scholarly journals LIS Periodicals Contain a Low Percentage of Articles that Qualify as Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hayman

A Review of: Turcios, M. E., Agarwal, N. K., & Watkins, L. (2014). How much of library and information science literature qualifies as research? Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(5), 473-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.06.003 Objective – To determine how much of the literature in a library and information science (LIS) periodical collection qualifies as research. Design – Content analysis. Setting – The LIS periodicals collection of an academic library that supports an established LIS graduate program at a college in the United States of America. Subjects – Of the 177 identified periodicals with LIS content that fell within project scope from the local collection, researchers analyzed 101 journals that include academic/scholarly content and an additional 4 journals with relevant trade content. This study excluded open access (OA) journals. Methods – Using the most recent issue of each subject journal from the fiscal year 2012-2013, the authors performed a content analysis on all indexed content items, and then classified each content item as research or non-research. For content identified as research, researchers identified the research method (or methods) used. The data collection tool also captured identifying information and keywords for all content. Main Results – Within the journals meeting the scope of this study, researchers identified 1,880 articles from 105 individual journal issues. Only 16% (n=307) of articles met the authors’ established definition to qualify as research. Within the subset of research articles, the authors further identified 45% (n=139) that used a single research method. An additional 36% (n=112) of identified research articles used two research methods and 15% (n=46) used three methods, with the remainder using four or more methods. Surveys were the most frequently used research method, accounting for 49% (n=66) of the single method studies. The researchers discovered that surveys remained popular even in mixed-method studies, with 21% (n=117) of all identified research articles using surveys. This is closely followed by 20% (n=109) of studies reported as using the general category of “other” methods, for research that did not meet one of the predefined methods. The next two most popular identified methods were case studies at 13% (n=73), followed by content analyses at 13% (n=71). For the eight other research methods identified, none saw a frequency above 10%. Focus groups and usability studies tied for the least frequently used method among the 307 articles, both at 2% (n=9). The keyword analysis focused on two categories, one for research article keywords and another for non-research article keywords, for all 1,880 articles identified. Non-research articles had less reliance on keywords, with authors reporting keywords appearing on 73% (n=1156). Within these, authors discovered 120 separate keywords used 10 or more times across non-research articles. The top ten keywords among non-research articles were reported as primarily related to books and publishing, with “non-fiction,” “adult,” and “libraries” as the top three. By comparison, research articles heavily favour the use of keywords, with 94% (n=290) of research articles having keywords. Analysis of the individual keywords found 56 keywords appearing 10 or more times across research articles. The top ten keywords are primarily practice related, with “information,” “libraries,” and “library” being the top three. When comparing shared keywords across both categories, the same top three keywords reported for research in the previous sentence apply to the collective set. Conclusion – The authors note that the nature and size of the local collection both benefited and limited this study. Compiling and maintaining a comprehensive list of LIS periodicals is a challenging task across a large body of potential sources. Within the resulting periodicals studied, a mere 16% of analyzed LIS literature met the criteria to qualify as research, and that only after the study had eliminated virtually all trade periodicals from the population. Had that trade literature been included, the percentage qualifying as research would have been even lower. The popularity of surveys as a research method among LIS research reflects other recent findings, though the frequency of studies falling into the general “other” category suggests that LIS research is changing. Based on this research, the authors conclude that there is still much to be learned from content analysis of literature published in LIS periodicals. Future analyses could further examine the frequency of research methods used within LIS research.

Author(s):  
Judith Mavodza

The library and information science (LIS) profession is influenced by multidisciplinary research strategies and techniques (research methods) that in themselves are also evolving. They represent established ways of approaching research questions (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative methods). This chapter reviews the methods of research as expressed in literature, demonstrating how, where, and if they are inter-connected. Chu concludes that popularly used approaches include the theoretical approach, experiment, content analysis, bibliometrics, questionnaire, and interview. It appears that most empirical research articles in Chu's analysis employed a quantitative approach. Although the survey emerged as the most frequently used research strategy, there is evidence that the number and variety of research methods and methodologies have been increasing. There is also evidence that qualitative approaches are gaining increasing importance and have a role to play in LIS, while mixed methods have not yet gained enough recognition in LIS research.


2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda B. Click ◽  
Claire Walker Wiley ◽  
Meggan Houlihan

This study is a systematic review of the library and information science (LIS) literature related to international students and academic libraries. A systematic review involves the methodical collection and analysis of a body of literature and is growing in popularity in the LIS field. Three well-known LIS databases were systematically searched for articles related to the topic, and manual bibliography searches were conducted to find additional publications. Journal articles, book chapters, and conference papers were included or excluded based on established criteria. Findings show that articles published about international students and academic libraries have increased steadily between 1990 and 2014. The majority of authors are affiliated with universities and institutions in the United States, although an increase in represented countries is apparent. Fewer than half of the articles can be considered original research, and surveys are the most popular method for data collection. The LIS field—and international students—would benefit from further exploration of this topic, particularly from original research with practical implications.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1002-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sultan M. Al-Daihani ◽  
Suha A. AlAwadhi

Purpose – This research aims to analyze academic libraries’ Twitter content and present a categorization framework for the study of their tweets. Design/methodology/approach – The research adopted a statistical descriptive analysis in addition to a content analysis of the tweets. Consequently, many categories and subcategories were created to classify the tweets according to different aspects. A total of 17 academic library accounts were examined. Findings – The findings show that academic libraries used Twitter as a multifaceted tool. “News and announcements” received the highest score as the type of information most often posted on Twitter by libraries, followed by “library collections” and “library services”. The subcategories that received the highest scores were “library marketing and news”, “answers and referrals” and “books”. Academic libraries showed a penchant for posting links more often than other content. Other results show different patterns of communication and interaction between libraries and their Twitter followers. Practical implications – The categorization of tweets provides a framework for understanding how academic libraries use Twitter. Originality/value – As little research can be found in the library and information science literature on Twitter content analysis, this research is expected to contribute significantly. It will also support academic libraries and librarians in using Twitter more efficiently and effectively.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 215
Author(s):  
Heather L Coates

A Review of: Aytac, S. & Slutsky, B. (2014). Published librarian research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and perspectives. Collaborative Librarianship, 6(4), 147-159. Objective – To compare the research articles produced by library and information science (LIS) practitioners, LIS academics, and collaborations between practitioners and academics. Design – Content analysis. Setting – English-language LIS literature from 2008 through 2012. Subjects – Research articles published in 13 library and information science journals. Methods – Using a purposive sample of 769 articles from selected journals, the authors used content analysis to characterize the mix of authorship models, author status (practitioner, academic, or student), topic, research approach and methods, and data analysis techniques used by LIS practitioners and academics. Main Results – The authors screened 1,778 articles, 769 (43%) of which were determined to be research articles. Of these, 438 (57%) were written solely by practitioners, 110 (14%) collaboratively by practitioners and academics, 205 (27%) solely by academics, and 16 (2%) by others. The majority of the articles were descriptive (74%) and gathered quantitative data (69%). The range of topics was more varied; the most popular topics were libraries and librarianship (19%), library users/information seeking (13%), medical information/research (13%), and reference services (12%). Pearson’s chi-squared tests detected significant differences in research and statistical approaches by authorship groups. Conclusion – Further examination of practitioner research is a worthwhile effort as is establishing new funding to support practitioner and academic collaborations. The use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the results, particularly to international and non-English LIS literature. Future studies could explore motivators for practitioner-academic collaborations as well as the skills necessary for successful collaboration. Additional support for practitioner research could include mentorship for early career librarians to facilitate more rapid maturation of collaborative research skills and increase the methodological quality of published research.


Author(s):  
Paulette Bernhard ◽  
Louise Lambert

This article provides, first, a review of indicators of "research articles" as found in five different kinds of studies (content analysis of core journals and of specific journals, review of doctoral thesis, analysis of secondary journals, analysis of other sources), and second, the identification of the research methods listed in those studies, as well as in eleven textbooks about research and research methods.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document