0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
30 vizualizări10 pagini
A survey of the use of ethnographic methods in studies of libraries and library users identified a total of 81 studies. Five main types of ethnographic research methods were identified: observation, interviews, fieldwork, focus groups, and cultural probes. A bibliography of the studies used in the analysis is provided in appendix a.
A survey of the use of ethnographic methods in studies of libraries and library users identified a total of 81 studies. Five main types of ethnographic research methods were identified: observation, interviews, fieldwork, focus groups, and cultural probes. A bibliography of the studies used in the analysis is provided in appendix a.
A survey of the use of ethnographic methods in studies of libraries and library users identified a total of 81 studies. Five main types of ethnographic research methods were identified: observation, interviews, fieldwork, focus groups, and cultural probes. A bibliography of the studies used in the analysis is provided in appendix a.
A survey of the use of ethnographic methods in the study of libraries and library users
Michael Khoo , Lily Rozaklis, Catherine Hall
The iSchool, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Available online 15 February 2012 A survey and analysis of the use of ethnographic methods in studies of libraries and library users identied a total of 81 studies. Five main types of ethnographic research methods were identied: ob- servation, interviews, eldwork, focus groups, and cultural probes. The survey shows a recent increase in the use of ethnographic methods in libraries, and identies an emerging genre of studies associated with library planning that uses rapid ethnographic methods to investigate libraries and their users as part of planning processes. The survey supports comparison across ethnographic studies, settings, and methods; enables the growth of ethnographic methods as a research method in libraries; and provides material for library and information science curriculum development in this area. A bibliography of the studies used in the analysis is provided in Appendix A, and includes a number of gray literature reports and online publications. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Libraries are situated in rapidly evolving social and technological contexts. Understanding the interactions between libraries, users, technology, and society is important for library planning and devel- opment. Some of this understanding can be gained through methods such as surveys and questionnaires, along with library metrics. However, sometimes a wider and more holistic understanding of libraries and library use is required. Augst has called libraries agencies of culture, (2001), institutions engaged in the produc- tion, dissemination, and consumption of American culture, which are shaped by and shaped by individual and collective social lives. Libraries as institutions are centrally involved in the con- struction of public life and the organization of knowledge. Re- search topics such as the following are all important for library planning: the meaning that libraries have for their users, and the roles that libraries play in civic society (Wiegand, 2003); the value of libraries as places (Wiegand, 2005); the role of li- braries in communities, and the role of technology in community participation (Lankes, Silverstein, Nicholson, & Marshall, 2007); libraries as technological spaces for collaborative learning (Bennett, 2009); and changes in libraries and librarianship as a result of the introduction of digital technologies (Seadle, 2008). The use of ethnographic methodsthe study of the culture and social organization of a particular group or community (Calhoun, 2002, p. 149)is one way to investigate these research topics. However, there has been little prior analysis of the use of ethnographic methods in library settings. 2. Problem statement Ethnography is a complicated and time-consuming research method that requires signicant individual and institutional in- vestment. It is a longitudinal method, carried out over time, with analyses and insights emerging as the research progresses; this is in contrast to longitudinal quantitative research that re- peats experiments at different points in time. Ethnographers draw on a toolkit of methods of varying duration, commitment, and sophistication. In order to plan the most effective research, and to make the most effective use of available resources, library and information science (LIS) researchers, library practitioners, and others interested in using ethnographic methods in library settings need to be familiar with the existing theoretical and methodological literature in this area. Issues such as identifying research questions, deciding which ethnographic methods are ap- propriate for a particular research question, and what resources is required to implement those methods, are addressed more easily if it is possible to consult existing ethnographic studies, re- search questions, methods, data, and results. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of ethnographic re- search in libraries. There have been a number of previous surveys on the use of methods in LIS research (e.g., Becvar & Srinivasan, 2009; Fidel, 1993; Hider & Pymm, 2008; Jrvelin & Vakkari, 1993; Julien, 1996; Julien & Duggan, 2000; Kumpulainen, 1991; McKechnie, Baker, Greenwood, & Julien, 2002; Powell, 1999; Williams & Winston, 2003). Many of these surveys either do not dene the use of ethnography, or subsume it within wider qualitative research categories. Further, where Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 Corresponding author. E-mail address: khoo@drexel.edu (M. Khoo). 0740-8188/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.010 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Library & Information Science Research the use of ethnographic methods is reported or can be implied, levels of use are reported as low; a recent survey by Julien, Pecoskie, and Reed (2011) of trends in information behavior research from 1999 to 2008, identied 749 articles, of which 528 were research studies; of these latter studies, seven (1.3%) were classied as ethnographic. A pilot study for the present study suggested that these previously reported gures are underestimates. There is, therefore, a need for a systematic review of the use of ethnographic methods in the study of libraries and users, in order to support the ongoing growth and development of ethnographic research in libraries. The research questions addressed in this paper are therefore as follows: 1. How many ethnographic studies of libraries and library users are there? 2. Where are they published? 3. How do these studies dene ethnography? 4. What ethnographic methods do they use? 3. Literature review Ethnography is the study of the culture and social organization of a particular group or community, as well as the published result of such study (Calhoun, 2002, p. 149). It was pioneered as a method in the 1910s by Malinowski (1961), who wished to place anthropology on a scientic methodological footing by including a detailed description of the eld site and research setting. While his contemporaries relied on local informants to collect data, Malinowski advocated extended time in the eld, systematically collecting data through observation and other techniques. Ethnographic methods have since been widely adopted in anthropology, as well as other disciplines, including LIS (e.g. Beck & Manuel, 2008; Chatman, 1984, 1992; Connaway & Powell, 2010; Goodman, 2011; Gorman, Clayton, Shep, & Clayton, 2005; Mellon, 1990; Pickard, 2007; Seadle, 2011; Thomas & Nyce, 2001; Wildemuth, 2009). Ethnography affords a glimpse into the life-worlds of others (Pendleton & Chatman, 1998), based on the apparently simple idea that in order to understand what people are up to, it is best to observe them by interacting with them intimately and over an extended period (Monaghan & Just, 2000, p. 13). A key method used by ethnographers is participant observation, whichinvolves spending time inthe subjects' nat- ural environment, observing and collecting data through observation eld notes, interviews, surveys, and the examination of cultural artifacts (e.g. Baker, 2006). Ethnographic data can be analyzed using a range of techniques, and written up using a variety of methods, ranging from the factual to the interpretative (Van Maanen, 1988). There has been exten- sive debate within anthropology as to the objectivity of ethnography as a method (Calhoun, 2002); some anthropologists hold that it is capable of producing generalizable scientic results (Harris, 2001), some that eth- nography is an interpretative practice (e.g., Geertz, 1973), and others that researchers cannot disentangle themselves from the research process, and that the researcher's role itself is open to reexive interpretation (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Marcus & Fischer, 1986). Regardless of philosophical and methodological commitments, ethnography is a complex method. It involves more than just common-sense observations and descriptions of human behavior (Forsythe, 1999; Thomas & Nyce, 2001), and ethnographers can be in the eld for months or years (not necessarily continuously), gathering a wide range of data, and applying a wide range of an- alytical techniques. Sometimes such extended research is not fea- sible for a researcher. In the context of design, for instance, which includes iterative development and testing cycles, Norman (1999) has advocated the use of rapid ethnography: an observational technique for going to the prospective users of a product and observing the activities they perform, their interactions, and the subculture in which they live, work, learn, and play The goal is to make the people who are being observed become partici- pants in the discovery process of learning just what their real needs are (Norman, 1999, pp. 194195). Norman's sense of participation, in the sense of the subject's inclusion in the designprocess, differs fromthe use in anthropology, where it refers to the researcher's immersion in the world of the subject. There are de- bates in anthropology as to what kinds of cultural understanding rapid ethnography supports (Anderson, 1994; Forsythe, 1999). This sense of participation is apparent in other research methods, such as participatory design (e.g., Foster, Clark, Tancheva, & Kilzer, 2011; Foster, Dimmock, & Bersani, 2008), and action research (e.g., Cook & Farmer, 2011). Ethnography is a complex, in-situ research approach that provides understanding of research subjects in naturally occurring settings. Ethnographic approaches draw on a toolkit of ethnographic and design approaches, such as observation, interviews, focus groups, cultural probes, and others, which can be combined and triangulated to gain in- sights into users' behaviors. Ethnographic practices range ona continuum from longitudinal (in the qualitative sense) immersive eldwork at one end, to rapid ethnographic techniques at the other. No particular place on this continuum is privileged here, and it is recognized that the use of ethnographic methods is often pragmatically tailored to address research questions in the context of particular organizational circumstances, re- sources, and constraints. 4. Research design The rst step was a pilot search of inuential LIS journals (Table 1) for ethnographic studies of libraries (Nisonger & Davis, 2005). An ini- tial analysis of these studies identied the terms that the authors of these studies used to describe them: ethnography, ethnographic, anthropology, observation, and participant observation. A more comprehensive search was then carried out: Combinations of the terms were used in full-text searches of the university library's online catalog, within the available date range of the same journals. The terms were also used in full-text queries of all available years of three library science databases: Library andInformationScience Abstracts (LISA), 1969current; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA), 1965current; and Library Literature & Information Science (LLIS), 1982current. Finally, a series of more loosely structured Web searches was carried out to locate examples of gray literature (such as institutional reports and white papers) not available in the li- brary databases. The resulting articles were ltered according to two criteria. First, as the focus is on libraries and library users, ethnographic studies of nonli- brary environments, for example, retirement homes (Chatman, 1984) and information systems, such as management information systems and health information systems, were excluded. Second, as the focus was on ethnographic methods, non-ethnographic studies, such as those that only used interviews, were excluded. It was sometimes difcult to drawa precise line between ethnographic and non-ethnographic studies, and it was decided to interpret the concept of ethnography inclusively rather than exclusively, and to err in favor of false positives rather than false negatives, with the aim of generating a review and bibliography that would be of maximum use. The result of these two ltering opera- tions was to identify studies that lay at the union of the two target sets, library studies and ethnographic studies. Once the initial sample of stud- ies hadbeenscreened, relevant secondary citations were followed up and subjected to the same screening process. No previous comprehensive survey of the types of methods used in ethnographic studies in libraries had been reported. There was, therefore, no typology that could have been adopted in order to analyze the studies in the sample. A series of coding sessions was therefore held, in which a sample of the studies in the detail was discussed and individual methods identied. These methods were then sorted into a set of high-level coding 83 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 categories, and then these emergent categories were re-applied to the sample as a whole. 5. Results 5.1. Number of studies and date of publication Eighty-one studies, including articles, reports, and conference presentations, were identied (see Appendix A). This set is con- siderably larger than any previously published. Few studies (n=14, 17.3%) were published before 2000. The earliest study identied was a report (Wilson & Streateld, 1980). The earliest journal article was Sever (1986). Just over half of the studies (n=42, 51.9%) were published from 2006 on, indicating a grow- ing interest in the use of ethnographic methods to study libraries and library users (Fig. 1). These more recent publications includ- ed a small but growing number of library-design studies. 5.2. Publication sources The largest number of studies (n=52, 64.2%) were published in journals. Fourteen studies (17.3%) were published in conference proceedings, and 12 studies (14.8%) as reports, although because of the difculties in searching the gray literature, this gure may be under-represented. Two books and a book chapter were also located. A total of 38 academic sources (journals and conferences) were identied, 24 of which supplied one study. Fourteen sources sup- plied two studies or more, and a total of 51.9% of all the studies overall. The same number of studies (n=36, 44.4%) was found in both LIS academic and librarianship journals, as dened by Nisonger and Davis (2005). One unanticipated result was that the majority of studies (n=45, 55.6%) were found in sources not included in Nisonger and Davis' survey, such as conference pro- ceedings, digital library research (where the observation of library users can be used to gather requirements for digital libraries), and gray literature. It is worth noting that none of the studies were published in anthropology journals, suggesting that library eth- nography as a eld is developing relatively separately from tradi- tional ethnography. 5.3. Denition of and warrant for using ethnography Ethnography was often not dened in detail in many of the studies, and the denitions that were provided varied widely. For example, see Baker (2006) with regard to denitions of observation in observational studies. Further denitions could be induced indirectly from the range of warrants advanced for using ethnographic methods. A number of themes emerged, revolving about the benets that ethnographic methods provided in terms of richer understanding of subjects' experi- ences, and deeper insights into them (e.g., Akselbo et al., 2006; Bartley et al., 2006; Bryant, Matthews, & Walton, 2009; Burke, 2009; Gabridge, Gaskell, & Stout, 2008; Lending & Straub, 1997). These were sometimes in comparison withthe perceived limitations of quantitative methods (e.g., Adkins & Hussey, 2006; Manuel, Beck, & Molloy, 2005). Ethnographic methods were thought of as providing depth to the researcher's understanding (e.g., Suarez, 2007); providing richer and better data (Hobbs & Klare, 2010, p. 349); providing authentic data of users' lives (e.g., Twidale &Nichols, 1998; Twidale et al., 1997); reveal- ing nuances (e.g., Wilson & Streateld, 1980); allowing for more exi- ble methods to study the research problem (e.g., Barry, 1995); and for context to be taken into account (e.g., Radford, 1998). Qualitative and ethnographic data were seen as providing opportunities for triangula- tion with other research methods (e.g., Institute for the Future, 2001; Mizrachi, 2010). 5.4. Types of methods used Five main groups of ethnographic methods were identied (note that the methods can overlap): Observation, or watching subjects in natural settings (n=66, 81.5%) Interviews, or talking with subjects (n=62, 76.6%) Fieldwork, or investigating where subjects are located (n=36, 44.4%) Focus groups, or talking with groups of subjects (n=19, 23.5%) Cultural probes, or subjects recording their own lives (n=14, 17.3%). Eight studies (9.9%) used or described four of these main methods; 36 studies (44.4%) used three different methods; 20 studies (24.7%) used 2 different methods; and 17 studies (21.0%) used one method. The average number of strategies used per study was 2.6. Each method was implemented in a number of ways. A high-level summary of each study is provided in Table 2. Note that while a study may be mentioned in connection with one method, it is often used with other methods, as well. 5.4.1. Observation The most common method identied in the analysis was observation. There are different types of observational methods used in LIS, ranging from nonparticipation, where the observer is not physically present (e.g., transactionlog analysis), throughincreasing degrees of participation Table 1 Complete list of nal sources. Source # of studies Library and Information Science Research 7 ACM DL/JCDL a 4 The Journal of Academic Librarianship 4 Library Assessment Conference a 3 Information Research 3 Journal of the American Society for Information Science 3 Library Quarterly 3 Libri 3 ACRL National Conference a 2 Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Information Science (CAIS-ACSI) a 2 Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 2 Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 2 Library Trends 2 New Library World a 2 Academic Commons a 1 ASIST Proceedings 1 Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology a 1 Archival Science 1 ASLIB Proceedings 1 British Journal of Academic Librarianship a 1 College & Research Libraries 1 D-Lib Magazine 1 Designing for Children Conference a 1 Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship a 1 The Electronic Library 1 Evidence Based Library and Information Practice a 1 Homo Oeconomicus a 1 Information Processing and Management 1 Innovation a 1 Journal of Documentation 1 Journal of Negro Education a 1 Library Management a 1 The Reference Librarian 1 Reference Services Review 1 School Library Media Research 1 Sociological Research Online a 1 Technical Services Quarterly 1 Urban Education a 1 Reports, etc. a 12 Book a 2 Book chapter a 1 a Indicates sources not referenced in Table 1 in Nisonger and Davis (2005). 84 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 and interaction, to complete participation and membership, where the researcher becomes a functioning member of the group he or she is ob- serving (Baker, 2006). A similar variation was found: observational tech- niques ranged from unobtrusive observation to participant observation; the collection periods ranged from 4 h (Kim et al., 2010,) to two years (Anderson, 2005, 2006); and the number of research subjects ranged from two academics studied for two years (Anderson, 2005, 2006), to 1415 users entering a public library (Mandel, 2010). 5.4.2. Interviews Interviews were the second-most common strategy identied. Where described, these often took the form of the semistructured in- terview, in which specic questions are followed with questions not in the original protocol. Related types of interview included the eth- nographic interview, and the participant-observation interview. Other types of interviews included structured interviews with set protocols; conversational or other informal forms of interview that occurred, unplanned, as a part of eldwork; and contextual inter- views with subjects as they performed work-related tasks in a natural setting. 5.4.3. Fieldwork Field sites are more than just a locale to observe subjects, they are important settings that help to explain subjects' behaviors and contextu- alize research results. They help the reader to be situated in the research settings and narrative, and to assess the transferability of the results to other eld settings. This function is particularly important for qualitative andethnographic researchthat does not rely onstatistical measures, such as p values and standard deviation, and for generalizability and validity (Lincoln &Guba, 1985). Field site descriptions are therefore an important part of ethnographic reports. In the case of a library, such descriptions could be based on eld notes, oor plans, sketches, photographs, audio andvideo recordings, public documents suchas patronguides, events cal- endars, and signage, and internal documentation, such as meeting agendas, email, and circulation statistics. Only a minority of studies ex- plicitly described eldwork. One possible explanation for not including this crucial information in research reports is that the major peer- reviewed journals in LIS do not allow sufcient publication space for the thick description (Geertz, 1973) of eld sites. An alternate explanation is that many of the studies were of short duration, and that a detailed eld-site description was either not possible, or deemed irrelevant. Most of the eld sites were located in the United States, but there were also examples from Canada, Australia, India, Israel, Malaysia, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, NewZealand, Romania, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Withinthe library itself, most studies took place in the public areas of libraries, while a few studies were located else- where, such as library administration ofces, online forums, and in a homeless shelter. 5.4.4. Focus groups Focus groups are open, in-depth discussions with small groups of purposely selected individuals, led by a trained moderator/ facilitator, to explore a predened topic of shared interest in a non- threatening, semistructured setting, and there is a wide range of denitions of focus groups in the library literature (Walden, 2006, p. 223). Focus groups not only provide an opportunity to gather data from users, they also allow for the observation of interactions between users. 5.4.5. Cultural probes The nal ethnographic method identied was the cultural probe, which is usually a pack of one or more items that subjects can use to record and self-report on areas and actions in their life that are important to the researcher. This can include postcards, journals, cameras, maps, and other artifacts (Sharp, Rogers, & Preece, 2007). The use of cultural probes was common in studies that took a library-design or planning approach. 6. Discussion No similar survey of ethnographic methods in library studies has previously been published, and it is therefore not possible to compare these ndings with previous surveys. This study has ve important and interrelated ndings. First, the survey identied 81 ethnographic studies of libraries and library users, a much larger body of work has previously been reported. One caveat here is that this and previous surveys are not strictly comparable; in each case, different literatures were chosen and searched in different ways, and different denitions applied to ethnographic and observational methodsand some surveys did not mention or count ethnography at all. Nevertheless, Fig. 1. Studies by publication year (2 studies did not provide a publication date). 85 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 the number of studies identied in the current survey is of an order of magnitude larger than that described or implied previous surveys, and is therefore of signicant interest to library researchers using these methods. Second, the studies often provided little detailed denition of eth- nography, and observation and other ethnographic methods. See, for example, Baker (2006) regarding the [confusing] variety of labels (for example, observation, participant observation, or ethnography) that seem to be used interchangeably by researchers (Baker, 2006, p. 172). Nevertheless, there was overall agreement with regard to the benet of using ethnographic methods, centered about the gain- ing of a more holistic understanding of library users than would oth- erwise be obtained through other methods. This agreement suggests in turn the existence of a potentially signicant community of ethno- graphic researchers working in library settings, and one of the pur- poses of the current article has therefore been to provide an outline map of this community. Third, ve main ethnographic methods were identied: observa- tion (watching subjects in natural settings); interviews (talking with subjects); eldwork (investigating where subjects are located); focus groups (talking with groups of subjects); and cultural probes (subjects recording their own lives). These methods were used in varying combinations in each study. While there could be signicant variations in the denition and application of each of these methods, they were usually deployed under the warrants for ethnography listed and discussed above, often as part of an integrated approach that was subsequently triangulated. Fourth, for about the past ve years, the use of ethnographic methods in studies of libraries has demonstrated an upward trend from a low starting point, as well as a diversication in the types of methods used. This may be indicative of the growing complexity of the social and technological environments within which libraries are situated, the need to adapt to these changing environments, the growing use of outcomes and performance-based evaluations, and other factors, which may be prompting libraries to think about how to describe their strengths, not just in terms of performance and ef- fectiveness metrics, but also in terms of the wider social and cultural value they offer to users and communities. This approach is summed up by Gabridge et al. (2008, pp. 511512): Given the rapidly chang- ing information landscape and a desire to examine fundamentally how library systems need to evolve, MIT labs wanted to nd out more about what students were doing [in libraries]. Fifth, the introduction above outlined a continuum in ethnographic research between traditional and rapid ethnography, with the for- mer often focusing on more longitudinal research questions, and the latter often being deployed in shorter time scales in design contexts. The studies in this survey conformed well to this continuum. In addi- tion, an emerging genre of studies was identied that deployed various ethnographic methods in a toolkit approach to address research ques- tions related to the planning and design of library spaces and services. The ndings of these latter ethnographic approaches are often included in a range of practitioner reports and conference papers (e.g., Asher & Miller, n.d.; Asher, Duke, & Green, 2010; Delcore, Mullooly, & Scroggins, 2009; Foster & Gibbons, 2007; Foster & Lindahl, 2008; Smale & Regalado, 2011; Stein, 2008; Turner, 2008). Finally, the survey identied an unexpected diversity in publication venues. While signicant research was published in highly-rated LIS academic literature (Nisonger & Davis, 2005), research was also pub- lished in other journals, at conferences, and in reports and other gray literature. Library researchers interested in ethnographic methods need to be able to draw on all of this research in order to develop their own research, and compare methods and data. But they may be unaware of this overall researchlandscape; therefore this researchis in- cluded in the narrative and Appendix A, below. A theoretical limitation of the study is the lack of analysis of the ethnographic theories and methods that LIS studies have adopted from other disciplines, such as anthropology and sociology (e.g., Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Spradley, 1980); and further research should be able to shed light on the particular sources, and theoretical and philo- sophical approaches, that have inuenced ethnographic research in the LIS community. A practical limitation is that it analyzes an expanding re- searcharea; for example, further publications identiedsince the analysis was carriedout include Duke &Asher, 2011; Foster et al., 2011; Goodman, 2011; Hunter & Ward, 2011; and Washburn & Bibb, 2011. 7. Conclusion The survey identied an expanding body of ethnographic studies of libraries and library users, reported in a wide range of venues. This is the largest set of reports of ethnographic research in libraries reported to date. Previous overviews of LIS research methods have either reported smaller numbers of ethnographic studies, or not reported them at all. A set of core methodological commitments and common research settings has been described, suggesting that the studies reported form a coherent and emerging research genre that uses ethnographic methods to investigate libraries, their users, wider social contexts, and the relation- ships between these phenomena. The ndings of the survey are important for LIS research in several ways. First, libraries are changing rapidly, partly in response to ongoing innovations in networked information systems. Furthermore, there is a growing interest in qualitative analyses of the social lives of libraries, and the roles that libraries play in the lives of their users, both for current libraries and also for future, more technologically-augmented libraries. Second, the study suggests that current ethnographic research in libraries is fragmented and published in a range of venues. Therefore, the use of ethnography as a method in LIS is supported by providing a comprehen- sive overviewof the main ethnographic methods used in libraries. A bib- liography of existing research, much of it published outside of the core LIS literature, is also provided; this is the rst time that this ethnographic re- search has been collected in one place. Third, ethnographic research can be time-consuming to design and implement. Therefore, important sup- port for researchers engaged in planning and carrying out ethnographic research in libraries is provided by enabling comparison across research questions, settings, and methods, and the identication of appropriate methods for particular research questions. As the use of ethnographic methods in libraries continues to grow it is important that researchers using these methods be aware of the breadth and range of existing stud- ies, in order to design and implement the best possible research. To sup- port these efforts, a comprehensive overviewof publishedresearchinthis area is provided. Table 2 High-level summaries of the studies identied in the survey. Study Summary Adkins and Hussey (2006) Undergraduate Latino students' perceptions of academic libraries, librarians and library services Akselbo et al. (2006) Diaries and disposable cameras to record examples of good library services, favorite workspaces, etc. Anderson (2005) A longitudinal study of the information behaviors of two scholars engaged in research Anderson (2006) A longitudinal study of the information behaviors of two scholars engaged in research Applegate (2009) Seating patterns and preferences in an academic library Asher and Miller (n.d.) Summary review of the activities of the ERIAL Project (Ethnographic Research in Illinois Academic Libraries) Asher et al. (2010) A how to manual for implementing ethnographic methods in libraries 86 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 Table 2 (continued) Study Summary Barry (1995) Academics' information and research needs Bartley et al. (2006) Cameras to explore students' information seeking activities Bouthillier (2000) Library service providers' understanding of their professional practices Briden and Marshall (2010) Laptop use in an academic library Briden et al. (2007) Two-year study of undergraduates, including use of technology and involvement in campus life Bryant et al. (2009) Covert observation of users' interaction with space in an academic library Carey et al. (2001) Authors' reections on conducting LIS studies with pregnant women, members of a self-help support group, and preschool children. Cavanagh (2006) Reference desk interactions in urban public libraries; the role of chit chat Cmor et al. (2010) In-class evaluation of student presentations to gage the effectiveness of a library study workshop Crabtree (2003) User way-nding in an academic library Crabtree et al. (1997) Interactions at a service desk in an academic library Crabtree et al. (2000) Waynding and information-seeking behaviors of users of a university library Crispin (2009) School librarians' understanding and negotiation of the social organization of their institutions Cunningham et al.(2003) Users in the music sections of public libraries David and Zeitlyn (1996) Academics, researchers and postgraduates using online bibliographic technologies Davies, Kirkpatrick, and Oliver (1992) The impact of the adoption of a service-led strategy on the organizational culture of a British academic library Delcore et al. (2009) Multi-faceted elicitation of requirements for new student spaces in an academic library Duncker (2002) Maori use and perceptions of physical and digital libraries Dunn (2002) Observations of students in a university library Foster and Gibbons (2005) Studies of faculty members research and writing practices in virtual and physical workspaces Foster and Gibbons (2007) Comprehensive report on ethnographic work carried out with the library at the University of Rochester, New York Foster and Lindahl (2008) A work-practice study of faculty attitudes towards institutional repositories Gabridge et al. (2008) Photo diary study of thirty-two students' academic information-seeking behaviors George et al. (2003) Professional characteristics of academic reference librarians and their work Given and Leckie (2003) Seating sweeps to study individuals' use of central public libraries in two large Canadian cities Gracy (2006) Organizational and professional practices in two lm preservation archives Gross et al. (2004) Children using computers in an urban public library Haglund and Olson (2008) Young university researchers' information needs Hart (2006) Information literacy education in South African public libraries Hill et al. (1997) Requirements gathering for the Alexandria Digital Library project; observation of user activity in a map library Hill et al. (2000) Requirements gathering for the Alexandria Digital Library project; observation of user activity in a map library Hobbs and Klare (2010) Assessing student needs to support design of a new study space for students during a library renovation Inskip et al. (2008) Users of a small folk music library in North London Institute for the Future (2001) Users of the biomedical literature Khudair and Bawden (2007) Health libraries in Saudi Arabia Kim et al. (2010) Children in a children's library in Korea Klimaszewski and Nyce (2009) Library infrastructure and information needs in a rural village in Romania Klopfer (2004) Commercial libraries in India Leckie and Hopkins (2002) Public use and perceptions of two central public libraries in Canada Lending and Straub (1997) The impacts of the Integrated Information Center (IIC) on end-user work behaviors. Littrell et al. (2006) Information infrastructure and libraries in rural Romania MacGillivray et al. (2010) Libraries in the information lives of mothers and children at a homeless shelter Mandel (2010) Unobtrusive observation of library patrons' initial waynding behavior from two entrances of a public library Manuel et al. (2005) Faculty attitudes towards library instruction education in classrooms Marshall (1998) Digitization and metadata work in a university library's educational technology center McKechnie (2000) Diaries provided to the mothers of pre-school girls to record their daughters' use of library services and resources McKechnie (2006) Babies and toddlers in a public library story time program McKechnie et al. (2004) Unobtrusive observation comparing patron behavior in public libraries and book superstores McKechnie et al. (2006) Unobtrusive observation of user compliance with posted rules of conduct in public libraries McKenzie and Stooke (2007) Library and patron roles in public library story time programs for young children Merchant and Hepworth (2002) Information literacy among teachers and pupils in two U.K. secondary schools (grades 712) Mizrachi (2010) The information ecologies of undergraduate students in their dormitory rooms Nardi and O'Day (1996) Reference librarian practices and roles in corporate reference libraries Nardi and O'Day (1999) Reference librarian practices and roles in corporate reference libraries Notess (2004) Contextual inquiry into music students' research and study practices in a wide variety of settings Notess (2005) Contextual interviews with music students to explore the relationship between library work, research, and class Othman (2004) Students in a computing lab in Malaysia using library databases Prigoda and McKenzie (2007) Information behavior of the members of a knitting circle in a public library Radford (1998) Patrons' decisions to approach or not to approach a reference librarian and engage in interaction Randall et al. (2008) Generation of requirements for integrating library services into graduate student research practices Sever (1986) Children's libraries in Israel Smale and Regalado (2011) Student approaches to research on two university campuses; student use of libraries for research; faculty expectations of student work. Small et al. (2010) School librarians' interactions with administrators, teachers, and students, and understanding of the impact of school libraries on student achievement Stein (2008) Student feedback at the beginning of the design phase of a new library home page Suarez (2007) Student engagement in studies in an university library Tufts University (n.d.) Research habits and practices of undergraduate and graduate students Turner (2008) Changes in library use and practice brought about by technology Twidale and Nichols (1998) User and librarian behavior at an enquiry desk in an academic library Twidale et al. (1997) The nature of collaboration in the information searching process Van Beynen et al. (2010) Patrons' navigation through library space and interaction with library resources and educational displays White (2008) Doctoral students research, writing and collaboration behaviors Whitmire (2006) African American undergraduate use and experience of a College library, identied through seating sweeps Wilson and Corrall (2008) Management and leadership development in public libraries in England Wilson and Streateld (1980) Information needs of staff in social services departments in the U.K. 87 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 Appendix A. LIS research studies using ethnographic methods, 19802011 Adkins, D., & Hussey, L. (2006). The library in the lives of Latino college students. Library Quarterly, 76(4), 456480. Akselbo, J. L., Arnfred, L., Barfort, S., Bay, G., Christiansen, T. B., Han- sen, J. H. (2006). The hybrid library: From the users' perspective. Copen- hagen: The National Library and Copenhagen University Library, The Aarhus School of Business Library, The State and University Library, The University Library of Southern Denmark. Retrieved from http:// www.statsbiblioteket.dk/om-statsbiblioteket/brugbarhed/feltstudier/ eldstudies.pdf Anderson, T. D. (2005). Relevance as process: Judgments in the context of scholarly research. Information Research, 10(2). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/10-2/paper226.html Anderson, T. D. (2006). Uncertainty inaction: Observing information seeking within the creative processes of scholarly research. Information Research, 12(1). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-1/ paper283.html Applegate, R. (2009). The library is for studying: Student preferences for study space. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35, 341346. Asher, A., Duke, L., & Green, D. (2010, May 17). The ERIAL Project: Ethnographic researchinIllinois academic libraries. Academic Commons. Retrieved from http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/ erial-project Asher, A., & Miller, S. (n.d.). So you want to do anthropology in your library? Or, a practical guide to ethnographic research in academic libraries. Ethnographic Research in Illinois Academic Libraries (ERIAL) Project. Retrieved from http://www.erialproject.org/ wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Toolkit-Final-7-15-10.pdf Barry, C. A. (1995). Critical issues in evaluating the impact of IT on information activity in academic research: Developing a qualitative research solution. Library & Information Science Research, 17, 107134. Bartley, M., Duke, D., Gabridge, T., Gaskell, M., Hennig, N., Quirion, C. (2006). User needs assessment of information seeking activities of MIT studentsSpring 2006. Retrieved from http:// dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/33456 Bouthillier, F. (2000). The meaning of service: Ambiguities and di- lemmas for public library service providers. Library & Information Science Research, 22, 243272. Briden, J., Burns, V., & Marshall, A. (2007). Knowing our students: Undergraduates in context. Paper presented at the ACRL National Conference, 2007, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http://docushare. lib.rochester.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-25072/Knowing_ our_students_URochester.pdf Briden, J., & Marshall, A. (2010). Snapshots of laptop use in an academic library. Library Hi Tech, 28(3), 447453. Bryant, J., Matthews, G., & Walton, G. (2009). Academic libraries and social and learning space: A case study of Loughborough Universi- ty Library, UK. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(7), 718. Carey, R. F., McKechnie, L. E. F., & McKenzie, P. J. (2001). Gaining access to everyday life information seeking. Library & Information Science Research, 23, 319334. Cavanagh, M. (2006). Re-conceptualizing the reference transac- tion: The case for interaction and information relationships at the public library reference desk. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 30(1/2), 119. Cmor, D., Chan, A., & Kong, T. (2010). Courseintegrated learning outcomes for library database searching: Three assessment points on the path of evidence. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5(1), 6481. Crabtree, A. (2003). Remarks on the social organization of space and place. Homo Oeconomicus, 20(2). Crabtree, A., Nichols, D. M., O'Brien, J., Rounceeld, M., &Twidale, M. B. (2000). Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 666682. Crabtree, A., Twidale, M. B., O'Brien, J., & Nichols, D. M. (1997). Talking in the library: Implications for the design of digital libraries. Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Digital Libraries (DL), Philadelphia, PA. Crispin, J. (2009). Negotiating the social organization of school library work: An institutional ethnography. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for Information Science (CAIS-ACSI), Annual Conference 2009, Ottawa, May 2830, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2009/Crispin_2009.pdf Cunningham, S. J., Reeves, N., & Britland, M. (2003). An ethnographic study of music information seeking: Implications for the design of a music digital library. Paper presented at the ACM-IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), Houston, TX, May 2731. David, M., & Zeitlyn, D. (1996). What are they doing? Dilemmas in analyzing bibliographic searching: Cultural and technical networks in academic life. Sociological Research Online, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/4/2.html Davies, A., Kirkpatrick, I., & Oliver, N. (1992). The organizational culture of an academic library: Implications for library strategy. British Journal of Academic Librarianship, 7(2), 6989. Delcore, H. D., Mullooly, J., & Scroggins, M. (2009). The library study at Fresno State. Fresno, CA: Institute of Public Anthropology, California State University, Fresno. Duncker, E. (2002). Cross-cultural usability of the library metaphor. Paper presented at the ACM-IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), Portland, OR. Dunn, K. (2002). Assessing information literacy skills in the California State University: A progress report. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 2635. Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (2005). Understanding faculty to improve content recruitment for institutional repositories. D-Lib Magazine, 11(1). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january05/foster/01foster.html Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (Eds.). (2007). Studying students: The undergraduate research project at the University of Rochester. Chicago: American Library Association. Retrieved from https://urresearch. rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView.action? institutionalItemId=7044&versionNumber=1 Foster, N. F., & Lindahl, D. (2008). Enhancing e-resources by studying users: The University of Rochester's analysis of faculty perspectives on an institutional repository. In M. Collins & P. Carr (Eds.), Managing the transition from print to electronic journals and resources: A guide for library and information professionals (pp. 149163). New York, NY: Routledge. Gabridge, T., Gaskell, M., & Stout, A. (2008). Information seeking through students' eyes: The MIT photo diary study. College & Research Li- braries, 69, 510522. George, J., Stillwell, L., & Warmkessel, M. (2003). The essential librar- ian? An exploration of academic librarians as a keystone species. Paper presented at the National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, 2003, Charlotte, NC. Retrieved from http://www. ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/events/pdf/jgeorge.pdf Given, L. M., & Leckie, G. J. (2003). Sweeping the library: Mapping the social activity space of the public library. Library &Information Science Research, 25, 365385. Gracy, K. F. (2006). Documenting communities of practice: Making the case for archival ethnography. Archival Science, (4), 335365. Gross, M., Dresang, E. T., & Holt, L. E. (2004). Children's in-library use of computers in an urban public library. Library & Information Science Research, 26, 311337. Haglund, L., & Olsson, P. (2008). The impact on university libraries of changes in information behavior among academic researchers: A multiple case study The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 5259. Hart, G. (2006). Educators and public librarians: Unwitting partners in the information literacy education of South African youth? Innova- tion, 32, 7493. 88 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 Hill, L. L., Carver, L., Larsgaard, M., Dolin, R., Smith, T. R., Frew, J. (2000). Alexandria Digital Library: User evaluation studies and system design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 246259. Hill, L. L., Dolin, R., Frew, J., Kemp, R. B., Larsgaard, M., Montello, D. R. (1997). User evaluation: Summary of the methodologies and results for the Alexandria Digital Library, University of California at Santa Barbara. Paper presented at the American Society for Information Science Annual Conference, Washington, DC, November 16, 1997. http://www. asis.org/annual-97/alexia.htm Hobbs, K., & Klare, D. (2010). User driven design: Using ethno- graphic techniques to plan student study space. Technical Services Quarterly, 27, 347363. Inskip, C., Butterworth, R., & MacFarlane, A. (2008). A study of the information needs of the users of a folk music library and the implications for the design of a digital library system. Information Processing and Management, 44, 647662. Institute for the Future. (2001). E-journal usage and scholarly practice. An ethnographic perspective on the role and impact of e-journal usage among users of biomedical literature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from http://ejust.stanford.edu/ndings/full_0801.pdf Khudair, A., & Bawden, D. (2007). Healthcare libraries in Saudi Arabia: Analysis and recommendations. Aslib proceedings, 59, 328 341. Kim, K., Keizer, M., Kim, S., Kim, Y., & Lim, Y.-k. (2010). Ethnography study to improve a children library called Miracle library. Paper presented at the Designing for Children Conference, February 35 2010, Bombay. Retrieved from http://www.designingforchildren.net/papers/lchessin- DesigningforChildren.pdf Klimaszewski, C., & Nyce, J. M. (2009). Does universal access mean equitable access? What an information infrastructure study of a rural Romanian community can tell us. New Library World, 110(5/6), 219 236. Klopfer, L. (2004). Commercial libraries in an Indian city: An ethnographic sketch. Libri, 54, 104122. Leckie, G. J., & Hopkins, J. (2002). The public place of central libraries: Findings from Toronto and Vancouver. Library Quarterly, 72(3), 326372. Lending, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Impacts of an integrated information center on faculty end-users: A Qualitative Assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 466471. Littrell, M. A., Nyce, J. M., Straub, J., & Whipple, M. (2006). A study of the information infrastructure of a Transylvanian village. New Library World, 107(7/8), 321331. MacGillivray, L., Ardell, A. L., & Curwen, M. S. (2010). Libraries, churches, and schools: The literate lives of mothers and children in a homeless shelter. Urban Education, 45(2), 221245. Mandel, L. H. (2010). Toward an understanding of library patron waynding: Observing patrons' entry routes in a public library. Library & Information Science Research, 32, 116130. Manuel, K., Beck, S. E., & Molloy, M. (2005). An ethnographic study of attitudes inuencing faculty collaboration in library instruction. The Reference Librarian, 43(89/90), 139161. Marshall, C. C. (1998). Making metadata. A study of metadata creation for a mixed physicaldigital collection. Paper presented at the ACM Con- ference on Digital Libraries (DL), Pittsburgh, PA, June 2326, 1998. McKechnie, L. E. F. (2000). Ethnographic observation of preschool children. Library & Information Science Research, 22, 6176. McKechnie, L. E. F. (2006). Observations of babies and toddlers in library settings. Library Trends, 55(1), 190201. McKechnie, L. E. F., Dixon, C. M., Fear, J., & Pollak, A. (2006). Rules of (mis)conduct: User behaviour in public libraries. Paper presented at the Canadian Association for Information Science (CAIS), Annual Conference 2006, Toronto, ON. June 13, 2006. Retrieved from http://www. cais-acsi.ca/proceedings/2006/mckechnie_2006.pdf McKechnie, L. E. F., French, P. K., Goodall, G. R., Kip, M., Paquette, D. L., & Pecoskie, J. L. (2004). Covered beverages now allowed: Public Libraries and book superstores. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 28(3), 3951. McKenzie, P. J., & Stooke, R. K. (2007). Producing storytime: A collectivist analysis of work in a complex communicative space. Library Quarterly, 77(1), 320. Merchant, L., & Hepworth, M. (2002). Information literacy of teachers and pupils in secondary schools. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 34(2), 8189. Mizrachi, D. (2010). Undergraduates' academic information and li- brary behaviors: Preliminary results. Reference Services Review, 38, 571580. Nardi, B. A., & O'Day, V. (1996). Intelligent agents: What we learned at the library. Libri, 46, 5988. Nardi, B. A., & O'Day, V. (1999). Information technologies. Using information with heart. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Notess, M. (2004). Three looks at users: A comparison of methods for studying digital library use. Information Research, 9(3). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/9-3/paper177.html Notess, M. (2005). Understanding and representing learning activity to support design: A contextual design example. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, October 1822, 2005. Retrieved from http://variations2.indiana.edu/pdf/notess-aect05.pdf Othman, R. (2004). An applied ethnographic method for evaluating retrieval features. The Electronic Library, 22, 425432. Prigoda, E., & McKenzie, P. J. (2007). Purls of wisdom. A collectivist study of human information behaviour in a public library knitting group. Journal of Documentation, 63, 90. Radford, M. L. (1998). Approach or avoidance? The role of nonverbal communication in the academic library user's decision to initiate a reference encounter. Library Trends, 46, 699717. Randall, R., Smith, J., Clark, K., & Foster, N. F. (2008). The next gen- eration of academics. A report on a study conducted at the University of Rochester. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. Retrieved from https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView. action?institutionalItemId=5600 Sever, I. (1986). A laboratory for children's librarianshipAn anthropologist's view of children, books and libraries. Libri, 36(1), 74 83. Smale, M. A., & Regalado, M. (2011). The scholarly habits of the un- dergraduates at CUNY. Preliminary results. Retrieved from http:// ushep.commons.gc.cuny.edu/les/2011/01/ushep-prelim-report1.pdf Small, R. V., Shanahan, K. A., & Stasak, M. (2010). The impact of New York's school libraries on student achievement and motiva- tion: Phase III. School Library Media Research, 13. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/aasl/aaslpubsandjournals/slmrb/slmrcontents/ volume13/small_phase3 Stein, J. (2008). If they build it, will they come? Implementing students' conceptions of an ideal library home page. Paper presented at the Library Assessment Conference, 2008, Baltimore MD. Retrieved from http:// libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedings-lac-2008.pdf Suarez, D. (2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic methods to observe student behavior. Electronic Jour- nal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 8(3). Retrieved from http:// southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n03/suarez_d01.html Tufts University. (n.d.). Tisch web team ethnographic research study report (pp. 8 pages). Boston, MA: Tufts University. Retrieved from http://www.library.tufts.edu/tisch/staff/webTeam/ethno/ Turner, N. (2008). Patterns of culture: Re-aligning library culture with user needs. Paper presentedat the Library Assessment Conference, 2008, Baltimore MD. Retrieved from http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/ proceedings-lac-2008.pdf Twidale, M. B., Chaplin, D., Crabtree, A., Nichols, D. M., O'Brien, J., & Rounceeld, M. (1997). Collaboration in physical and digital libraries. Final report from the project Investigation of collaborative browsing and the consequences for library systems design, funded by the British 89 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 Library Research and Innovation Centre. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Retrieved from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/research/cseg/ projects/ariadne/bl/report/ Twidale, M. B., & Nichols, D. M. (1998). Using studies of collaborative activity in physical environments to inform the design of digital libraries. Paper presented at the CSCW'98 Workshop on Collaborative and Co-operative Information Seeking in Digital Information Environ- ments Cooperative Systems Engineering Group, Technical Report Ref: CSEG/11/1998. Lancaster: Lancaster University Computing De- partment. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.147.7912&rep=rep1&type=pdf Van Beynen, K., Pettijohn, P., & Carrel, M. (2010). Using pedestrian choice research to facilitate resource engagement in a midsized academic library. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36, 412419. White, C. T. (2008). Mixing methods, bridging gaps: An ethnographic approach to understanding students. Paper presented at the Library Assessment Conference, 2008, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved from http:// libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedings-lac-2008.pdf Whitmire, E. (2006). African American undergraduates and the university academic library. Journal of Negro Education, 75(1), 6066. Wilson, K., & Corrall, S. (2008). Developing public library managers as leaders. Evaluation of a national leadership develop- ment programme. Library Management, 29(67), 473488. Wilson, T. D., & Streateld, D. R. (1980). You can observe a lot . . . A study of information use in local authority social services departments conducted by Project INISS. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ tdw/publ/INISS/ References Adkins, D., & Hussey, L. (2006). The library in the lives of Latino college students. The Library Quarterly, 76(4), 456480. Akselbo, J. L., Arnfred, L., Barfort, S., Bay, G., Christiansen, T. B., & Hansen, J. H. (2006). The hybrid library: From the users' perspective. Copenhagen: The National Library and Copenhagen University Library, The Aarhus School of Business Library, The State and University Library, The University Library of Southern Denmark. Retrieved from http:// www.statsbiblioteket.dk/om-statsbiblioteket/brugbarhed/feltstudier/eldstudies.pdf Anderson, R. J. (1994). Representations and requirements: The value of ethnography in system design. Human Computer Interaction, 9, 151182. Anderson, T. D. (2005). Relevance as process: Judgments in the context of scholarly research. Information Research, 10(2). Retrieved from http://InformationR. net/ir/10-2/paper226.html Anderson, T. D. (2006). Uncertainty in action: Observing information seeking within the creative processes of scholarly research. Information Research, 12(1). Retrieved from http://InformationR.net/ir/12-1/paper283.html Asher, A., Duke, L., & Green, D. (2010, May 17). The ERIAL Project: Ethnographic research in Illinois academic libraries. Academic Commons. Retrieved from http://www. academiccommons.org/commons/essay/erial-project Asher, A., & Miller, S. (n.d.). So you want to do anthropology in your library? Or, a practical guide to ethnographic research in academic libraries. Ethnographic Research in Illinois Academic Libraries (ERIAL) Project. Retrieved from http://www.erialproject.org/ wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Toolkit-Final-7-15-10.pdf Augst, T. (2001). Introduction: American libraries and agencies of culture. American Studies, 42, 522. Baker, L. M. (2006). Observation: Acomplex researchmethod. Library Trends, 55, 171189. Barry, C. A. (1995). Critical issues in evaluating the impact of IT on information activity in academic research: Developing a qualitative research solution. Library and Information Science Research, 17, 107134. Bartley, M., Duke, D., Gabridge, T., Gaskell, M., Hennig, N., & Quirion, C. (2006). User needs assessment of information seeking activities of MIT studentsSpring 2006. Retrieved from. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/33456 Beck, S. E., & Manuel, K. (2008). Practical research methods for librarians and information professionals. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.. Becvar, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2009). Indigenous knowledge and culturally responsive methods in information research. The Library Quarterly, 79, 421441. Bennett, S. (2009). Libraries and learning: A history of paradigm change. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 9, 181197. Bryant, J., Matthews, G., & Walton, G. (2009). Academic libraries and social and learning space: A case study of Loughborough University Library, UK. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(7), 718. Burke, M. E. (2009). The exploration of relationships between informational fulllment and organizational design. Journal of Documentation, 65, 561577. Calhoun, C. J. (Ed.). (2002). Dictionary of the social sciences. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chatman, E. A. (1984). Field research: Methodological themes. Library and Information Science Research, 6, 425438. Chatman, E. A. (1992). The information world of retired women. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Connaway, L. S., & Powell, R. R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians (5th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Cook, D., & Farmer, L. (Eds.). (2011). Using qualitative methods in action research: How librarians can get to the why of data. Chicago: American Library Association. Delcore, H. D., Mullooly, J., & Scroggins, M. (2009). The library study at Fresno State. Fresno, CA: Institute of Public Anthropology, California State University, Fresno. Duke, L. M., & Asher, A. D. (Eds.). (2011). College libraries and student culture: What we know now. Chicago: ALA Editions. Fidel, R. (1993). Qualitative methods in information retrieval research. Library and Information Science Research, 15, 219247. Forsythe, D. E. (1999). It's just a matter of common sense: Ethnography as invisible work. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 127145. Foster, N. F., Clark, K., Tancheva, K., & Kilzer, R. (Eds.). (2011). Scholarly practice, participatory design, and the eXtensible catalog. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Librar- ies. Retrievedfrom https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView. action?institutionalItemId=11929&versionNumber=1 Foster, N. F., Dimmock, N., & Bersani, A. (2008). Participatory design of websites with web design workshops. Code{4}Lib Journal, 2. Retrieved from http://journal. code4lib.org/articles/53 Foster, N. F., & Gibbons, S. (Eds.). (2007). Studying students: The undergraduate research project at the University of Rochester. Chicago: American Library Association. Re- trieved from https://urresearch.rochester.edu/institutionalPublicationPublicView. action?institutionalItemId=7044&versionNumber=1 Foster, N. F., & Lindahl, D. (2008). Enhancing e-resources by studying users: The University of Rochester's analysis of faculty perspectives on an institutional repos- itory. In M. Collins, & P. Carr (Eds.), Managing the transition from print to electronic journals and resources: A guide for library and information professionals (pp. 149163). New York, NY: Routledge. Gabridge, T., Gaskell, M., & Stout, A. (2008). Information seeking through students' eyes: The MIT photo diary study. College and Research Libraries, 69, 510522. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Goodman, V. (2011). Applying ethnographic research methods in library and information settings. LIBRI, 61, 111. Gorman, G. E., Clayton, P., Shep, S. J., & Clayton, A. (2005). Qualitative research for the information professional: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). London: Facet Publishing. Harris, M. (2001). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Hider, P., & Pymm, B. (2008). Empirical research methods reported in high-prole LIS journal literature. Library and Information Science Research, 30, 108114. Hobbs, K., & Klare, D. (2010). User driven design: Using ethnographic techniques to plan student study space. Technical Services Quarterly, 27, 347363. Hunter, G., &Ward, D. (2011). Students research the library. Using student-led ethnographic research to examine the changing role of campus libraries. College and Research Libraries News, 72, 264268. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/72/5/264.full Institute for the Future (2001). E-journal usage and scholarly practice. An ethnographic perspective on the role and impact of e-journal usage among users of biomedical literature. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries Retrieved from http://ejust. stanford.edu/ndings/full_0801.pdf Jrvelin, K., &Vakkari, P. (1993). The evolutionof libraryandinformationscience19651985: A content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing and Management, 29, 129144. Julien, H. (1996). A content analysis of the recent information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 18, 5365. Julien, H., & Duggan, L. J. (2000). A longitudinal analysis of the information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science Research, 22, 291309. Julien, H., Pecoskie, J. J. L., & Reed, K. (2011). Trends in information behavior research, 19992008: A content analysis. Library and Information Science Research, 33, 1924. Kim, K., Keizer, M., Kim, S., Kim, Y., &Lim, Y.-k. (2010). Ethnography studytoimprove a children library called Miracle library. Paper presented at the Designing for Children Conference, February 35 2010, Bombay. Retrieved from http://www.designingforchildren.net/ papers/lchessin-DesigningforChildren.pdf Kumpulainen, S. (1991). Library and information science research in 1975: Content analysis of the journal articles. LIBRI, 41, 5976. Lankes, R. D., Silverstein, J., Nicholson, S., & Marshall, T. (2007). Participatory networks: The library as conversation. Information Research, 12(4). Retrieved from http:// informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis05.html Lending, D., &Straub, D. W. (1997). Impacts of an integrated information center on faculty end-users: A qualitative assessment. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48, 466471. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the Western Pacic. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co. Mandel, L. H. (2010). Toward an understanding of library patron waynding: Observing patrons' entry routes in a public library. Library and Information Science Research, 32, 116130. Manuel, K., Beck, S. E., & Molloy, M. (2005). An ethnographic study of attitudes inuencing faculty collaboration in library instruction. The Reference Librarian, 43(89/90), 139161. Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. M. J. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. McKechnie, L. E. F., Baker, L., Greenwood, M., & Julien, H. (2002). Research method trends in human information literature. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research, 3, 113125. 90 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291 Mellon, C. A. (1990). Understanding library use from the standpoint of the user: Naturalistic inquiry for library science. New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Mizrachi, D. (2010). Undergraduates' academic information and library behaviors: Preliminary results. Reference Services Review, 38, 571580. Monaghan, J., & Just, P. (2000). Social and cultural anthropology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nisonger, T. E., & Davis, C. H. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the KohlDavis study. College and Research Libraries, 66, 341377. Norman, D. (1999). The invisible computer. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pendleton, V. E. M., & Chatman, E. A. (1998). Small world lives: Implications for the public library. Library Trends, 46, 732751. Pickard, A. J. (2007). Research methods in information. London: Facet Publishing. Powell, R. R. (1999). Recent trends in research: A methodological essay. Library and Information Science Research, 21, 91119. Radford, M. L. (1998). Approach or avoidance? The role of nonverbal communication in the academic library user's decision to initiate a reference encounter. Library Trends, 46, 699717. Seadle, M. (2008). The work that vanished. LIBREAS. Library ideas, 14, 3843. Retrieved from http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/libreas/14/seadle-michael-38/PDF/seadle.pdf Seadle, M. (2011). Editorial: Research rules for library ethnography. Library Hi Tech, 29, 409411. Sever, I. (1986). A laboratory for children's librarianshipAn anthropologist's view of children, books and libraries. LIBRI, 36(1), 7483. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond humancomputer interaction. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. Smale, M. A., & Regalado, M. (2011). The scholarly habits of the undergraduates at CUNY. Preliminary results. Retrieved from http://ushep.commons.gc.cuny.edu/ les/2011/01/ushep-prelim-report1.pdf Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Wilson. Stein, J. (2008). If they build it, will they come? Implementing students' conceptions of an ideal library home page. Paper presented at the Library Assessment Conference, 2008, Baltimore MD. Retrieved from http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/ proceedings-lac-2008.pdf Suarez, D. (2007). What students do when they study in the library: Using ethnographic methods toobserve student behavior. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librar- ianship, 8(3). Retrievedfrom http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v08n03/ suarez_d01.html Thomas, N. P., & Nyce, J. N. (2001). Context as category: Opportunities for ethnographic analysis inlibraryandinformationscience research. NewReviewof InformationBehaviour Research, 2, 105118. Turner, N. (2008). Patterns of culture: Re-aligning library culture with user needs. Paper presented at the Library Assessment Conference, 2008, Baltimore MD. Retrieved from http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedings-lac-2008.pdf Twidale, M. B., Chaplin, D., Crabtree, A., Nichols, D. M., O'Brien, J., & Rounceeld, M. (1997). Collaboration in physical and digital libraries. Final report from the project Investigation of collaborative browsing and the consequences for library systems de- sign, funded by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre. Lancaster: Lan- caster University. Retrieved from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/ research/cseg/projects/ariadne/bl/report/ Twidale, M. B., & Nichols, D. M. (1998). Using studies of collaborative activity in physical environments to inform the design of digital libraries. Paper presented at the CSCW'98 Workshop on Collaborative and Co-operative Information Seeking in Digital Information Environments Cooperative Systems Engineering Group, Technical Report Ref: CSEG/11/1998. Lancaster: Lancaster University Computing De- partment. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1. 1.147.7912&rep=rep1&type=pdf Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the eld. On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Walden, G. R. (2006). Focus group interviewing in the library literature: A selective an- notated bibliography 19962005. Reference Services Review, 34, 224241. Washburn, A., & Bibb, S. C. (2011). Students studying students: An assessment of using undergraduate student researchers in an ethnographic study of library use. Library and Information Research, 35(109), 5566. Wiegand, W. A. (2003). Broadening our perspectives. The Library Quarterly, 73 (vx). Wiegand, W. A. (2005). Library as place. North Carolina Libraries, 63(3), 7681. Retrieved from http://www.ncl.ecu.edu/index.php/NCL/article/viewFile/70/88 Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Application of social research methods to questions in information and library science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Williams, J. F., &Winston, M. D. (2003). Leadership competencies andthe importance of re- search methods and statistical analysis in decision making and research and publica- tion: Astudy of citationpatterns. Library andInformation Science Research, 25, 387402. Wilson, T. D., & Streateld, D. R. (1980). You can observe a lot . . . A study of information use in local authority social services departments conducted by Project INISS. Retrieved from http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/INISS/ Catherine Hall is a doctoral student and IMLS fellow at the iSchool at Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She has an MA in information and library management and a background in academic and special libraries. Her current research includes an explo- ration and evaluation of the ways in which knowledge organization systems can be exploited to improve users' interactions with digital collections and a study of the facet analysis practices of public librarians. Her dissertation research looks at the application of faceted classications for digital libraries. She has presented at various international conferences. Michael Khoo is research faculty at the iSchool at Drexel University. He has a back- ground in cultural anthropology and organizational communication. He has carried out ethnographic research in the Indian Himalaya, and in telecommunications call cen- ters, and has studied digital libraries and librarians for ten years. He has published on digital library theory and practice, and qualitative studies of users. His current research includes studies of developers and users making sense of metadata in digital reposito- ries, and users in bricks-and-mortar libraries interacting with physical space. He tea- ches undergraduate and graduate courses in the social aspects of information systems, and humancomputer interaction and design. He also works with the Internet Public Library (http://ipl.org). Lily Rozaklis is a doctoral candidate at the iSchool at Drexel University specializing in the academic information behaviors of undergraduate students. She has a background in library and information science as a practitioner for ve years. Her publications have discussed reference services and the education of library and information science pro- fessionals. Her teaching includes graduate courses on digital reference services. 91 M. Khoo et al. / Library & Information Science Research 34 (2012) 8291
Islcollective Worksheets Preintermediate A2 High School Reading Speaking Adjectives To Describe Personality and Characte 881191338542ea693560488 36713719