immigrants tend to use libraries for entertainment, while African immigrants often come to use the computer (Burke, 2008, p. 39). Also, the article clearly shows that regionally specific studies on which the literature review is based are not transferrable enough neither in terms of national trends nor for each other. However, the practitioners should mind limited external validity / transferability of each of the two studies. Burke (2008) represents the central tendency in statistics (Ruane, 2005, p. P. 180), not taking into account the regional differences in concentration of various immigrant households. Cuban (2007) suggests that such differences are important for local librarians that have to study the population of their specific district (p. 41). She also reminds that new immigrants require special attention (Cuban, 2007, p. 44), which is Burke’s recognized limitation (Burke, 2008, p. 35). Still, the focus made on the difference in patterns of library use by new and old immigrants (Burke, 2008, p. 39) may be useful in library practice outside the US. Though Shoham and Strauss (2008) deal with universal human need for information, the context of their study is very specific, so that practitioners should also consult other studies about the populations they have to work with. The question arises from the comparison of the two researches why, having so acute need for information about the new cultural context and foreign language learning, the immigrants do not search for it in libraries as extensively as they are supposed to. One of the findings of Shoham and Strauss (2008) is that the most authoritative source of information are informal contacts with the people to whom respondents trust. Given that some categories of immigrants (not considered in the article) are afraid of arrest and prosecution, it becomes clear that besides information, libraries should provide for immigrants secure environment and trustworthy service. This need is also recognized by Burke (2008, p. 34). Conclusion Both the quantitative and qualitative researches provide the practitioners with meaningful findings. However, both of the studies have serious limitations related to sampling and research questions. In particular, Burke’s research (2008) lacks appropriate structure because the assumption about the relation between the origin of immigrants and their types of library use is not clearly stated. Shoham and Strauss (2008) also cover more issues in their article than they state in the research question. The design of both researches seems adequate for their implicit purposes, but Burke (2008) does not provide enough complex statistical analysis, which results in limited reliability and external validity of the study. The study by Shoham and Strauss (2008) is organized better, but it lacks context description and limitations. As the latter exist, the transferability of the study is also limited, especially when the library setting is considered instead of the general information needs of immigrants. References Asmundson, G. J. G., Norton, G. R., & Stein, M. B. (2002). How to read and critically evaluate research articles. In G. J. G. Asmundson, G. R. Norton & M. B Stein (Eds.), Clinical research in mental health (37-51). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Bernard, H. R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues (September 22, 2001). Available at < http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-80299458/psychology-immigration.html>. Burke, S. (2008). Public library resources used by immigrant households. Public Libraries, 47(4), 32-41. Connaway, L. S., & Powell, R. R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians (5th ed.). Denver: Libraries Unlimited. Cuban, S. (2007). Serving new immigrant communities in the library. Westport: Libraries Unlimited. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. Mertens, D. M., & McLaughlin, J. A. (2004). Qualitative methods. In D. M. Mertens (ed.), Research and Evaluation Methods in Special Education (94-109). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Mills, M., Van de Bunt, G. G., & De Bruijn, J. (2006). Comparative research: Persistent problems and promising solutions. International Sociology, 21(5). 619-631. Neuman, L. W. (2006). Basics of Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Partridge, H., Edwards, S. & Thorpe, C. (2010). Evidence based practice: information professionals’ experience of information literacy in the workplace. In Anne Lloyd and Sanna Talja (eds.), Practising information literacy: Bringing theories of learning, practice and information literacy together. Charles Sturt University, Centre for Information Studies, Wagga Wagga, Australia. Quinton, S., & Smallbone, T. (2006). Reliability, validity and generalization. In S. Quinton & T. Smallbone (Eds.), Postgraduate research in business: A critical guide (125-139). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Ruane, J. M. (2005). Essentials of research methods: A guide to social science research. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Shoham, S. & Strauss, S.K. (2008). Immigrants information needs: Their role in the absorption process. Information Research, 13(4). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper359.html. Sin, S.-C. J., & Kim, K.-S. (2008). Use and non-use of public libraries in the information age: A logistic regression analysis of household characteristics and library services variables. Library & Information Science Research, 30(3), 207-215. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2007.11.008. Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science. Westport, Connecticutt: Libraries Unlimited. Appendix 1 Name of student and student number: Article reference: Shoham, S. & Strauss, S.K. (2008). Immigrants information needs: Their role in the absorption process. Information Research, 13(4). Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper359.html. Characteristic 1.Absent 2. Poor 3.Mediocre 4.Good 5.Excellent 1. The abstract is succinct, but comprehensive + 2. Title is clearly stated + 3. Overarching research question/problem/aim is clearly stated + 4. Research questions or hypotheses are clearly stated + 5. Topic area is a significant one to study + 6. Assumptions under which the study was created are clearly stated + 7. Limitations of the study are stated + 8. Important terms are defined + 9. Relationship of the study to others is made clear through the literature review + 10. Research design is appropriate for the solution of the problem or the exploration of the issues + 11. Sample is described and appears appropriate to the study + 12. Data gathering techniques or procedures are discussed appropriately + 13. Validity/reliability or transferability/credibility etc. of the evidence gathered are established + 14. Data-analysis techniques or procedures are appropriate and described + 15. Findings are discussed and presented clearly + 16. Conclusions are presented and substantiated clearly by the evidence provided + 17. Generalisations are confined to the population from which the sample was drawn/appropriately described + 18. Report is logically organised and clearly written + 19. Tone of the report is appropriate to the paradigm and method + 20. References are clear + Appendix 2 Name of student and student number: Article reference: Burke, S. (2008). Public library resources used by immigrant households. Public Libraries, 47(4), 32-41. Characteristic 1.Absent 2. Poor 3.Mediocre 4.Good 5.Excellent 1. The abstract is succinct, but comprehensive + 2. Title is clearly stated + 3. Overarching research question/problem/aim is clearly stated + 4. Research questions or hypotheses are clearly stated + 5. Topic area is a significant one to study + 6. Assumptions under which the study was created are clearly stated + 7. Limitations of the study are stated + 8. Important terms are defined + 9. Relationship of the study to others is made clear through the literature review + 10. Research design is appropriate for the solution of the problem or the exploration of the issues + 11. Sample is described and appears appropriate to the study + 12. Data gathering techniques or procedures are discussed appropriately + 13. Validity/reliability or transferability/credibility etc. of the evidence gathered are established + 14. Data-analysis techniques or procedures are appropriate and described + 15. Findings are discussed and presented clearly + 16. Conclusions are presented and substantiated clearly by the evidence provided + 17. Generalisations are confined to the population from which the sample was drawn/appropriately described + 18. Report is logically organised and clearly written + 19. Tone of the report is appropriate to the paradigm and method + 20. References are clear + Read More