DREaM event 3 materials now all online

Thanks largely to the efforts of our event amplifier Kirsty Pitkin, and the hard work of the workshop 2 reviewers, we’re pleased to announce that all the resources from last week’s DREaM project workshop at the British Library are now available online.

From here you can link through to each of the session presentations:

Room signage

The second DREaM workshop was held at the British Library

We have also uploaded the video of delegate presentations in the unconference half hour. This includes contributions from:

  • Marshall Dozier
  • Jean Parris
  • Lauren Smith
  • Jenny Harbour
  • Sue Childs
  • Ella Taylor-Smith
  • Lesley Thomson

The workshop 3 reviews page provides links to all the delegate reviews of the event. Listed with these are Hazel Hall’s analysis of the workshop 2 evaluation forms, and Kirsty Pitkin’s analysis and review of Twitter activity on the day. (The CoverItLive archive of the event also gives a good flavour of the online conversations related to the event.)

If you would like to set up or join an online discussion based around any of the issues covered in this workshop, please feel free to do so with other DREaM network members in the DREaM online community. DREaM online community membership is open to anyone with an interest in library and information science research: you do not have to have attended a DREaM project event to join. You will also find the full set of photos taken at workshop 2 in the DREaM online community.

DREaM workshop 2 (#lis_dream3) review and thanks

An excellent day overall

DREaM 2 evaluation forms

DREaM 2 evaluation forms

No matter how skilled they are, there are some risks running events over which the organisers have no control. In the twelve months leading up to yesterday’s DREaM workshop at the British Library the major concern was the weather. The big question (especially in light of the past two winters) was “Would it snow?” In the event, none of the pesky white stuff fell in London on 30th January 2012. Despite this, it was still a very chilly day, with even colder weather forecast for the rest of the week. Nevertheless, the DREaM workshop cadre braved the elements, in several cases with a very early morning start, for the long journey to the south east. Once at the British Library they enjoyed a warm welcome from the DREaM project team and their fellow delegates at the third of the five DREaM events.

The Debonair Nick Moore

Professor Nick Moore made a special request for his badge - and we obliged

The programme itself comprised four formal sessions led by invited speakers Professor Peter Beresford, Dr Thomas Haigh, Professor Mike Thelwall, and Professor Nick Moore. They were introduced and chaired by the DREaM project co-investigators Professor Hazel Hall and Professor Charles Oppenheim. Seven members of the DREaM workshop cadre gave Unconference half hour presentations on their research interests just before the lunch break.

A couple of short exercises were also included in the programme, and everyone made the most of the opportunities at registration and in the refreshment breaks to network with their DREaM project friends and colleagues.

Twenty-seven delegates returned completed evaluation forms at the end of the day. A review of Twitter activity around the event also gives insight into how the sessions were appreciated by both the delegates on site and those following remotely.

Katie Fraser and Michael Stead

Dr Katie Fraser and Michael Stead

Once again, the event was well received. The majority noted on their evaluation forms that the overall value of their participation at the event was “excellent”. Enthusiastic comments on the evaluation forms show appreciation of the quality of the presentations and variety of the programme, and its relevance to their learning and work:

  • “Excellent programme and quality of speakers and participant presentations”.
  • “The programme was varied and extremely interesting. I have learnt a lot. Thank you very much”.
  • “Fab event – diverse and varied”
  • “Thank you! Excellent day, inspiring!”
  • “The programme has been extremely interesting and the introduction to methodologies will be very useful for my work”.
  • “An excellent day – found the content even more helpful that the last one.”
  • “Superb[…] mashup of methods which was great!”
  • “I am enjoying – and learning a great deal about – the different research methods/approaches”.

Similarly on Twitter one delegate remarked that it was a “Really interesting and useful day”, and another said “Great to meet so many people. Thoroughly interesting day!”

Session evaluations

The most popular rating for all four invited speaker sessions was “Excellent”, as it was for the unconference half hour slot.

Mike Thelwall

Professor Mike Thelwall discusses webometrics

Mike Thelwall’s introduction to webometrics was rated most highly. The delegates particularly enjoyed how (in the words of one) “specific examples of [the] application of methods [were] explicitly analysed” in the presentation.

There was also appreciation for Peter Beresford’s presentation on user involvement in research, drawing on practice in a discipline other than LIS. This came through on the evaluation forms and over Twitter: one delegate tweeted that Peter’s presentation was the highlight of her day. It is interesting to note that although LIS researchers put much research effort into observing users, they are less likely to include them in identifying research priorities or research design – something which is becoming more common in other areas such as Peter’s. Had there been time the tricky question of how to access non-users of a service may have led to some further interesting discussion in Peter’s session. This is an issue that could be explored further by the DREaM online community.

Thomas Haigh’s proposal of approaching LIS research projects from a historical perspective (a tall order to cover in 45 minutes) led to some interesting delegate suggestions and comment, as well as a useful overview of the iSchool movement. The exercise that Thomas set for the group gave an opportunity for small groups to apply the concepts from his presentation to a range of research projects currently in progress. Thomas gave thoughtful feedback on the work completed later in the afternoon.

Nick Moore’s “very personal account” of his research career prompted consideration of how to carve out a successful career in research. He cleverly used stories from his own long career in research to pass on advice to the next generation. Nick’s advice on taking time to think is particularly pertinent in the context of some of the comments on the evaluation forms. These showed recognition that each DREaM project event generates lots to think about, and that the value of participation cannot always be assessed immediately after the event has ended. One delegate, for example, believed that having now attended two workshops ideas were beginning to crystalise on the kind of research with which his/her own organisation should be concerned. Another tweeted “#lis_dream3 was excellent. I’m glad I’ve got the rest of the week off: it gives me time to think about what I heard today.”

It is interesting how links can be made between the presentations at this second event and those made at the first. For example, Mike’s contribution echoed elements of Louise Cooke’s session on social network analysis, as well as that of Andy McKinlay on discourse analysis. Similarly Peter and Thomas’ presentations recalled elements of Paul Lynch’s explanation of ethnographic approaches. Ethical and legal issues, also discussed that the first workshop in Charles’ session, are applicable across all.

Evaluation of workshop administration and the venue

Rossitza Atanassova

Dr Rossitza Atanassova managed all the on-site coordination on the day

The workshop organisers were pleased once again that an overwhelming majority of the participants rated the workshop administration before and during the event as “excellent”. Hazel Hall, Charles Oppenheim, Stephanie Kenna, Christine Irving, Rossitza Atanassova and Kirsty Pitkin were thanked in the evaluations for being “extremely efficient and helpful”. The day itself was considered “well organised and chaired”.

The location for the workshop was also rated very highly with the majority of respondents rating its convenience, comfort and facilities, and the refreshments provided all as “excellent”. Specific mention was made of the “good wifi”, and that the British Library is “very handy for major rail stations”. The effort that the catering staff had taken for those with special diets was appreciated: many others were indeed envious of the big slice of gluten-free cake for one person in particular!

Remote delegates

As has been the case at the previous two DREaM project events in October and July 2011 there was interest in the event beyond the venue itself. Remote followers of the 444 tweets assigned the workshop hashtag (#lis_dream3) sent good wishes to participants in the morning, urging them to keep the outside world updated. For example, one said “Godspeed to all the dreamers travelling to #lis_dream3 today. Hope to see lots of tweets”.

The remote followers exhibited varied levels of engagement from one who was “present” all day, asked questions of the speakers and participated in the workshop exercise, to others who dropped in on particular sessions, or appeared to simply retweet links.

Twelve remote delegates were clearly identifiable from their use of the hashtag and/or their interactions with @LIS_DREaM over the course of the day. It is not possible to give the actual figure for all who watched the proceedings remotely, but it is bound to have included more people than the twelve who actively contributed to Twitter and CoverItLive discussions.

Those for whom we do have data appeared to have benefited from participation. One tweeted “Thanks to the @LIS_DREaM team for another good workshop & for enabling me to follow online!”

Stephanie Kenna

Stephanie Kenna tweeted as @LISResearch throughout the day

The Twitter back-channel during the day also provided an extra dimension to the event for those who were online. Associated discussions ranged from the serious, for example on the value of postgraduate degrees, to fun. For example, at the start of the day one delegate asked whether Hazel was about to announce that she was the next Dr Who (when, in fact, she was on the point of telling everyone that Dr Ben Goldacre will be the closing keynote speaker at the DREaM conference on July 9th), and from his train on the way home the same person suggested that there should be karaoke at the next DREaM workshop. This suggestion was prompted by a discussion of a particular delegate T shirt, one of two on the day that attracted many admiring comments. The other T shirt displays a map of Libraria.

Here we should offer thanks to our top ten tweeters on the day:@LIS_DREaM (mainly Kirsty Pitkin) 95; @LISResearch (Stephanie Kenna) 61; @walkyouhome 49; @katie_fraser 48; @joeyanne 30; @lgbtlibrarian 19 (remote delegate); @lelil 18; @MariaJGrant 17; @hazelh 16; @RossiAtanassova 13. Two of these have already written full blog reports of their experience of the workshop: Katie Fraser and Lauren Smith. These and other reviews of the event will be listed on the reviews page.

One step further to meeting the aims of the DREaM project

The primary aim of the DREaM project is noted on the main project page of the LIS Research Coalition web site as to develop a formal UK-wide network of Library and Information Science (LIS) researchers. As a set of individuals committed to LIS research, it is hoped that the delegates at the three workshops (the “cadre”) will form the backbone of a network that lasts beyond the duration of the DREaM project. To date they have come together at two one-day sessions that provide method overviews. In addition, a subset also participated at the project launch conference in July 2011, and some are expected to come to the concluding event at the British Library on 9th July 2012.

Alice Corble and Sara Wingate Gray

Alice Corble and Sara Wingate Gray in the afternoon tea break

Some feedback from this second workshop shows how the cadre is beginning to meet the project’s primary aim, with recognition that the workshops are not intended as “traditional” training days. Rather, they are events at which overviews are given of a range of research methods and approaches, some of which are not (yet) commonly practised by LIS researchers, with scope for those interested to follow up the advice and recommendations of the expert speakers by exploring other resources. The longer-term value of the meeting activity, however, is anticipated to emerge from the connections forged between the members of the cadre as a network. For example, one delegate wrote on his/her evaluation form that he/she now sees the future role of the DREaM network as a body of people who can define and commission research. Another noted that it was important that the network members learn more about one another, and suggested that the discussion space in the DREaM online community should be used more extensively for this purpose, with the proposal that network members should set up a journal club in this space. It is also worth mentioning here that there is clear evidence of the strengthening of ties between network members. For example, at least one network member has offered to host the visit of another to Edinburgh for the next workshop on April 25th.

Feedback for action at #lis_dream4

Hazel Hall and Christine Irving

Professor Hazel Hall & Christine Irving

Other delegate comments at this workshop will be acted upon in time for the next workshop in Edinburgh on 25th April. The next set of presenters will be reminded that practical examples of the application of research approaches and techniques are appreciated, especially if they can be contextualized to LIS research. Efforts will be made so that adequate time can be devoted to a workshop task that allows for meaningful discussion in groups. The venue for workshop 3 is more spacious than the British Library seminar rooms so it may be possible to arrange for some tables to be sited in the main room to make note-taking on computer and tweeting more comfortable. It will also be spring time by then, so the couple of people who mentioned that they felt rather cold yesterday will welcome the warmer weather the next time that we all meet.

Further resources

The resources from the workshop will be added to this web site and the DREaM online community over the next few days. News of resource availability will be tweeted. It is hoped that this job will be complete by the middle of next week. In the meantime thanks to everyone – speakers, organisers and delegates alike – for another great day!

Ben Goldacre to speak at DREaM conference on 9th July 2012

Ben Goldacre announced as #lis_dream5 keynote speaker

The announcement was made at the DREaM project workshop on 30th January 2012

Today we announced that Dr Ben Goldacre will be the closing speaker at the DREaM project conference on 9th July 2012. Dr Goldacre is probably best known for the weekly Bad Science column in the Guardian, which he has written since 2003. His presentation on research, evidence bases, decision making and policy will conclude a day devoted to considering the role of research in supporting library and information services provision.

For further details, please see the media release.

Research update: Hulya Ceren Anil’s work on Generation Y and conferences

Early in summer 2011 the DREaM project team was approached by Hulya Ceren Anil, a Masters student at the University of Surrey. Hulya asked if it would be possible for her to use the DREaM project launch conference as a site for data collection for her Masters dissertation. We were pleased both to welcome her on the day, and to hear recently that she achieved a distinction for her project, as well as her degree overall. Hulya has sent us an update on her study, the details of which are outlined below.

Hulya

An introduction to Hulya's work from the opening session at the DREaM launch conference

The aim of Hulya’s research was to explore the need for interactivity in the content design of meetings and conferences. She was interested in the Generation Y perspective, and to compare this to the needs of the previous generations. She wanted to find out what kind of advanced interactive technologies may be needed in conferences and meetings in order to motivate and attract the Generation Y audience. She suspected that members of this group are less responsive to basic PowerPoint presentations. Thus she hoped to find out whether there was potential at conferences for advanced audiovisual technology such as virtual reality, 3D, hologram projections etc.

The DREaM launch conference was an ideal site for data collection because of the delegate demographic in terms of age, and because the delegates were from a profession that has a tradition of conference participation. Apart from these main factors, the length and the date of the conference were ideally suited to the timing of Hulya’s research, and the venue was within easy reach for her to attend in person.

Hulya was grateful for a very warm welcome from the organisers when she arrived at the British Library mid-afternoon on July 19th. The audience had been notified of her research in the conference opening session in the morning and the delegates shown her picture.

Participation in the research was optional. When Hulya arrived she placed her questionnaires and envelopes near the exit of the auditorium so anyone interested could pick up a copy at the end of the conference. During closing remarks the audience was reminded about the questionnaire.

After the conference Hulya also appreciated help with distributing her questionnaires to a wider audience. She followed advice from the DREaM launch conference organising committee members on how to achieve this. This help was invaluable in generating further interest in the study, and in securing a high response rate to the survey.

The research findings highlight that visuals should be used extensively in meetings and conferences in order to aid the learning process of Generation Y delegates, and to keep them focused. To do this, an appropriate combination of these should be used along with other forms of data presentation such as audio, motion pictures (videos), and texts. The main reason for the necessity of high visual content is that Generation Y has been exposed to images and visual learning since early childhood. This generation is used to playing video games and surfing the Internet.

Hulya also found that Generation Y prefers a high level of interactivity (both technological and personal) and prefers that the entertainment element at meetings and conferences is also emphasised. In addition, serious games as well as interactive learning tools such as touch screen tables with a high level of graphics can be utilised for this purpose. Specialised software tailored specifically according to a meeting’s needs will encourage collaboration: Generation Y generally prefers to collaborate and co-operate. If the right design is employed, this can help bring out Generation Y’s true potential as effective collaborators and motivate the achievement of objectives of the conferences and meetings as educational events. At the same time networking and motivation elements are satisfied.

On the basis of her results Hulya advises conference organisers to understand Generation Y well and tailor their conferences and meetings accordingly. The findings have shown that there is no need for extreme changes. However, left to time, a gap will grow between the generations if attention isn’t paid to this issue now. Hulya’s research, and that of others, has shown that Generation Y is a very productive cohort, provided that it is approached the right way and given the right conditions.

DREaM event 2: review, resources and thanks

Dr Paul Lynch reviews his notes as the delegates eagerly await the first session of #lis_dream2

Dr Paul Lynch reviews his notes as the delegates eagerly await the first session of #lis_dream2

Two weeks ago we held the first of the three DREaM project workshops at the Craighouse campus of Edinburgh Napier University. We set ourselves a tight deadline to get all the workshop materials online within one week of the event, which we achieved. This blog post now provides an opportunity to reflect on the first workshop, drawing on the feedback from the 23 event evaluation forms completed, tweets by delegates (on site and remote) from the day itself and afterwards, and e-mail correspondence received by the organisers after the event. The participant reviews of the workshop posted since 25th October also give a flavour of the day.

Dr Louise Cooke and Professor Charles Oppenheim

Dr Louise Cooke and Professor Charles Oppenheim

The most popular evaluation form rating for elements of the workshop assessed by the delegates was “excellent”. This rating applied to all the speaker-led sessions by: (1) Professor Hazel Hall (introduction); (2) Dr Paul Lynch (ethnography); (3) Dr Louise Cooke (social network analysis); (4) Professor Andy McKinlay (discourse analysis) and (5) Professor Charles Oppenheim (research ethics and legal issues). The speakers were described as “inspiring” and admired for the “very high level of [their] presentations”. Louise Cooke’s session on social network analysis was the most popular, possibly because Louise was able to demonstrate in practice theoretical aspects of her presentation by using data gathered from the audience. The use of case studies in Charles Oppenheim’s session on ethics and legal issues also appealed because the session approach “made it real” in providing an opportunity to share ideas and experience.

Jo Alcock's unconference half hour flip chart sheet

Jo Alcock's unconference half hour flip chart sheet

The majority vote for the delegate-led unconference half hour session was split between “excellent” and “very good”. This is impressive given that it was only on the day itself that the presenters decided whether or not they would step up to the podium, and they were severely restricted in the amount of time available for them to make their main points, with limited access to “technology” in the form of the flip chart as a visual aid. Perhaps the most interesting (and unintended) outcome of this session was how a question from Michael Stead about public librarians’ engagement with research triggered a debate about the strength of links between LIS research and public library practice in each of the UK home nations. These exchanges are recorded in the video of unconference half hour (27 minutes in), along with the other presentations.

The most popular rating for the workshop location’s convenience, comfort and facilities, and refreshments was also “excellent”, as it was for the event administration (both before and on the day). One delegate admired the “beautiful location, comfortable room [and] delicious refreshments” and another commented on the “wonderful facilities”. The organisers were congratulated for an event that was “well-produced”.

Delegates enjoy the refreshments at Edinburgh Napier Craighouse

Delegates enjoy the refreshments at Edinburgh Napier Craighouse

Given the enthusiasm for the other elements on the form, we were not surprised to see that when asked to rate the workshop as a whole, the vast majority (19 out of the 23 returns) gave this the top rating of “excellent” too. Enthusiastic comments referred to both the usefulness and the enjoyment of the day. For example, evaluation form comments included:

  • I thoroughly enjoyed the day and gained a lot of knowledge about the different research methods at our disposal.
  • A valuable, interesting event. Fabulous for networking and sharing knowledge. Have developed in so many areas. Many thanks.
  • A thoroughly enjoyable event – lots to reflect on during the train ride home.
  • Opened my mind to a range of research options that I had not systematically reviewed before.
Jenny Harbour of Healtcare Improvement Scotland shares experiences with Jo Longhurst of Devon School Library Service

Jenny Harbour of Healtcare Improvement Scotland shares experiences with Jo Longhurst of Devon School Library Service

Our classification of the core DREaM “cadre” members shows that the group comprises a range of participants who occupy roles in a number of sectors: six public librarians/people with policy roles closely associated with public libraries; six academic librarians; five full-time PhD students; three LIS academics; three healthcare librarians; two university researchers; one librarian who works in a government library; one librarian who works for a national library; one librarian who works for a professional body; one consultant; and one academic from another discipline. Five of these people hold PhDs and another six are either already registered for a PhD or about to register for doctoral studies. Particularly appreciated at the first workshop was the opportunity to meet and work with this “very stimulating and diverse” mix of delegates. As one remarked: “I really enjoyed the event… and meeting a variety of people from different library and information sectors”. One delegate said afterwards by e-mail that the workshop “had a very creative dynamic, which I am sure will throw up exciting avenues of research that no-one had anticipated”. This could perhaps lead to the “great things” that one of the speakers believes that the DREaM project has already started to achieve since its launch conference in July 2011.

Essentials for tweeting: the programme, power supply and access to the network

Essentials for tweeting: the programme, power supply and access to the network

We were delighted that a number of remote delegates were able to take advantage of our event amplification and follow the workshop on 25th October by referring to the presentation slides posted online in advance, watching the Twitter hashtag #lis_dream2, and keeping an eye on our CoverItLive site. From the CoverItLive archive it can be seen that 18 people beyond the workshop venue used the workshop hashtag, many of whom interacted directly with on-site participants. It is suspected that many more monitored the event over the course of the day. While some of those unable to attend expressed their regret at missing the workshop, making reference to the “lucky folk” in Edinburgh, the amplification did appear to work well off-site. As one person tweeted “Wish I could be there! But actually am getting a lot out of it from following via slides and Twitter”. Even for the on-site delegates the Twitter back-channel added a further dimension to the day. It is worth reading through the CoverItLive archive to witness the exchanges and see how conversations on topics related to the presentations develop in the Twittersphere alongside the main event. In this case, for example, there are the beginnings of an interesting debate on the value of LinkedIn versus Twitter for professional networking (as well as some more light-hearted references to cats!)

#lis_dream2 delegates discuss ethics and legal issues

#lis_dream2 delegates discuss ethics and legal issues

We now turn our attention to the next DREaM project workshop at the British Library on Monday 30th January 2012. Some comments and suggestions from the first workshop will help with its planning. For example, we will be asking the session speakers if they can provide practical illustrations of the theory that they discuss in their talks, for instance by providing examples of worked data. We will also consider how we can squeeze more time for networking into the programme, perhaps by lengthening the time slot for registrations with tea/coffee at the start of the day, and the lunch break (although the core timings for the day will remain as advertised, i.e. 10:30-16:15). Given that there was some appetite amongst the remote delegates on 25th October to participate in the social network analysis exercise led by Louise Cooke, we will investigate whether the exercise/game elements of the second and third workshops might be designed with the possibility of remote participation in mind. All these ideas will be discussed by the project team, the Advisory Board, and the speakers over the coming weeks. We also welcome other suggestions to help achieve the success of the DREaM project so do get in touch even if you are not involved in the DREaM events: this project is for the whole LIS community.

Bust of John Napier at Craighouse campus, Edinburgh Napier University

Bust of John Napier at Craighouse campus, Edinburgh Napier University

In the meantime, we encourage all with an interest in LIS research to review the DREaM project materials from the first workshop (as well as materials from the launch conference), to join the DREaM online community (where, for example, you can “meet” others interested in LIS research, join in forum discussions – there is already the start of a conversation about ethnographic research in academic libraries to investigate the student experience, comment on the event presentations, and browse through the archive of photos from the past two events), to follow the DREaM participants Twitter list, and to follow the project itself from @LIS_DREaM.

Finally, we would just like to thank everyone for their participation in the DREaM project to date. We recognise that the success of the past two events is built on the contributions of all involved.

DREaM event 2 materials now all online

Over the past few days we have been working hard with our event amplifier Kirsty Pitkin to load up all the material that we generated together at Edinburgh Napier Craighouse campus last Tuesday. We’re pleased to tell you that all the resources are now available online from the main workshop page.

From here you can link through to each of the session presentations on:

DREaM programmes and notepads

  1. Ethnography
  2. Social network analysis
  3. Discourse analysis
  4. Research ethics and legal issues

Each session page includes associated materials such as videos of the presentations, slides and summaries.

We have also uploaded the video of delegate presentations in the unconference half hour.

Thank you to everyone who has reviewed the workshop. All contributions are now available from the workshop 2 reviews page. (The CoverItLive archive of the event also gives a good flavour of the online conversations during the day, as well as participation of remote delegates, 18 of whom addressed the workshop delegates directly over Twitter.)

We will be adding our own review, along with an analysis of the workshop feedback, soon. Watch this space!

Travelling to DREaM event 2

Edinburgh bus

Edinburgh bus (Photo credit: WindwalkerNId)

Those travelling to the second of the DREaM project events in Edinburgh this week are reminded to check the travel advice on the workshop page.

The detail here has been updated again this morning to take into account changes to the city centre bus services. These are due to the on-going tram works on Edinburgh’s Princes Street.

DREaM event 2 speaker insight: Professor Charles Oppenheim

Charles Oppenheim

Professor Charles Oppenheim

In the third in our series of speaker insights ahead of the LIS DREaM2 Workshop in Edinburgh next week, Professor Charles Oppenheim gives us a punchy introduction to the theme of his session, which will examine research ethics and legal issues. He described the mental approached required to undertake ethical research and why LIS researchers need to take heed.

Professor Charles Oppenheim is a co-investigator of the DREaM project. He is also a member of the Legal Advisory Board of the European Commission, and of the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance.

What research issues will you be discussing with the workshop participants in your presentation?

Legal and ethical issues associated with doing research

How have these issues affected your own research?

Although I have little doubt I have made mistakes in my research in the past, I try wherever possible to ensure that any research I do takes into account things like data protection/privacy and freedom of information. I also try to ensure that research methods I use are fair to respondents and are analysed correctly. It’s more to do with a state of mind than anything more specific.

How do you think these issues might be relevant to LIS researchers?

I am aware of too many poorly designed questionnaires, and research methods adopted by others that threaten respondents’ privacy.

Where can people will find more information?

A search on Amazon using the terms “research ethics” provide several useful reference books on that side. There’s no one single source on the legal side though.

To find out more about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

DREaM event 2 speaker insight: Professor Andy McKinlay

Professor Andy McKinlay

Professor Andy McKinlay

In the second in our series of preview posts ahead of the LIS DREaM2 workshop, Professor Andy McKinlay discusses some of the issues he will be covering in his workshop session An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. He explains what this research technique involves, how he has applied it in his own work and why he feels it will be of benefit to the other LIS researchers attending the workshop.

Professor Andy McKinlay is head of the school of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences at the University of Edinburgh.

What research techniques will you be discussing with the workshop participants?

I will be exploring with colleagues the ways in which one particular form of qualitative research – discourse analysis – can be employed in LIS research. The essence of discourse analysis is to examine the fine grain details of spoken and written discourse to develop an understanding of how people accomplish social actions in discourse. This includes understanding how people ‘socially construct’ versions of people, actions and events.

How have you applied these techniques in your own research?

Across a number of years I have been interested in understanding how people use discourse to socially construct their own identities and the identities of other people. How, in other words, people use text and talk to create a sense of who they are and also to create a sense of who other people are. One element of my research has focused on how people use discourse in this way to avoid, or deal with, becoming the targets of prejudice.

How do you think these techniques might be relevant to LIS researchers?

First, LIS researchers can use discourse analysis to understand how LIS functions as one of a set of socially-embedded structures and practices: How do LIS professionals view LIS? How do other ‘stakeholders’ such as funders and users understand LIS? How do people make sense of the complex societal relationships that exist between LIS and other aspects of society, e.g. what do they see as the relationship between the library and the community? Are there broader ideologies in society that conditions the way that LIS functions?

Second, LIS involves people: LIS professionals, user groups, and different groups of other relevant people such as related professionals, colleagues within the broader work environment, those involved in regulatory activities, or those involved in funding. In what ways does the LIS professional create an understanding of what these people are like? And how do these people create a sense of what the LIS professional is like? How do these viewpoints interact (or even collide)? What are the social action outcomes of people viewing each other in these ways? These are questions that can be pursued using discourse analysis.

Where can people will find more information?

People might want to pursue these themes by looking at the text I co-wrote with Professor Chris McVittie: McKinlay, A. & McVittie, C. (2008). Social psychology and discourse. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Another useful text is: Tuffin, K. (2005). Understanding critical social psychology. London: Sage.

For full details about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

DREaM event 2 speaker insight: Dr Louise Cooke

Dr Louise Cooke

Dr Louise Cooke

We are now only a week away from the first LIS DREaM workshop, which will be held in Edinburgh next Tuesday.

In the first of our series of preview posts ahead of the workshop, Dr Louise Cooke gives us a taste of what she intends to cover in her session, in which she will be introducing the participants to social network analysis. She explains why she feels this technique can be of value to LIS researchers and provides a really useful reading list so you can find out more about the issues involved.

Dr Louise Cooke is a Senior Lecturer at Loughborough University, where she teaches the MSc Information and Knowledge Management programme.

What research techniques will you be discussing with the workshop participants?

I will be discussing the potential uses of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in LIS research. SNA is a research technique that focuses on investigating the relationships between entities (e.g. who communicates with whom?), rather than the properties of the entities themselves. We will be doing a practical exercise using UCINET software which will investigate the research links between workshop participants.

How have you applied these techniques in your own research?

I have carried out a relatively simple SNA project, similar to that which we will be undertaking at the DREaM workshop. This analysed research networks between LIS PhD students at Sheffield University and at Loughborough University. I have also supervised MSc students using SNA for their dissertation research. In one case, for example, the student analysed information and knowledge flows in an academic department at Kyambogo University in Uganda. I am also currently supervising a PhD student who plans to use SNA as one element of his research strategy: his overall research project focuses on knowledge management (KM) in organisations.

How do you think these techniques might be relevant to LIS researchers?

SNA is particularly useful in the field of KM. It is increasingly being used by researchers and business consultants to analyse patterns of information and knowledge flow in organisations. In particular, it enables the identification of individuals playing important structural roles in the knowledge network, for example as bottleneck or gatekeeper; peripheral; central connector; boundary spanner etc. It also enables sub-groups, such as cliques, to be identified. Importantly, this enables organisations to make interventions that improve the overall knowledge flow. SNA is also useful to LIS researchers with regard to the exploration of patterns of online communication, for example, within online communities, and is the underpinning theory on which citation analysis is based.

Where can people will find more information?

The most useful (and accessible) text for me has been that by Cross & Parker, The Hidden Power of Social Networks, published by the Harvard Business School in 2004.

A very useful free resource is the introductory handbook written by Robert Hanneman (University of California) and Mark Riddle (University of Northern Colorado) . It is a good starting point if you plan to use UCINET software for SNA.

For an understanding of the potential uses of SNA the paper by Otto and Rousseau would be a good place to start: Otte, E & Rousseau, R (2002) SNA: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28 (6) 441-453.

Finally, if you are really serious about gaining expertise in the techniques of SNA, I would recommend attending the University of Essex Summer School in Social Science Data Analysis course in SNA – I did this myself, and found it immensely useful.

Dr Cooke will be presenting her session Introduction to social network analysis and will also introduce the workshop 1 game/task. For full details about the workshop, please see the workshop programme.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers