Helena's Research Blog

Tools of trade

Helena Bukvova — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:44:32 +0000

Lately, I have been led to reflect about the research methods that I know and use. When I was first encountered academic research, some years ago in my studies, I was presented with an array of quantitative methods. This, I was told, was the way to do research: accurate, objective, and clear. I was impressed and eager to learn more. Over the following years, I put together a knowledge foundation about quantitative research methods. When I think of what I know about quantitative research, I always picture it as a nice little toolbox: I can almost see the shining metal of the lid and inside the large number of snug compartments, all clearly labelled and filled with useful instrument. All instruments have an assigned place and assigned use. They are sharp and precise, some with fiddly buttons and digital displays, promising – as if by some unknown magic – to transform any amount of raw data into accurate and objective results. There is a sense of order in the quantitative toolbox; and also a smell of novelty, like in a new car – because I rarely use it.

Most of the time when I do research, I use qualitative methods. Those are not stored in a shiny toolbox. They are more like a leather workbag – baggy and slightly worn. The instruments lie in a heap and keep getting entangled. They are blunt and difficult to use. There are no magical buttons here: it’s all blood and sweat and a lot of creativity. The content of my qualitative workbag has not been presented to me, but mostly collected through my own initiative. Some instruments I have even forged myself, after looking over the shoulders of other researchers.

The qualitative tools are old friends and I like to use them. But every time I reached for my qualitative workbag a felt a slight twinge, when I glanced at my quantitative toolbox and noticed the layer of dust, slowly settling on its highly polished lid. And then last year, I suddenly landed in a small resaerch project that promised to be all about quantitative work. I happily opened my toolbox and selected the proper instruments. I gave them the data and pushed the buttons – but they just wouldn’t work! The data we were using were not suitable, they needed more precise data, clearly categorised and quantified. What was wrong? The methods we have selected were correct – we couldn’t have achieved our aims with qualitative methods. But we were dealing with people and their output and it just refused to fit clearly into our prepared variables. We adjusted our assumptions and made the data fit. We honed our procedures and agreed on more precise definitions. We made our quantitative tools do their magic and finally got the results. Then, when writing them up, we painstakingly tried to recall all that had to be done to reach our conclusions. Later on I carried out another two small quantitative projects, with the same experience: there was just as little objectivity in quantitative research as there was in the qualitative. The results nicely presented in a table may appear more precise, but they were based on just as many assumptions and intuitive interpretations as any narrative report of qualitative research.

This experience was an eye-opener for me. I did not feel sorry or disillusioned; on the contrary, it has helped me to shed the unnecessary respect I had for using quantitative research methods. I have realised that neither qualitative nor quantitative tools are perfect. The have a different purpose and are very likely to do well when combined. In the future, I will probably take my quantitative toolbox along with my qualitative workbag more often. I might even get a large crate and store all the instruments together. It will give me more flexibility and help to do better research. I have read in many places, that I am not supposed to do that; read things about different paradigms and assumptions about objectivity of research. But to me, researchers are artisans: their work is based on proper tools, but their success depends on how they use it. Research is just as much about experience, creativity, and intuition and wisdom coming from deep understanding for ones work. As for the methods researchers use, they are tools of the trade: no worse and no better than the researcher, who uses them.

Kindle 3 and academic reading

Helena Bukvova — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:22:23 +0000

For my thesis, research and studies I need to read a lot of articles. Most of these are on my computer as PDFs. For some time I have been longing to have a device that would allow me to read these PDFs on the go and thus utilize the various transfer times I have. Sure, I could print them out and take the hard copy. But for ecological and practical reasons, I now read almost everything electronically. Usually, when I read a paper, I will highlight the content or write down a few notes. Now if I have done this on my printed copy, where is this copy going to be the next time I need it? Most probably not with me. So I needed a device that would allow me to take my PDFs with me, read them conveniently, make a few highlights or notes and transfer the lot back to my computer. I had a very close brush with the iPad and I have finally chosen the new Kindle 3. After much waiting and a struggle with my old nemesis, the UPS, I finally held it in my hands. And this is what I think of it:

Reading PDFs

The Kindles have been (as far as I can see rightfully) praised for offering great experience with reading e-books. The experience I have with reading academic papers in PDFs can be described as satisfactory. The Kindle 3 screen offers great contrast and the e-paper rests the eyes. The PDFs are shown just as they would be in a PDF reader on a computer. However, the screen is fairly small, so depending on the format of the PDF (e.g. the number of columns), you have to flip the screen or zoom in for the actual reading. I find the page-fit view sufficient for skimming, though. The navigation is good.

Annotation

You can highlight passages of text and add notes. For this, you have to navigate on the screen with the 5-way controller. This is of course not as convenient as a mouse. Also, when highlighting text in papers with more than one columns, the highlight does not break at the column end, but continues across the page, so you will have to break such highlight into several short ones (a problem I know also from other PDF readers). For writing notes, you have to use the fairly small keybord. The highlighted text and notes are not embedded into the PDF but stored in a separate TXT file.

Organisation

The Kindle allows the creation of collections to organise the documents. Also, you can create folders when copying documents onto the Kindle. This makes it easy to find documents both when reading on the Kindle and when it is plugged to the computer. But these are two separate things – creating a new folder will not create a new collection.

Workflow

I have figured out a workflow to incorporate the Kindle into my reading. I use a “To read” folder on my computer, where I put unread documents. These are papers from new journal issues, papers recommended to me by others, papers I found randomly on the web, etc. To this, I have added the folder “Read”, where I put papers I am already done with. This organisation is mirrored by the collections and folders on Kindle. I move the papers from “To read” to my Kindle and place them in the “To read” collection. Then I read them while on the bus or at home etc. I highlight what I need and make brief notes. Read documents that I want to keep lend in the “Read” collection and those that I consider irrelevant are directly deleted. Then I move the read documents back to my computer, together with a copy of the TXT with my notes and highlights. I then put the papers into my reference manager (Mendeley), sort them, add the meta-data and copy the notes I have made on Kindle from the TXT-file into the “Comments” field for the particular paper. This way, the notes remain available to me independent of the PDF. That’s it.

Conclusions

I am satisfied with the Kindle 3. It can do what I have expected it to do. Of course colour, touch screen and larger screen would be nice. But then I knew it had a black-and-white, 6-inch non-touch screen before I bought it – so while start whining now? When deciding to buy the Kindle 3 for academic reading, you ought to be aware of the limitations and think carefully about what you want it to do. The way I use it is very simple. It is enough for me, but if you want more, you have to look at another device. The iPad is definitely an option, where you could do stuff like automatically syncing between several devices etc. I have decided against it in the end, because of the price (yes, you get more for more money, but I didn’t want to surf with it, I just needed it for reading, so the added value was not worth the added price), the battery-time and the reading properties (I do a lot of reading on the computer and I am beginning to feel the strain – Kindle’ screen is really better here). If you have time and patience, you can also wait a bit, because the market is going to be flooded with further e-readers and tablets very soon.

Thinking about the role of epistemological positioning in research

Helena Bukvova — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 16:44:17 +0000

I have recently had the opportunity to make a presentation about my doctoral research at an interinstitutional doctoral seminar. I have talked mainly about the methods I use. I have received some interesting feedback both at and after the event. There was one comment in particular which made me think: one of the audience felt, that main main problem arose from my epistemological position. He thought that the methods I use do not match it and suggested that I chose a different position, more in tune with my research. Thinking about this criticism really helped me to reflect on my opinion about the role of epistemological positioning in research.

While searching for topic for my doctoral thesis, I have spent about half a year intensively reading on epistemology. It was the first time I had to think about this topic and it was a painful experience. I felt that the more I read, the more there was to it and I was getting steadily more confused by the different views and opinions of the various authors. Finally, I came to realise, that there was no “correct” position that I had to find. Epistemological position describes the way I, as a researcher see the world. How I think knowledge is created and shared and how I believe truth is defined. Describing my epistemological position helped me to realise what views I held on these topics and consequently, how I interpreted research. In my opinion, choosing – or better realising – one’s epistemological position helps to explicate views and opinions on things like truth, knowledge, and reality. It is something researchers should do in the beginning of their research work. Choosing a position that fits your research or changing a position according to the methods I wish to use makes little sense to me.

But if the epistemological positioning is such a very personal decision, does it actually make sense to make it known to others? Brown and Dowling (1998, p.136) compare epistemological position to the researchers’ religion, seeing both out of place in a methodological discourse. I think, that while the epistemological position really is just as personal and subjective as one’s religious views, it influences how we do and interpret research. Two researchers might disagree about a piece of research even because they differ in their epistemological understanding. If the position is not made explicit, they might never realise it. Therefore, I think it is important to state your position, in order to lay a clear foundation for academic discourse with other scientists.

I disagree with the commonly held opinion, that when researchers select an epistemological position, they become bound to a set of research methods. I think all methods are open to researchers of all positions. But the epistemological understanding will influence the way how these methods and their results are interpreted. Hence again the necessity to make ones position explicit and state it clearly.

After making out a case for choosing and advertising one’s epistemological position, I have to admit that it can also easily backfire. Firstly, according to my experience, not everyone in the scientific community has given thought to epistemology. This can lead to misunderstandings, ranging from wonder about the need to state your position to open misinterpretation. Secondly, it is easy to become drawn into a philosophical discussion about epistemology in general and one’s positioning in particular. Although this can be intriguing, it can also become anything from boring to ugly. There are still very distinct barriers between the representatives of different positions, sometimes almost bordering on obsession. Thirdly, if you announce your position (e.g. in scientific writing or a presentation), you might also be expected to “do something with it”. It is not just enough to put it down or say it in the beginning, but you ought refer to it at other relevant places and explain how it influenced your research. This is not always an easy task to do. It takes time, space, and a lot of thought.

Let’s sum up and come back to the criticism of my thesis design. First, I should give thanks where thanks are due. The critic put time and effort into reflection my doctoral thesis and gave me a critical, constructive feedback. And this only for one purpose – to help me get on with my doctorate. I really appreciate it! Now, for the criticism itself: I disagree that my methods do not fit my epistemological position. As I wrote, I do not think that my position could exclude research methods. I also do not consider it appropriate to change my position to fit my method. My epistemological position reflects my understanding of basic issues of science and that is not something you just change when it does not fit. But the criticism clearly shows that I have either not given enough thought to how my position influences the interpretation of methods I have selected or that I have not made these reflections explicit. Since a doctoral theses offers enough space to thoroughly discuss such things, I definitely need to work on this issue.

If you build it, will the come ? – Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for researchers

Helena Bukvova — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:54:36 +0000

The Web 2.0 offers a number of tools targeting directly academics. The presented study wanted to find out if the academics use these tools and what they think about them. The authors used a mixed methodology consisting of an e-mail questionnaire, in-depth interviews and case studies. The demographic data was a little surprising, showing senior and older researchers as adopters. This was different for SNS, these were more popular with younger researchers. Also, researchers who are involved in collaborative researcher are more likely to adopt and use Web 2.0 tools more often. Encouragement (from different sides like library services, conference organisers) was important for the use of Web 2.0 tools.

With regard to publishing, there is still a clear preference for print-published journals. On the other hand, most researchers thought that the importance of online publishing will grow in the future and many researchers considered it likely, that the traditional peer review will be supplemented by other methods. In interviews, frequent users pointed to the possibility to communicate with multiple users, using different tools and features to reach particular target group. The researchers have concerns about trust (although I would have interpreted the quoted concerns more like problems with loss of control – a typical web 2.0 issue).

All in all an interesting study, going deeper than the usually usage-frequency-oriented studies.

Links

Enhancing users experience: a content analysis of 12 university libraries Facebook profiles

Helena Bukvova — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:37:33 +0000

Since 2007, many libraries have created Facebook pages. However, this practice is still critically discussed and librarians are often uncertain about appropriate strategies. The aim of the presented study was to explore, whether Facebook was a suitable tool for promoting library collections and services. For the study, 12 UK libraries with Facebook pages were selected and their data recorded over two weeks.

The libraries use the wall for updating. The pages were update in regular intervals, pointing to planned use of Facebook, rather than a ‘natural’ communication. There was also little interaction with the page ‘fans’. Libraries use little visual material. The libraries also seldom use further applications beyond the wall.

I confess I was not aware, that libraries had Facebook pages at all :-). Therefore the study held a lot of new information for me. But I had some doubts about the conclusions, because I couldn’t see where they cam from. For instance, I do not consider it ‘unnatural’ or wrong that a library has a person responsible for the Facebook page, who posts information at regular intervals. Surely, the posting practice depends on the library’s objectives and these do not necessarily have to be personalised communication. Also, saying that libraries should use multimedia, because the ‘Net Gen’ is visual, seems to me vague and unfounded. Furthermore, making all such inferences from the observation and without communication with the library or the fans is dangerous (to be fair, the team has sent a questionnaire to the libraries, but received no replies).

Links

Constituencies of use: Representative usage scenarios in digital library user studies on Europeana

Helena Bukvova — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:17:20 +0000

The study presented here aimed to evaluate the Europeana digital library. Europeana contains digitalised cultural heritage material on various European countries. The study included 89 participants (mostly students) from four countries (Bulgaria, Italy, UK and the Netherlands). The study combined questionnaire survey with discussions experimental tasks in which the participants had to work with Europeana and find given information.

I really liked the design of the study, particularly the use of experimental tasks. Very often, user studies are content with self-reporting methods. However, I found the presentation very confusing and I had to read up in the article to find what the actual aim of the study was. But as I said, interesting methodology.

Links

The PEG-BOARD Project: An E-Science Case Study

Helena Bukvova — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:31:47 +0000

The case presented here is concerned with the archiving and management of palæoclimate data. This data (and there is a huge amount of data) is reused by a number of disciplines. However, although the management of the data is crucial, it is rarely considered by financing institutions. A partial solution of this problem are national data centres, funded by NERC. These are rather restrictive, devised with little consideration for the actual user needs. They also target climate researchers, limiting the use of the data for other disciplines. Furthermore it provides not tools for analysis.

The PEG-BOARD project aims to supply tools necessary for the archiving, management and analysis of palæoclimate data. The basis of the project was a toolset originally developed for individual research, which has since evolved to become a part of institutional workflow. When developing this toolset further, aiming to standardise it, the users’ view was explicitely considered. The original idea of developing a role-model was abandoned, because users can have more than one role. Instead a task-based analysis was used. Also, users from the different disciplines have different demands on the data output and bring different skills into the work with the data.

A really nice case of e-science, showing very clearly, how technology can help in science. At the same time, the project tries not to loose sight of the users’ needs (which are really wonderfully complex).

Links

The changing scholarly information landscape: reinventing information services to increase research impact

Helena Bukvova — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:08:51 +0000

Science has always been a very competitive area, with reputation and impact as key factors. The scientific environment is also very complex and it is becoming increasingly so with the development of technology. One of the impacts of technology is the increasing globalisation of the competition in science. In science, research impact is an important factor. It influences individual researchers’ careers, institutional situation (e.g. recognition, funding) and even the understanding of research at national level. However, being a complex contract, it is being measured using surrogate indicators (see presentation and paper Elen Giglia at the elPub 2010). In her presentation, Linda O’Brien described the strategy of the Information Services department at the Griffith University, Queensland, Australia concerned with strengthening the research impact of the university.

The presentation showed the problems and the complexity of the issues quite clearly, but I would have wished to hear more about the actual strategy. I will have to read through the paper in detail.

Links

Linda O’Brien (presenter)
Paper in proceedings
Presentation and paper Elen Giglia at the elPub 2010
elPub 2010

Linking people through OAI metadata

Helena Bukvova — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:43:52 +0000

In the focus of the presentation was the Writeslike.us project. The aim of the research is to help the researchers find each other. To do this a search engine was designed and prototypical implemented which would allow researchers to easily trace information about paper authors. In order to be able to find researchers, a database with relevant data for analysis is necessary. For this project, meta data from publications was harvested using AOI and analysed. This approach is not new, it is being used already in bibliometrics.

I found the idea interesting and worth trying (despite my usual scepticism towards purely technological solutions in this are). The whole idea sounds logical and maybe almost too simple (OK, I am exaggerating now), but the nice thing is that they have actually tried it. So this is a nice example of design research, where they actually develop a prototype in order to test the idea. Of course to get further results, user testing etc. would be necessary.

Links

Science and the digital data deluge

Helena Bukvova — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:22:06 +0000

This second key note has been held by Dr. Pirjo-Leena Forsström. She pointed out the growing importance of digital data nowadays and not just in science. Also, she noted the changes within the society with regard to knowledge. Knowledge has always been the aspect of science but the understanding of knowledge and the demands are changing. In the society, the focus on knowledge is quite new (knowledge society). ICT surely provides new possibilities in this area, but besides the positive effects of the development of ICT, there are also clear symptoms indicating problems, particularly an information overload. Dr. Forsström argued, that these problems need to be addressed. Not just the society, but also the science is changing. Dr. Forsström noted e.g. the growing influence of economy on science, the need for collaboration and the growing concerns of funding. What we need is a real globalisation of science in the form of open science, including freely available data, open access to results and open infrastructure.

As suggested from the title, Dr. Forsström focused on the information overload and the growing amount of data in the “digital universe”. The amount of data is growing rapidly and needs to be dealt with. She pointed out that the data is mostly unstructured, uncategorised and redundant. How can we deal with these amounts of data? How can we find relevant information? How can we fund the storage of the data? Dr. Forsström stressed that it is time, that the data is managed without redundancy and in proper structures.

Dr. Forsström has talked about the potential of open science and e-science as providing vital data for research. However, given the data deluge makes it increasingly harder to extract relevant data and store it. The data has heterogeneous, has different storage terms and managed by different entities. One way of addressing these problems is the creation of dedicated jobs in science (‘data scientists’). Some disciplines are also beginning to engage in systematic mapping and organisation of the data.

After discussing the problems and dangers, she sketched issues that should be addressed in order to relieve the situation. For one, there are technical issues, including the development of tools and procedures. But important is also the attitude of the scientists as data producers and users. Dr. Forsström was more focused on the technical issues, but the user related issue should not be underestimated.

Dr. Forsström managed to make the problem and the dangers very clear, although I sometimes found it difficult to follow the presentation thread. The presentation offered a number of different issues, some technical, some more related to academic culture. These appeared to me often mixed together. I think I would need to take a look at the slides once more at leisure to really take in all that she has presented. But all in all and interesting introduction to this area.

elPub 2010

Helena's Research Blog

Tools of trade

Kindle 3 and academic reading

Thinking about the role of epistemological positioning in research

If you build it, will the come ? – Use and relevance of web 2.0 resources for researchers

Enhancing users experience: a content analysis of 12 university libraries Facebook profiles

Constituencies of use: Representative usage scenarios in digital library user studies on Europeana

The PEG-BOARD Project: An E-Science Case Study

The changing scholarly information landscape: reinventing information services to increase research impact

Linking people through OAI metadata

Science and the digital data deluge

key asPirjo-Leena Forsström