Methods for our madness

Citation

Shaffer, R.I. (2000), "Methods for our madness", The Bottom Line, Vol. 13 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl.2000.17013caf.001

Methods for our madness

Keywords Statistics, Methodology, Librarians, Qualitative techniques, Quantitative techniques

Introduction

Many of us have experienced the benefit of conducting formal (or even informal) research in anticipation of having to make the case for a new or significant budgetary expenditure. However, it is often difficult and confusing to pick among the various kinds of research methodologies to determine which one will give us the most valid and reliable results upon which to make our financial case. The purpose of this column is to briefly review the basic research methodologies, techniques and instruments commonly used by social scientists.

Regardless of the method or instruments of measurement that are employed, all research has three common goals:

1. 1.

   to rely upon valid data collection;

2. 2.

   to perform proper data analysis once the data are collected;

3. 3.

   to extrapolate conclusions from the data that relate to the issue or problem initially posed.

Quantitative and qualitative research

Research methodology is simply an aspirational framework within which raw data are placed so that their meaning may be seen more clearly. Methodology is what transforms data into information. Researchers often divide methodologies into two broad categories - qualitative and quantitative.

Quantitative research methodologies are aimed at answering questions about relationships among or between measured variables with the purpose of explaining, predicting or controlling certain phenomena. This type of research is deductive and may be referred to as positivist, experimental or empirical. One begins with a theory and then uses numerical data collection and accepted statistical formulations to "run the numbers." Instruments that are often used include close-ended surveys or questionnaires, and occurrence counts.

Qualitative research methodologies begin with research, and from the research develops a theory or a conclusion. These methods are inductive in nature, and try to explain phenomena from the actor's or participant's point of view. This type of research is often called naturalistic, interpretative or constructivistic. The instruments that are often used include participant observations, focus groups, and in-depth, open-ended interviews.

For nearly a century, social scientists tried to emulate as much as possible the methodologies of laboratory research that are associated with "pure" science, and hence the social science research of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was much more quantitative in nature. By the mid-1930s, it became apparent that applied methods (of a more qualitative nature) were as valid in social science disciplines as were quantitative methods. Today, we will often see a blending of both or different methodologies as part of studies. Some say that this is in great part due to our ability today to use technology to create coding schemes for qualitative research that enable us to extract more critical conclusions and more universal generalizations.

In order to determine if research is generally quantitative or qualitative, there are four areas of comparison that Paul D. Leedy has developed, as follows:

Establish the purpose of the research

Quantitative research tries to explain and predict outcomes. It is outcome oriented. Qualitative research tries to describe and explain certain circumstances. It is process-oriented.

Establish the nature of the research process

Quantitative research is focused and has a static design. The researcher takes a detached view and follows established guidelines. Qualitative research is holistic and flexible, and the researcher does express a "personal view."

Review the methods of data collection

As previously stated, quantitative research is deductive. It uses large, representative samples and then analyzes results with standardized evaluation instruments and tests. Qualitative research is inductive, and relies upon small samples. Observation is a common instrument of evaluation, as are interviews and surveys.

Consider how the findings are reported

Quantitative findings are reported numerically, with little narrative, and often use charts and graphs. The information is imparted in a scientific, non-personal way. Qualitative findings are narratives, frequently using direct quotes from the participants. The findings are reported in a narrative and literary style.

The basic methods of research

If you are conducting research, rather than doing a literature review on the research of others, you can pick your method of research based on a number of factors such as:

• •

  the availability of research in the field already;

• •

  the amount of time that is available to you to design, conduct, analyze, and report findings;

• •

  if the issues involved are covering lots of breadth or are more in-depth;

• •

  the need for structure;

• •

  statistical skill;

• •

  writing skill.

As you are well aware, there are several different research methods to choose from, and the discussion that follows is designed to give you the most elementary definition of the methods most often used by library and information science professionals.

Historical research looks to the past to reconstruct events and find explanations for them. This kind of research often involves the use of vital or official records. Frequently, archivists will be involved both in the organization of the materials and in the authentication of the documents or records being used.

Descriptive (or normative) research looks at the incidence, frequency or distribution of certain characteristics. Census research, public opinion polls and standardized tests results are examples of this type of research.

Case and field research is oriented toward a specific population or community. It looks at the group in its natural setting and tries to draw out attitudes and characteristics of the group.

Developmental (or longitudinal) research investigates patterns or changes over a prolonged period of time. Often, an attempt will be made to study the exact same sample.

Correlational research tries to identify how one factor is related to one or more other factors. It may not, however, try to explain the causal relationships between factors. Frequently, this type of research is used to predict certain "success" factors in higher education or in pursuing certain professions.

Ex post facto (or causal-comparative) research identifies consequences to try and find causes. It is often analogized to crime solving - we have a dead body, so what was the cause of death? Our example: circulation of books is down at the public library. Why?

True experimental research uses randomly assigned subjects to one of two groups where the groups are given different treatments or no treatment at all (control group). Quasi-experimental is distinguished from true experiment because the researcher is not able to control or manipulate the variables to the same extent that is possible with true experimental research.

Action (or true applied) research focuses on problem solving at the local level. This is the kind of research that is most often conducted in library settings in order to address issues and determine if policies are achieving desired results.

Conclusion

As information professionals, we prepare our budgets based upon our experience and expertise. Increasingly, as we budget programmatically, we look to published research to guide our financial planning. Often, we must undertake primary research ourselves. In both instances, we must understand the basics of research and the difference among the various research methods available to us. We must also recognize that the Internet and sophisticated computer-based statistical packages may offer us less expensive, faster and more reliable ways to test the issues before us.

Roberta I. ShafferDean, The Graduate School of Library and Information Science, The University of Texas at Austin

Further reading

Babbie, E. (1999), The Basics of Social Research, (8th ed.). Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Katzer, J., Cook, K.H. and Crouch, W.W. (1998), Evaluating information: A Guide for Users of Social Science Research, (4th ed.), McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Leedy, P. (1981), How to Read Research and Understand It, Macmillan, New York, NY.