The second of three workshops on ‘Developing Research Excellence and Methods’ in the LIS domain, and we’re at the British Library again for a busy day of presentations, unconference talks and breakout tasks, and trying to fit in a bit of networking during the breaks. As previously, the sessions were interesting and often immediately useful, giving insight into new techniques and fresh perspectives on others.

Peter Beresford’s session on user involvement in mental health research projects was an interesting and weighty start to the day, providing theoretical positioning (positivist vs ethnographic/experiential) and practical challenges (consultation fatigue, changing the nature of the evidence base). Whilst not situated directly in LIS research, the lessons could be applied to any research context where service users and marginalised groups are the main subject of enquiry. The emphasis on using research to effect change, echoed later in the closing session by Nick Moore, made me think about how I might incorporate such ideals into my own PhD research (Answer: not sure, need to think on it). Similarly, the issue of research involving as yet unengaged potential service users or non-users; representing both a challenge and an opportunity in times when budgets are being cut and many services face uncertain futures.

Another aspect I found interesting was the differentiation between research about and involving users as data subjects, and research by users themselves. The latter clarified something I have had in mind for some time, and whilst no specific guidance on how to approach this type of research study was provided, it was useful to be able to distinguish it as a method, and something to explore more fully outside of the workshop. Tied in with this is the idea of changing the nature of the evidence base to allow for more qualitative, subjective, experiential data to be used, which brought to mind Peter Brophy’s recommendations for the LIS field to take greater account of narratives and to develop what he refers to as ‘narrative-based practice’.

Next up was Thomas Haigh’s session entitled  ‘Techniques from history’, the one I was most looking forward to in advance of the workshop, although on the surface possibly the least relevant to my current research practice. On the first point it did not disappoint – lots of fascinating discussion of stories and sense-making, craft vs science, and the dangers of ‘presentism’ or placing a contemporary lens over archival materials.

Five different historical approaches were offered (intellectual, social, cultural, institutional histories, and history of practice or labour), which seemed a particularly useful way of defining the research domain and associated sources and methods. Yet when it came to selecting one of them in the workshop task it became clear that this fundamental decision in the research design is not at all easy to make – we narrowed the field down to three approaches! It also occurred to me later that this type of classification of research approaches might be useful within LIS, and that there might be some cross-over with these historical research categories.

Another consideration that hadn’t previously occurred to me was the difference between research undertaken by discipline specialists vs research undertaken by history specialists, including their varying methods, interests, and outputs. Again this might have interesting parallels for LIS research, and perhaps provides a case for constructing multi-disciplinary teams, with both subject and domain specialists. In addition, and echoing Peter Beresford’s earlier talk, in the history of technology field  there is a trend towards researching the perspectives and experiences of users as well as those of  producers and inventors. I particularly like the idea of comparing the two, as so often technologies or information systems are designed with only one group in mind, or worse still (and this is evident in more than one research project we have reviewed for PATHS) the gathering of information from experts on what they think users need.

To end this session we had a go applying historical approaches to our own research. Working in a group with Ella Taylor-Smith, Rachel Steele, Elaine Fulton and Aislinn Conway, my research project relating to the use of narrative in digital cultural heritage was put under scrutiny. We managed to come up with a research question — ‘Whose narrative is it anyway?’ — taking forward the idea of contrasting user and expert interests, and narrowed down to three historical approaches (intellectual, social & cultural), with a long list of potential sources. With more time we might have refined this further, but as it was the feedback from Tom at the end of the day that most groups had been too ambitious, too broad/unfocussed, and had approached the task as a whole project design rather than a sub-set of the research was certainly true.

Lots of food for thought then, and in retrospect I can confirm that this session was indeed the one I enjoyed the most, but also that I was wrong and there are possibly many ways in which I can could incorporate historical perspectives into my work, especially with regard to the ‘narrative’ focus of my PhD.

After lunch was Mike Thelwall’s session – an Introduction to Webometrics, about which I had got completely the wrong end of the stick in advance. I had been hoping for some background on weblog analysis (something I will be working on shortly and about which Mike kindly pointed me towards relevant resources). Instead the focus was on the more recent areas of inter-linking and network analysis to measure impact and collaboration, and sentiment analysis to measure attitudes. Both of these tools are being used on the PATHS Project, my work research project, although by another partner organisation, so the insight was useful in knowing more about what they might be doing at some point in the future!

Given that these tools are both using essentially quantitative methods to measure somewhat subjective phenomena, I must declare a little scepticism at this stage, especially when dealing with the semantics of conversational data such as Twitter feeds. I do however see that they might be useful tools where nothing else exists, and in triangulation with other methods to verify findings and explore them further.

The last formal session of the day was given by Nick Moore, talking about his personal experience of making links between research and policy. This was a different perspective on using research to effect change, this time focussing on doing research and creating output in a format that policy makers can use. Much of this session was about how to create a research agenda, how to focus it and how to make sure that it is relevant and useful, and can probably be applied across any research practice, not only that directed at policy. Similarly, lessons learned and mistakes made are broadly applicable, not only in research, but in business and work in general.

Most interesting for me was the ‘information policy matrix’, a way of differentiating distinct research areas and prioritising efforts. The differentiation of three areas of work (ICT & networks, legislation & regulatory, skills), matched to three levels of interest (information sector, organisations, society) offers the potential to very clearly direct research and to filter out noise, whilst retaining an idea of context and the bigger picture. In terms of my own research, I think I am in firmly in the skills area, although with an organisational focus for PATHS, and a society focus for my PhD. It also strikes me now that this matrix could possibly be used to inform a set of LIS research approaches, as mentioned earlier.

That’s the main conference sessions finished then, but I want to wrap up this post with mention of some of the excellent unconference talks, and other informal discussions that for me were some of the highlights of the day. Marshall Dozier (@mafrado) made great use of metaphors to describe the literature search behaviours of PG students – I see great potential in this for talking to users in many different contexts about their behaviour, as well as defining personas in user experience research. Sue Childs (@Northumbria_RM) introduced us to the JISC Project on ‘Managing Research Data’, and I will definitely be looking up the information and training directed at new PhD researchers. Ella Taylor-Smith (@EllaTasm) talked us through the design of her ethnographic study on e-participation, providing a vision of clarity of purpose and organisation that I can only aspire to at the present time. Finally, a very useful chat with Elaine Fulton from the Scottish Library & Information Council about my PhD ideas on narrative in cultural heritage which has given me lots to think about and new perspectives.

Thanks to all – organisers, speakers, fellow delegates for a productive and enjoyable day!

Following my attendance at the LIS DREaM (Developing Research Excellence and Methods) project launch conference in London earlier this year, I was keen to attend the three workshops which focus on introducing different research approaches to new LIS professionals and PhD students, and more importantly, developing a ‘cadre’ or research network. I was therefore very pleased to be accepted as one of the 30 or so workshop participants and to receive one of the six AHRC-funded travel bursaries.

Each workshop is designed to introduce a number of possibly unfamiliar research methods, both qualitative and quantitative, and to raise important issues relevant to research in library and information science. At this first session the agenda included:

• Ethnography
• Social Network Analysis
• Discourse Analysis
• Ethics

In addition, an unconference half hour allowed time for brief presentations from several workshop participants about aspects of their research practice.

Having only recently started my PhD at the University of Sheffield Information School research methodology is very much front of mind as I try to fine-tune my proposed thesis and make decisions about what is most relevant, but also practical, feasible and achievable. I have made a tentative commitment to ethnography, so was very interested in hearing what Dr Paul Lynch had to say in the first session of the workshop. As a means of understanding culture and specific sub-cultures (groups of people with shared characteristics, behaviour, beliefs, language, etc…) ethnography seems to offer a richness and depth that is hard to find in other research approaches, and appears well-suited to my interest in narratives arising from engagement with cultural heritage.

One of the most difficult elements seems to be defining the sub-cultural group to be studied and then gaining access to that group. From the examples given it became evident that this can be a highly subjective judgement that may have broad or narrow definitions, based around shared activity, interests or even specific events like the LIS DREaM workshops – I wonder if Dr Lynch will be observing us throughout the project, especially given the amount of footage being captured on video and online! Research methods for ethnography also offer considerable scope for personal judgement and will vary according to the cultural group being studied. As well as observation-based methods, documents, interviews and personal possessions can also provide valuable data. The latter is of particular interest to me, and I was very pleased to discover that the stories connected to cultural artefacts are a possible source of data. In my own research this may incorporate both public and privately-owned artefacts and their intersections, specifically in the contexts of meaning-making, identity formation and/or learning.

It therefore seems highly appropriate that the ethnographic researcher’s own reflective writing, notes, memos and photographs of the research in action are also classed as data; as we make sense of our research, so we contribute to the research findings. I had some practice at reflexivity whilst studying for my PG Cert in teaching and became very aware that my personal values, prior experience and motivations can have a significant impact on my professional practice, interpretation and evaluation of interactions in specific contexts. Here then are also some of the major issues that ethnographers must contend with – being accepted by groups that may have very different views to your own, re trying not to affect the group’s beliefs, unbiased interpretation… more than one potential ‘can of worms’, as observed by a Twitter follower. For me though, these human differences are what make ethnography so appealing – “there’s nowt so queer as folk”, as my granddad used to say.

Onto a more scientific method, Dr Louise Cooke gave an overview of social network analysis, a technique for visualising connections and relationships between people and/or organisations that is derived from mathematics, but has many applications in the social sciences. Like many others, I had expected before the event that this might have to do with analysing the use of social media like Twitter and Facebook, but this is only one niche application. SNA can be applied in many different contexts and is often allied with theories such as the infamous Stanley Milgram’s small world experiment that gave rise to the popular concept of ‘six degrees of separation’, Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovations and Mark Granovetter’s strength of weak ties. I was already pretty familiar with all of these theories, having previously taught them as a grounding for viral marketing, so it was great to finally fill in a gap in my knowledge with an empirical technique.

A practical experiment plotting existing knowledge and social connections between workshop participants brought the concepts of SNA to life; for the record, we’re somewhat well connected at the moment, with Hazel Hall and Charles Oppenheim as primary nodes, and it will be interesting to see how this changes over the course of the year. It was also interesting to find out that SNA can be applied in areas relevant to LIS researchers such as citation analysis and knowledge management. It occurred to me later that there might be other uses, for instance, within ethnographic studies to understand group structure, in analysing the spread of oral histories, and reviewing the impact of advocacy work.

After lunch, Prof Andy McKinlay gave a fascinating talk on discourse analysis, as well as some useful reminders on the nature of research and the importance of clear research questions. Discourse can be found in spoken, written and signed language, from media and documentary sources, as well as from your own data collected via interviews, focus groups or naturally occurring conversation. It therefore seems to be a key tool for ethnographic studies, but also any other type of research that is concerned with the meanings within human communication. Several examples were given that showed the complexity of interpreting the nuances of text and talk in different contexts, and it was interesting to find that both Lynch and McKinlay agree that software such as NVivo may not do justice to the richness of qualitative data, in comparison with detailed and iterative personal analysis.

Discourse analysis when done properly seems to be as rigorous a treatment of data as any statistical survey, but appears to be much more difficult to do for the novice researcher, given that identification and interpretation of the minutiae and subtleties of language vary from one situation to another. I also suspect that it may be difficult to know when to stop, and when you have over-analysed a piece of text. For me this session has highlighted a definite gap in my knowledge and abilities, and a desire / need to address that as soon as possible. However, I feel that this is one method where there is really no substitute for learning by doing, and for that I need some data – perhaps revisiting my MA dissertation for starters.

The final session of the day was a practical exercise led by Prof Charles Oppenheim highlighting issues of research ethics. We discussed one of five different ethical dilemmas in small groups and fed back to the rest of the workshop. Issues arising here on interpretation of the scenarios neatly tied in with the previous session on discourse analysis. Charles also gamely admitted to being only human in most instances, and made the point that whatever the most professional ethical response, we will often weigh up other issues before taking possibly somewhat compromised action to resolve the matter.

Notes on ethics and research issues were also provided as background reading and for future reference, and as with all of the workshop sessions, are documented along with slides and videos of the presentations via the LIS DREaM web page for each workshop. In a similar vein, the project is supported by comprehensive information and contact details for participants via a community site, Twitter list and Lanyrd event registration. These networks and the unconference slots (videoed for posterity!) at each workshop give excellent opportunities for participants to engage fully with each other and the project. With trepidation I gave a c.3 minute talk about my PhD proposal and was delighted when a number of people came to chat about it at lunch time and provided me with useful information on related research. I also learned more about the other unconference speakers and gained fresh perspectives on how research and practice can be successfully combined. All in all, a very productive and enjoyable day, and I’m really looking forward to the next workshop in January 2012.

LIS DREaM (Developing Research Excellence and Methods) is a one-year LIS Research Coalition project led by Professor Hazel Hall of Edinburgh Napier University. My attendance at the project launch conference was supported through a ‘new professional’ award sponsored by leading LIS recruiters TFPL, Sue Hill and Glen Recruitment. As the first of five events, the DREaM project launch focussed on establishing the project goals, opportunities for participation, setting the scene on its key messages, and also began generating discussion and ideas on how these might be achieved.

It was the conference theme of ‘Out of the Comfort Zone’ that attracted me to the LIS DREaM project. Having come to LIS research late in my career, and with a background in new projects and start-ups, comfort zones are something of an enigma to me, and so I felt that here at last I might be able to channel some of my innate career promiscuity and opportunism to good effect.

Project Overview

Professor Hazel Hall opened the proceedings with an introduction to the project, outlining opportunities to become more involved, including a set of three workshops on research methods, a variety of networking fora, and a Practitioner Research Excellence Award. At the outset of my PhD and research career, the research methods workshops are of particular interest, both from the practical perspective of learning new skills, but more especially as a medium for developing a research network, or ‘cadre’ (as coined by Prof Hall) of like-minded individuals who are open to new ideas and challenging the status quo.

Critique of LIS Research

In his opening keynote, Professor Blaise Cronin then gave a comprehensive review of what aspects of the status quo needed to be addressed; where LIS research had become too comfortable. He challenged the rigour of research in the discipline, its marginality, and quoting Charles Oppenheim, suggested that it is “often poorly funded, poorly conducted, poorly recognised”. Particularly harsh criticism was targeted at so-called ‘cookie-cutter research’, and the weakness of research practice in areas such as meta-analysis, experiment design, lack of longevity and generalisability. Having latterly discussed these points with colleagues at the University of Sheffield Information School, there was considerable agreement, but it was also pointed out that LIS is not alone, and that other disciplines may also suffer from some lack of rigour, if not the lack of recognition.

Opportunities for LIS Research

Just as I was beginning to doubt my new career choice, Cronin then moved on to look at the opportunities for changing this seemingly desperate situation, making the case for libraries and information science as generators of significant impact and value, then offering evidence that finally other disciplines are recognising the worth of what we do. Citations from other disciplines are on the rise, over-taking LIS citations since 1997, suggesting a degree of openness, at least from outside LIS, to cross-disciplinarity and collaboration. Given this situation, he then made the point that we must be unambiguous about what LIS research is all about, so that others are clear about where we can support them.

Strategic Focus

Interestingly, the iSchool movement was presented as one of the reasons for confusion about the nature of the LIS domain, sullying the purity of the discipline, and since my employer, the Information School at the University of Sheffield, has recently become an iSchool this might give rise for concern, especially given his later remarks about strategic investment and positioning, where the fields of Information Retrieval and HCI in which I currently work are presented as a middling and minor in the LIS context. However, in the context of increased collaboration across disciplines, I feel that some blurring of boundaries actually helps to forge alliances. The real issue is then setting out areas of responsibility once the partnerships have been established. In my mind, there is also undoubtedly a need for a continuing and increased focus on information use and users, and it therefore follows that HCI should therefore be a key area for development, either within the LIS domain, or via collaboration.

Networking for Success

Cronin also suggested ways of reaching out to other disciplines, implying that we need to do more to increase our visibility and to create opportunities for collaboration. Digital networks and dissemination are a key factor in connecting researchers, supporting knowledge sharing and transparency, but with the caveat that the strongest partnerships are sustained in close physical proximity. We may therefore need to work harder at sustaining partnerships at a distance or find ways of combining the physical and virtual spaces. Ironically, here, at last are some areas where I feel more comfortable, and perhaps also have the benefit of experience (and learning) about how to manage the challenges of virtual collaboration. Indeed, I suspect that these issues, whilst prominent for some time to come, may become less prevalent as newer generations of researchers enter the field, as their online connections are significantly stronger and more intuitive than before.

Out of your Comfort Zone

As an antidote to the harsh realities presented by Professor Cronin, Dr Dylan Evans in his closing keynote, gave an optimistic and upbeat view of cross-disciplinarity. His personal account of discipline hopping was both entertaining and inspiring, complete with amusing anecdotes and confessions. The message from Evans was clear – opportunities are to be made, risks are to be taken – and most of the time the outcomes are positive, and you can always go back to a previous career point if you the change is not what you expected.

This seemed a little rose-tinted, and could perhaps have been tempered with the reality of the economic climate, funding cuts and fewer employment opportunities, although some suggestions of cross-disciplinary funders were made, including the Wellcome and Leverhulme Trusts. It also true that career change often involves some harsh financial transitions, as many areas (including LIS and academic research in general) will require you to retrain, or at best, make only a lateral move. Only the individual can decide if they are in a position to take on these realities. I for one am glad that I did, and look forward to being outside of my comfort zone for some time to come, whilst I forge a path through the LIS domain and collaborate with colleagues in many disciplines, including the polar opposites of computer science and cultural heritage as part of PATHS, my current research project.