Competency L: Research Methods

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

I understand this competency as three related abilities. The first is knowing what different research methods can and cannot show. The second is designing a study so that its method fits its question. The third is reading the work of others critically and combining it into an account that is more useful than any single study. Each depends on the others. A researcher who cannot evaluate the literature will ask questions that have already been answered, and a researcher who knows the literature but not the methods will be unable to tell a strong finding from a weak one.

Quantitative and qualitative methods answer different kinds of questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) describe quantitative research as testing objective theories by examining relationships among variables that can be measured and analyzed statistically, and qualitative research as exploring the meaning that individuals or groups ascribe to a problem, usually through data collected in the participant’s setting and analyzed inductively. They describe mixed methods as combining the two so that each compensates for the limits of the other. I do not see these as rival camps. The choice depends on the question. If I want to know whether a training module improved test scores, I need numbers. If I want to know why learners avoided part of a virtual environment, I need their words.

Library and information science has its own research tradition and its own reasons for doing research. Connaway and Radford (2021) treat research as a core professional skill and not only an academic one. Librarians use research to evaluate services, justify decisions to funders and administrators, and understand the communities they serve. They also stress that practitioners need to be able to read and judge published research even if they never publish themselves, because decisions are increasingly expected to rest on evidence.

Action research is especially close to library practice. Stringer and Ortiz Aragón (2020) describe it as a systematic approach to investigation that enables people to find effective solutions to problems they confront in their everyday lives, organized as a repeating cycle of looking, thinking, and acting. Data are gathered, reflected on and analyzed, and used to implement a practical change, and the cycle then begins again. The practitioner is a participant in the setting and not a detached observer, and the people affected by the problem are involved in defining and solving it. This fits libraries well, because librarians are usually studying their own services in order to improve them.

This competency matters to me because research has run through all of my graduate education. My thesis for my Master of Science in Human Factors at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University examined the normalization of immersive technologies in educational settings, and the human factors discipline trained me in experimental design, usability testing, and the careful observation of people using systems. I have completed human subjects research training through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative twice, once for my human factors degree and once for my work in SJSU’s Learning Technologies and Innovation lab. The competency matters to the profession because libraries increasingly have to demonstrate their value with evidence, and because the field changes faster than any one person’s experience can track. The evidence below shows me synthesizing research literature, applying literature review and comparative analysis to a practical problem, and designing an action research project.

Evidence

My preparation for this competency came from INFO 285, Applied Research Methods, where I am designing an action research project this semester; INFO 200, Information Communities, where I first built a structured literature review; and my thesis research for my Master of Science in Human Factors. [Confirm the INFO 285 course title and section.]

Evidence 1: Literature Review Matrix (INFO 200)

In this matrix I organized the scholarly literature on my INFO 200 information community. For each study I recorded the citation, the population studied, the method, the main idea, and the study’s relevance to my community. [Add the date and the number of studies.]

The matrix demonstrates the ability to evaluate and synthesize research literature. Recording the method of each study beside its findings made it possible to judge how much weight each finding could bear. A conclusion drawn from interviews with a small number of hobbyists, for example, can suggest a pattern but cannot establish how common it is, while a survey can show how common a behavior is without explaining it. [Replace this example with one from your matrix, naming a study and its method.] Comparing the studies side by side also showed me where they agreed, where they conflicted, and where the research was missing altogether. That is the difference between a synthesis and a summary. A summary reports what each study said. A synthesis reports what the studies say together, and how confident the reader should be.

Evidence 2: Emerging Tech Road Show report (Learning Technologies and Innovation lab)

I wrote this report for SJSU’s Learning Technologies and Innovation lab to inform a program that brings emerging technology, including virtual reality kits, to library patrons. The report compares 21 technology lending programs across state, metropolitan, multi-city, and single-library settings, reviews research on technology acceptance among older adults, and proposes questions for focus groups. [Add the date and whether the report was individual work. Link the corrected version.]

The report demonstrates the use of research to inform a practical decision, and the use of more than one method to do so. The comparison of lending programs was an environmental scan, a structured comparison of existing practice that showed what other libraries had already tried. The literature review drew on research from the United States and other countries on why older adults adopt or avoid new technology, including research on internalized ageism, the belief among older adults themselves that technology is not for people their age. [Confirm that the report covers internalized ageism, and name one or two of the studies.] The focus group questions were the qualitative next step. The literature could explain the barriers older adults face in general, but only conversation with the program’s own patrons could show which of those barriers applied to them. The report also taught me something about the reliability of sources. Checking its references against the original publications found several errors, and correcting them was a lesson in why every citation must be verified against the source itself. [Keep this sentence only if you agree with including it.]

Evidence 3: Action research design for an equine-assisted services library of things (INFO 285)

This semester I am designing an action research project in partnership with a local equine-assisted services program. The project prototypes a “library of things” item for equine-assisted services and horsemanship. It has a virtual component, a farm environment built in FrameVR where newcomers can see horses, learn basic tack and terminology, and hear the sounds of a barn, and a physical take-home kit. The goal is to help participants and new volunteers who have never been around horses become familiar with them before they arrive at the barn. [Add your research question in its final form, the participant groups, and the planned dates.]

The project demonstrates the ability to design a research project. It follows the look, think, and act cycle that Stringer and Ortiz Aragón (2020) describe. The program’s own staff identified the problem, which is that newcomers can be anxious or unprepared around horses, and the intervention is being developed with them rather than for them. The design is mixed methods. In the virtual environment, objects are labeled so that I can record which items each user interacted with and how, which gives behavioral data on what newcomers attend to. [Add the quantitative measure you will use, for example a familiarity or comfort rating before and after.] Qualitative data will come from [name the source, for example short interviews or written feedback from staff and volunteers]. The design also addresses ethics. The virtual environment’s guide bot answers questions only from source documents I supplied, so that it cannot give participants unverified advice about horses, and [describe consent, assent, and privacy arrangements, especially if any participants are minors or clients of the program]. The first cycle’s results will shape the second version of the kit, which is how action research is meant to proceed.

Conclusion

I will apply this competency by matching method to question, by reading the method section of any study before trusting its findings, and by treating my own projects as cycles of evidence and revision rather than as finished products. My next application is completing the first cycle of the equine-assisted services project and preparing the paper on the Athens treasure hunt for iLRN 2027. In any library or training role, I expect to use research to evaluate programs and to make the case for them. To stay current I will follow Library & Information Science Research, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, and the research publications of the Immersive Learning Research Network. [Add any research methods resource you rely on.]

References

Connaway, L. S., & Radford, M. L. (2021). Research methods in library and information science (7th ed.). Libraries Unlimited.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE. Stringer, E. T., & O