My sites

Blogroll

Recent Tweets

Follow Me on Twitter

Powered by Twitter Tools

Reading list

Categories

Archives

Meta

My picks for the 2014 U.S. Figure Skating Championships in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2184 (179T out of 326)
Overall: 18671 (76 out of 758)

2014 Prudential U.S. Figure Skating Championships Event
Ladies A
Ashley Wagner
[winner: Gracie Gold]
Ladies B
Samantha Cesario
[winner: Polina Edmunds]
Ladies C
Kiri Baga
[winner: Barbie Long]
Men’s A
Jason Brown
[winner: Jeremy Abbott]
Men’s B
Grant Hochstein
[winner: Douglas Razzano]
Men’s C
Daniel Raad
[winner: Timothy Dolensky]
Pairs A
Caydee Denney/John Coughlin
[winner: Marissa Castelli/Simon Shnapir]
Pairs B
Haven Denney/Brandon Frazier
[winner: Felicia Zhang/Nathan Bartholomay]
Pairs C
Alexandra Shaughnessy/James Morgan
[winner: DeeDee Leng/Timothy LeDuc]
Ice Dancing A
Meryl Davis and Charlie White
Ice Dancing B
Maia Shibutani/Alex Shibutani
[winner: Madison Chock/Evan Bates]
Ice Dancing C
Isabella Cannuscio/Michael Bramante
[winner: Anastasia Olson/Ian Lorello]
January 18th, 2014 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/7437

My picks for the 2013 Grand Prix Final in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2605 (234T out of 401)
Overall: 16487 (83 out of 741)

Grand Prix Final 2013 final protocol

2013 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final Event
Ladies A
Mao Asada, JPN
Ladies B
Ashley Wagner, USA
Ladies C
Adelina Sotnikova, RUS
[winner: Elena Radionova, RUS]
Men’s A
Patrick Chan, CAN
Men’s B
Yuzuru Hanyu, JPN
Men’s C
Nobunari Oda, JPN
Pairs A
Tatiana Volosozhar & Maxim Trankov, RUS
[winner: Aliona Savchenko & Robin Szolkowy, GER]
Pairs B
Kirsten Moore-Towers & Dylan Moscovitch, CAN
[winner: Qing Pang & Jian Tong, CHN]
Pairs C
Meagan Duhamel & Eric Radford, CAN
[winner: Cheng Peng & Hao Zhang, CHN]
Ice Dancing A
Meryl Davis & Charlie White, USA
Ice Dancing B
Nathalie Péchalat & Fabian Bourzat, FRA
Ice Dancing C
Kaitlyn Weaver & Andrew Poje, CAN
December 09th, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/5317

My picks for Rostelecom Cup 2013 in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results:  2340 (36T out of 470)
Overall:  13882 (87T out of 725)

Rostelecom Cup 2013 final protocol

2013 Rostelecom Cup Event
Ladies A
Julia Lipnitskaia, RUS
Ladies B
Satoko Miyahara, JPN
Ladies C
Nikol Gosviani, RUS
[winner: Mirai Nagasu, USA]
Men’s A
Tatsuki Machida, JPN
Men’s B
Maxim Kovtun, RUS
Men’s C
Artur Gachinski, RUS
Pairs A
Aliona Savchenko/Robin Szolkowy, GER
Pairs B
Ksenia Stolbova/Fedor Klimov, RUS
[winner: Vera Bazarova/Yuri Larionov, RUS]
Pairs C
Julia Antipova/Nodari Maisuradze, RUS
Ice Dancing A
Ekaterina Bobrova/Dmitri Soloviev, RUS
Ice Dancing B
Madison Chock/Evan Bates, USA
Ice Dancing C
Ksenia Monko/Kirill Khaliavin, RUS
November 21st, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/4305

My picks for Trophée Eric Bompard 2013 in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2397 (123T out of 481)
Overall: 11542 (145T out of 709)

Trophée Eric Bompard 2013 final protocol

2013 Trophée Eric Bompard Event
Ladies A
Ashley Wagner, USA
Ladies B
Anna Pogorilaya, RUS
Ladies C
Amelie Lacoste, CAN [winner: Samantha Cesario, USA]
Men’s A
Patrick Chan, CAN
Men’s B
Han Yan, CHN
Men’s C
Jason Brown, USA
Pairs A
Qing Pang & Jian Tong, CHN
Pairs B
Vera Bazarova & Yuri Larionov, RUS [winner: Caydee Denney & John Coughlin, USA]
Pairs C
Annabelle Prolss & Ruben Blommaert, GER [winner: Natasha Purich & Mervin Tran, CAN]
Ice Dancing A
Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir, CAN
Ice Dancing B
Elena Ilinykh & Nikita Katsalapov, RUS
Ice Dancing C
Gabriella Papadakis & Guillaume Cizeron, FRA
November 14th, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/3912

My picks for NHK Trophy 2013 in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2403 (58 out of 493)
Overall: 9145 (170 out of 694)

NHK Trophy 2013 final protocol

2013 NHK Trophy Event
Ladies A
Mao Asada, JPN
Ladies B
Gracie Gold, USA
[winner: Elena Radionova, RUS]
Ladies C
Satoko Miyahara, JPN
Men’s A
Daisuke Takahashi, JPN
Men’s B
Max Aaron, USA
[winner: Jeremy Abbott, USA]
Men’s C
Sergei Voronov, RUS
[winner: Takahito Mura, JPN]
Pairs A
Tatiana Volosozhar & Maxim Trankov, RUS
Pairs B
Wenjing Sui & Cong Han, CHN
[winner: Cheng Peng & Hao Zhang, CHN]
Pairs C
Marissa Castelli & Simon Shnapir, USA
Ice Dancing A
Meryl Davis & Charlie White, USA
Ice Dancing B
Maia Shibutani and Alex Shibutani, USA
Ice Dancing C
Piper Gilles & Paul Poirier, CAN
November 05th, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/3428

My picks for Cup of China 2013 in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2045 (367T out of 427)
Overall: 6742 (221T out of 674)

Cup of China 2013 final protocol

2013 Cup of China Event
Ladies A
Adelina Sotnikova, RUS
Ladies B
Zijun Li, CHN
[winner: Anna Pogorilaya, RUS]
Ladies C
Haruka Imai, JPN
[winner: Nikol Gosviani, RUS]
Men’s A
Denis Ten, KAZ
[winner: Takahiko Kozuka, JPN]
Men’s B
Han Yan, CHN
Men’s C
Peter Liebers, GER
Pairs A
Aliona Savchenko & Robin Szolkowy, GER
Pairs B
Cheng Peng & Hao Zhang, CHN
Pairs C
Anastasia Martiusheva & Alexei Rogonov, RUS
[winner: Xuehan Wang & Lei Wang, CHN]
Ice Dancing A
Ekaterina Bobrova & Dmitri Soloviev, RUS
[winner: Nathalie Pechalat & Fabian Bourzat, FRA]
Ice Dancing B
Madison Chock & Evan Bates, USA
Ice Dancing C
Xintong Huang & Hun Zheng, CHN – withdrawn
[winner: Alexandra Aldridge & Daniel Eaton, USA]
November 01st, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/3225

My picks for Skate Canada 2013 in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2299 (173T out of 447)
Overall: 4697 (145T out of 657)

Skate Canada 2013 final protocol

2013 Skate Canada Event
Ladies A
Julia Lipnitskaia, RUS
Ladies B
Courtney Hicks, USA
[winner: Christina Gao, USA]
Ladies C
Veronik Mallet, CAN
[winner: Amelie Lacoste, CAN]
Men’s A
Patrick Chan, CAN
Men’s B
Takahito Mura, JPN
[winner: Nobunari Oda, JPN]
Men’s C
Joshua Farris, USA
Pairs A
Meagan Duhamel & Eric Radford, CAN
[winner: Wenjing Sui & Cong Han, CHN]
Pairs B
Stefania Berton & Ondrej Hotarek, ITA
Pairs C
Haven Denney & Brandon Frazier, USA
Ice Dancing A
Tessa Virtue & Scott Moir, CAN
Ice Dancing B
Kaitlyn Weaver & Andrew Poje, CAN
Ice Dancing C
Madison Hubbell & Zachary Donohue, USA
October 25th, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/2889

My picks for Skate America 2013 in the 2013-14 US Figure Skating Fantasy Challenge

My results: 2398 (199T out of 618)
Overall: 2398 (199T out of 618)

Skate America 2013 final protocol

2013 Hilton HHonors Skate America Event
Ladies A
Mao Asada, JPN
Ladies B
Elizaveta Tuktamysheva, RUS
[winner: Elena RADIONOVA, RUS]
Ladies C
Mae Berenice Meite, FRA
[winner: Samantha CESARIO, USA]
Men’s A
Daisuke Takahashi, JPN
Men’s B
Max Aaron, USA
[winner: Tatsuki MACHIDA, JPN]
Men’s C
Jason Brown, USA
[winner: Adam RIPPON, USA]
Pairs A
Tatiana Volosozhar & Maxim Trankov, RUS
Pairs B
Caydee Denney & John Coughlin, USA
Pairs C
Ksenia Stolbova & Fedor Klimov, RUS
Ice Dancing A
Meryl Davis & Charlie White, USA
Ice Dancing B
Maia Shibutani &Alex Shibutani, USA
Ice Dancing C
Isabella Tobias & Deividas Stagniunas, LTU
[winner: Cathy REED / Chris REED, JPN]
October 23rd, 2013 | Tags: | Category: Figure Skating | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/2781

Munde, Gail, and Kenneth E. Marks. Surviving the Future: Academic Libraries, Quality, and Assessment. London: Chando Pub, 2009. Print.

Preface – Purpose of book

The goal of this book is to “… provide a thorough, logical, and integrated view of academic library assessment, evaluation and quality improvement …” p. xv drawing together the essential information and knowledge required to enable academic librarians to pursue quality improvement within their own institutions.

Chapter 1 – Quality, Assessment and Evaluation

Defining quality

Criteria for evaluating library quality (from user perspective): Performance, Features, Reliability, Conformance to established standards, Durability (sustainability), Currency, Serviceability (extent of services available), Aesthetics, Usability/accessibility, Assurance/competence/credibility, Courtesy/responsiveness/empathy, Communication, Speed, Variety of services, Perceived quality.

Three distinct stakeholder groups with divergent criteria for quality: 1. library users 2. funding authorities (i.e. university administration) 3. library employees.

Measurement

Gathering data is not enough. Data must be relevant and actively used to measure performance. Performance measurement is inherently political.

Assessment

Ambiguous term, more accurate: self-assessment (internal) and accountability/audit (external).

Seven stages of of self-assessment: 1. Identify the role of self-assessment 2. Commit to the process 3. Identify a self-assessment team 4. Choose a self-assessment model/approach 5. Plan/Pilot/Train 6. Manage self-assessment process, gather and analyze data 7. Identify and implement priorities for improvement/action 8. Review achievements.

Major challenges: gathering relevant and meaningful data, obtaining methodological guidance and skills, managing data, integrating assessment as a core activity within the library, interpreting library data within broader context of user behavior and constraints.

“Responsibility for data collection and management can be delegated by the library administrator, but one thing that cannot be delegated is the leadership role, the essential responsibility to instill throughout the library the importance of accurate data collection and to make self-assessment an integral part of the library’s existence. … Creating a self-assessment plan, or outlining a self-assessment process, is a logical place to begin.” p. 10

Follow-up sources:

Poll, Roswitha. “Quality and Quality Systems in Libraries.” In Proceedings of Implementation of Quality Systems and Certification in Biomedical Libraries, EAHIL Workshop. Maarssen, The Netherlands: European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 2005. http://www.eahil.net/conferences/palermo_2005/eahil_oral_docs/pdfcd/Poll-doc.pdf

Troll Covey, Denise. Usage and Usability Assessment: Library Practices and Concerns. Washington, DC: Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and Information Resources, 2002. http://www.clir.org/pubs/abstract//reports/pub105

Chapter 2 – Creating a Culture of Assessment

Today, libraries are expected to justify support by demonstrating the value that they contribute to their communities. The authors argue that achieving this requires a cultural change within libraries. Extensively cites culture of assessment work done by Amos Lakos and Shelley Phipps.  Reprints an questionnaire created by Lakos, Betsy Wilson, and Shelley Phipps that libraries can use to evaluate their assessment culture.

Chapter 3 – Frameworks for Quality Improvement

Provides an overview of quality improvement frameworks developed for or derived from the private sector. These are all formal tools for self-assessment. Specific frameworks discussed: Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award, Academic Quality Improvement Project (AQIP), European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM), Australian Business Excellence Framework (ABEF).

Chapter 4 – Strategic Planning, the Balanced Scorecard, and Benchmarking

An academic library’s strategic plan is a subset of the plan for the parent institution; there must be clear linkages between the library’s plan and that of the institution. Seek to establish SMART goals and objectives: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound. Historically, libraries struggle most with the Measurement component.  Once a plan has been established, three additional steps provide accountability: formation of an action plan or targets, establishment of milestones and identification of desired outcomes.

Measurement & the Balanced Scorecard

Discusses the Balanced Scorecard framework approach to strategic planning and issues associated with adapting it for use in a non-profit, educational, academic library context. The University of Virginia Library implemented use of the Balanced Scorecard approach in the late 1990s.

Benchmarking

The benchmarking approach has not been widely applied in academic libraries, partly due to the difficulty of building and sustaining effective collaborative relationships to gather and analyze the data required to clearly establish performance indicators and best practices.

Follow-up sources:

Jacobson, Alvin L. and JoAnne Sparks. “Creating Value: Building the Strategy-Focused Library.” Information Outlook 5, no. 9 (September 2001): 15-20. http://www.sla.org/content/Shop/Information/infoonline/2001/sep01/jacobson.cfm

Chapter 5  – Performance Indicators

Discusses formally published performance indicators for academic libraries, including:

The chapter includes tables that list and compare the IFLA and ISO indicators, but these tables do not reflect the latest published versions of the standards and lack indicators covering electronic resources, web-based services, etc. The indicators listed are primarily quantitative in nature (e.g. Cost per loan, loans per capita, Collection use, proportion of requested material that can be fulfilled immediately, etc.) Based on a review of the literature, libraries have not utilized either of these standards consistently. Instead, they seem to pick and choose individual indicators from established standards and also utilize locally defined indicators. Performance indicator data must be interpreted to give it meaning. Simply defining and collecting data according to performance indicators is not sufficient to demonstrate impact or outcomes.
“There do not seem to be any recognized, established measures for assessing academic library outcomes …” p. 101. Suggested impact indicators: test scores, employer satisfaction, number and amount of research grants received, publications, course evaluations, course grades, time saved, quality of papers, ideas, understanding, plans, skills, and progress.
Concludes with a brief discussion of the ACRL Task Force on Academic Library Outcomes Assessment report

Chapter 6 – The Library’s Role in Successful Faculty Research and Teaching

“Library contributions to faculty success are indirect and can be difficult to identify and measure qualitatively.” p. 112.

Critical factors in faculty research success: time to devote to research-related tasks, collections and access, communication between faculty members and the library.

Critical factors in faculty teaching success: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) findings, engaging with both part-time and tenure-track faculty consistently, effective communication with faculty on topics like information literacy and instructional design.

Positive library outcomes identified by faculty in previous research: time saved, increased publications and funded grants, and support for instruction. “In order to be successful, faculty 1) should have adequate collections and access, 2) should have an awareness of library collections and access, and 3) should use them, and expect their students to use them.” p. 122.

Follow-up sources:

Weber, Michael A., and Robert Flatley. “What Do Faculty Want? A Focus Group Study of Faculty at  a Mid-sized Public University.” Library Philosophy and Practice 9, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 1-8. http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/weber-flatley.pdf

Chapter 7 – The Library’s Role in Successful Postgraduate and Professional Education

Summarizes findings from recent research studies. Information literacy is a critical factor in graduate and professional student success. Postgraduate students are frequently under-aware of library collections and services and may not have sophisticated information literacy skills.

“The notion that students will absorb library, information literacy, and search skills over the course of their studies, or during the thesis/dissertation literature review, is probably not correct. In fact, most of the research over time supports the opposite. The belief that faculty advisors or thesis/dissertation supervisors will focus on students’ information needs or literature reviews is also unfounded. And perhaps most insidious, students underestimate what they need to know, overestimate search skills that might transfer from general computer use, and are largely unaware that formal instruction is critical to their success, or even available in their libraries.” p. 136

Critical success factors for postgraduate students: personalized communication and customized information literacy support for information discovery skills, both general within discipline and in-depth to support individual research/thesis topics. Desirable outcomes: recruitment of high-quality students, higher retention and degree completion rates, shorter time to degree completion, successful employment and professional productivity after graduation, and transferable information literacy and research skills.

Chapter 8 – The Library’s Role in the Success of Undergraduate Students

Summarizes current trends in undergraduate education and findings from recent research studies. Key findings from past research:

  • high-performing, minority and less wealthy students use libraries more than others
  • students establish a baseline frequency of library use in their first year and expand use as they progress
  • humanities and social sciences students and males use the library more than others
  • use patterns have remained stable over the past 15-20 years, except for a substantial increase in the use of indexes and databases
  • students are most attracted to the library as a study space, for work on group projects or to use computer workstations for both academic and non-academic purposes
  • improvements in physical space generate long-lasting increases in library use
  • students who use the library for non-academic purposes may have greater persistence
  • students who use the library for academic purposes may have greater academic performance
  • students who use the library only to socialize may have better engagement with the institution and overall educational experience
  • library instruction may have only indirect/secondary benefits for student learning outcomes
  • students do not consider direct assistance in library use from librarians very important
  • there may be a relationship between library funding and student completion rates, and a modest correlation between library funding and retention rates at institutions in the US
  • there may not be a relationship between library funding and library use, and library size may not be a factor in self-reported critical thinking skills. A larger, more complex library might deter use by undergraduates
  • the size, design and condition of the library building is a critical factor in library use among undergraduates

College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) collects data relevant to assessing library use patterns among undergradutes. OCLC study on College Students’ Perceptions of Library and Information Resources (2005) includes useful baseline data.

Desirable outcomes to which libraries contribute: persistence, engagement with the institution, completion, general and specialized knowledge, and, potentially, information literacy.

Follow-up sources:

Dickenson, Don. How Academic Libraries Help Faculty Teach and Students Learn: The Colorado Library Impact Study. Denver, CO: Library Research Service, Colorado State University and University of Denver, February 2006. http://www.lrs.org/documents/academic/ALIS_final.pdf

Foster, Nancy Fried and Susan Gibbons, eds. Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester. Chicago: ACRL, 2007. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/booksanddigitalresources/digital/Foster-Gibbons_cmpd.pdf

Koufogiannakis, Denise, & Natasha Wiebe. “Effective Methods for Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice [Online], 1.3 (2006): 3-43. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/viewArticle/76
Pike, Gary R. et al. “Educational Expenditures and Students Engagement: When Does Money Matter?” Research in Higher Education 47, no. 7 (November 2006): 847-72. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ748866

Chapter 9 – User Satisfaction as a Quality Indicator

Discusses methods for measuring customer satisfaction commonly used in business and academic environments. Methods include: Balanced Scorecard – Customer perspective, Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Simultaneous Multi Attribute Level Trade Offs (SIMALTO), SERVQUAL (disconfirmation theory of satisfaction)/LibQUAL+ survey.

“…all types of customer satisfaction surveys reveal between 65 and 85 percent of customers as satisfied customers …” p. 175. Traditional performance indicators, such as usage statistics, can serve as evidence to support self-reported user satisfaction data, but should not be considered valid satisfaction measures on their own.

Academic libraries typically use unmediated (online or paper) surveys, focus groups and key informant interviews to gather satisfaction data. Provides tips/suggestions for the development of research instruments using these three methods.

Follow-up sources:

Creaser, Claire. “One Size Does Not Fit All: User Surveys in Academic Libraries.” Performance Measurement and Metrics 7, no. 3 (2006): 153-162. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1581948

Chapter 10 – Using Group Norms and Peer Comparisons as Contexts for Quality

Statistical norms can help libraries to set reasonable benchmarks, identify relative strengths and weaknesses, set future goals, and communicate library goals and needs both internally and externally. Two types of peer groups: actual and aspirational. Briefly discusses accreditation and quality audits. Unless there is reason to doubt the validity of results, libraries should always share comparative reports externally.

Chapter 11 – Toward Surviving the Future

“In order to survive the future intact, academic libraries must face the uncertain and commit to accountability, quality control and quality improvement.” p. 191.

Specific recommendations for actions that academic libraries should take:

  • Conduct Lakos’ “Culture of Assessment” survey
  • Utilize a quality excellence framework, such as the Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award, to analyze the current state of your library
  • Using the results of the quality excellence framework analysis, engage in strategic planning, using an approach such as the Balanced Scorecard to measure change.
  • Identify performance indicators and systematically gather data that supports peer comparison
  • Gather satisfaction and other data from users to gauge value of services, facilities and collections. “Value should be determined by the receivers of the benefits, not by the provider.” p. 193.

“Demonstrating a willingness to take the initiative in assessment will reduce the possibility that external and inappropriate processes will be imposed by institutional or governmental authorities.” p. 195.

September 09th, 2012 | Tags: | Category: Librarianship | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/7525

Cook, Douglas. (2011). The Recursive Cycle of Qualitative Action Research. Using qualitative methods in action research: How librarians can get to the why of data. (Douglas Cook & Lesley Farmer, eds.). Chicago: American Library Assn: pp. 11-23.

Action Research Checklist: (p. 12)

  1. Focus on an issue
  2. Review theory
  3. Develop questions
  4. Collect data
  5. Analyze data
  6. Report results
  7. Design action plan
  8. Take action
  9. Evaluate action

Focus on an issue: keep a reflective journal to identify potential issues that arise in the course of daily work, talk reflectively with colleagues to identify commonly recognized issues.

Review theory: conduct a literature review on the identified issue. Explore relevant literature from other disciplines when possible. Research potential methodologies.

Develop questions: Formulating specific questions is important to help focus and set research parameters.

Collect data: “the words, actions, and thoughts of your participants” (p.14). Three major types: existing, nonobtrusive observation (e.g. audio or video recordings, diaries, field notes, rubrics), and probes (e.g. interviews, focus groups, surveys).

Analyze data: sifting through data to reveal themes, patterns, etc. “making sense” of the data. Involves consolidating, reducing and interpreting raw data.

Report results: options range from informal, internal documents to formally published documents. Sections typically included in published documents: Problem statement (including literature review and research questions), Methodology, Findings, Discussion of findings as related to research questions, Conclusions (including proposed solution to problem and recommended actions).

Design action plan: Components of a typical plan: Goal, Objective, Tasks, Persons, Place, Timeline, Resources.

Take and evaluate action: conduct research to assess efficacy of action taken.

It is not necessary to follow the checklist in a linear fashion, and sometimes certain steps can be omitted for a particular project.

Discusses common qualitative methods for gathering data. Qualitative action research  seeks to explain “… the essence of people’s experiences. … Adhering strictly to accepted methodologies will increase the validity of the study …” ( p. 16).  Provides examples of the three major types: existing data, non-obtrusive observation and probing.

Probing, six types of questions: Experience and behavior, Opinion and values, Feeling, Knowledge, Sensory, Demographic.

Criteria for judging qualitative data: Reliability, Validity, Triangulation. Reliability and Validity are ensured by using accepted methodologies and documenting that those methodologies were used correctly. Triangulation involves demonstrating similar results using different observers, different participants completing the same task, or having more than one person analyze the same data.

Follow-up sources:

Silverman, David. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text, and Interaction. London: SAGE Publications, 2006. 

 

August 31st, 2012 | Tags: | Category: Librarianship | http://shirley.alptown.com/blog/archives/7524
« Newer PostsOlder Posts »