Chapter 15, MLIS

Ron Powell’s “Research” chapter, in the Portable MLIS, really got me thinking about different types of research and the pros and cons of each- depending on what type of results you are looking for. I come from a predominantly science-oriented background, so I have definitive (narrow?) ideas of what “research” means. To me it has meant
1. Develop the hypothesis.
2. Design and run the test method to challenge the hypothesis- with a very standard set of rules using controls, etc.
3. Evaluate the data and conclude if the hypothesis was able to be proven or not.
I would say this is a distinctly qualitative view of research! As I move into this new field, I realize I must now develop new ideas and skills, utilizing other research methods. To help flex this under-developed muscle, I imagine my research “problem” to be learning to meet the needs of my student patrons (a never ending research!). With this in mind, I mulled over the different research methods discussed by Powell, and how they relate to my research “problem.”
The first method Powell discusses is the survey. I thought of taking quick informal surveys of the children after a book talk- just a hands up if you enjoyed the story and some general questions about what they liked/ disliked about it. I also remembered from my librarian interview with Ms. St. John that she mentioned having games of voting a favorite book from a list, but in a “March Madness bracket style list,” where books are weeded out, with a final winner. Ms. St John also has the children play question/ answer games that are based on books. The children actually come up with the questions themselves, so this could really be a way on surveying what books the children are reading. I realize these are non-traditional survey methods, non-the-less, the end result of finding out what the students like (and getting them to read!) is still success. (Darlene St. John, 6/8/2009).
There are several different types if focus groups that I envision developing. One would be with some of the teachers in the school (maybe one from each grade, maybe all from one grade…) in order to have complementary goals for the curriculum. Another idea from Ms. St. John was a focus group of all the librarians within the school district. They did their group to standardize a technology curriculum.
As far as the Delphi- style, I would like to utilize other elementary school librarians to help develop my collection, especially the first year or two. There seems to be an overwhelming number of choices in children’s book selections, and the input of some other field experts could definitely be beneficial. I do realize, however, that ethnography would need to be factored into the expert choices, in that their group of students may be different in culture, etc.
One last method that I anticipate great things from is the technology centered method. This is a great way of tracking (quantitatively!) what books/genres/authors are being checked out the most.
In science research, as I stated earlier, one must evaluate the data to see if the hypothesis will hold true. Although I have no hypothesis here, I still realize the value of analyzing all the input from these various methods. One is for myself, to know that I am giving 100% to my job, but also for the teachers and librarians that have collaborated with me in these projects. Certainly, the rationales that Powell presents apply here- personal growth and improved service, but also possibly budget justifications.
Powell states that “Research in LIS…has not been as rigorous… as would be ideal.” (p. 177). For my purposes here, though, informal as they may be, I feel that they could be informative, revealing, and ultimately a tremendous help in my achieving success at knowing the needs of my student patrons.

Interview with Darlene St. John, June 8, 2009.
Powell, R. (2008). Research In K. Haycock, & B. E. Sheldon (Eds.), The Portable MLIS: Insights from the Experts (pp. 168-178), Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited