CHAPTER FIVE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.4 Data collection techniques
5.4.4 Data collection
143
5. Results of Social Network Analysis can be used to penalize respondents (for instance, when the sociograms indicate unfavourable linkages) so many potential respondents would not want to be involved in such a research project; and
6. The results of Social Network Analysis may result in hurt feelings of those members of the institutions who are portrayed in negative light. Similarly, participants may not want to list anyone‟s name unless it is in a positive context.
It also emerged from the consultations and literature review that direct Social Network Analysis is more suitably applied by members of a network or an institution. It is not easy for a researcher from outside the institution to conduct it effectively. Under these circumstances, it became apparent that the respondents would not be willing to participate in the study, let alone being able to be honest in their responses. Under these circumstances, the research data would have been skewed.
The researcher, therefore, decided to analyze the social networks using indicators of linkages such as research collaboration and co-authorship. The researcher conducted an analysis of co-authorship amongst researchers as an indicator of collaboration and social networks. The researcher also did the same for the librarians. The analysis was based on the entries of publications from the institutions listed in the online Web of Science (Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index; Arts and Humanities Citation Index; Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science; and Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science and Humanities). The researcher focussed on articles published from 1945 to the present. The revised set of questions for Social Network Analysis is enclosed as Appendix 5.7.
144
from non-verbal cues; it also enabled him to probe inadequately answered questions; and also gave the researcher an opportunity to create and administer new questions as he deemed fit to the benefit of the research in the course of the interviews. However, it was more expensive and time-consuming than posted self-administered questionnaires because the researcher had physically to meet the respondents to maximize its benefits. In this process, the researcher utilized separate interview schedules – with specialized questions – for users and librarians. The results of the interviews were recorded by the researcher on the respective questionnaires during the interviews. Responses which had not been anticipated were recorded in a notebook dedicated for this purpose.
The researcher also used ten (two for each case) focus group discussions (FGDs) with library users, consisting of five to seven members for each FGD, to establish the consensus of the users about the levels of the services they receive as well as their expectations and priorities and how these have or have not been met by the library services they received. Two categories (broadly based on grades of employment) of researchers were sampled using standard procedures for sampling and engaged in the focus group discussions (see Appendix 5.3 for set of questions). Besides these, the researcher also conducted two focus group discussions with the librarians (see Appendix 5.2 for the set of questions used). One FGD was held for a group of librarians and assistant librarians from the case libraries (one representative from each case) to shed light on what the majority perceived the role, performance, opportunities and challenges of the libraries were as well as the direction they ought to take. Similarly, a focus group discussion for head librarians was also conducted. As stated earlier, it was through a half-day workshop facilitated by the researcher and Mr. Ballantyne. Focus group discussions were preferred because they are more insightful, comfortable (less formal) and generally yield in-depth information than other methods. All the sessions except the FGD for head librarians – facilitated jointly by the researcher and Mr. Ballantyne – were facilitated by the researcher himself in appropriate environments so as to obtain credible data. The major points of the discussions were recorded by the researcher in a notebook dedicated for that purpose. The conversations were also recorded using a digital voice recorder as back-up data. There were separate schedules and semi- structured questions for each group – users and librarians.
Apart from the interviews and FGDs, the researcher also conducted participant observations both directly (openly) and through mystery shopping. For direct observations, the researcher monitored the library premises and services – from strategic positions in the libraries – and noted various issues
145
that would affect effective use of the libraries for research such as cleanliness of the library premises, customer service levels and appropriateness of shelving of resources, among others. Direct observations were also used to gather data on the number of users visiting the case libraries as well as the status of library equipment and materials. These findings were recorded on the direct observations checklist (see Appendix 5.8). For mystery shopping, the researcher used the research assistants unfamiliar to the staff members. These assistants posed as any other ordinary library user and experienced the services first hand. As Hogg and Gabbott (1996) suggest, mystery shopping was used together with the other methods like interviews and FGDs to enable the researcher to overcome possible weaknesses of these techniques. This was in recognition of the fact that 1) There is a discrepancy between real and reported behaviour; 2) Often facts are brought to light in the context of natural settings and may not be obtained through questioning; and 3) The verbal capabilities of the interviewee may limit the quality and quantity of information gathered (Hogg and Gabbott 1996). Mystery shopping (see Appendix 5.4 for the scenarios) was used to get an experience of the levels of service offered at the counters, shelves, Internet access points, reference sections and periodical desks. This technique was used to capture the library experience and processes as they unfolded rather than gathering opinions about them. To protect the subjects‟ right to informed consent and privacy, the researcher notified the users of the schedules, nature and locations in which mystery shopping was to be done (Norris 2004). The researcher also strived to remain as objective as possible while limiting unnecessary intrusion and disruption as results may have been erroneous if the subjects realized they were being observed.
The researcher spent about a month at each of the case sites. Data collection at each of the case libraries was generally conducted on a daily basis by the researcher with the help of research assistants. To ensure reliability, the research assistants were rotated in all the case sites. They used their first visit to the libraries mainly for mystery shopping and other observations. Given the relatively small number of active researchers (less than 100) in the case libraries, all the researchers who came to the libraries during the one-month period allotted to each library were interviewed.
The researcher also collaborated with the librarians to identify usually active library users who did not visit the library during this period. The users were formally requested to participate in the research. The researcher then visited and interviewed the users who agreed to participate in the research in their offices. In some few cases, the researcher was also forced by the circumstances to leave the questionnaires with the researchers to fill in at their convenience. In such cases, the
146
researcher explained the questions to the respondents to facilitate effective responses. The librarians also helped the researcher to identify and interview some of the users who have reduced their usage of the libraries in the last six months. These interviews were critical in establishing why they were not using the library as actively as they had done before and the alternatives they were now using.
Again, the participation of the users so identified was through informed consent. In some cases, such as KARI, ILRI and AMREF, where the library is open to some members of the public, the librarians helped the researcher to identify bona fide researchers both in the case institutions and other associated institutions. These are the respondents who were asked to participate in the research and those who agreed to being interviewed; not just all the people who came to the library during the period. The interviews and observations were based on schedules in order to ensure that comparable data was collected from each site (Stark and Torrance 2005).