Reference service models at the Miller Learning Center

Electronic Libraries and Their Referencing Methods

Bibliographical entry

Barratt, C., Phoebe, a. & Emily, L. (2010). Reference Models in the Electronic Library: The Miller Learning Center at the University of Georgia. Reference Services Review, 38 (1), 44-56.

The objective of the research was to analyze and determine the most suitable reference services that could be adopted by a large institution library such as a university. In the research, different models were tested with the intention of proving the best option that will be supportive of both the patrons of the library and the students. Students were expected to react and respond to the different models that would suit them when they researched electronically in the library. In the research design, reference traffic of the students was measured both physically, and how congested they got when they accessed the online chat service. Both qualitative and quantitative analysis and research methodology were adopted. The findings supported that in- person research assistance was more effective compared to the traditional reference desk. The librarians and universities used findings to ease traffic during their research in any electronic library. Students who were studying attitude and behavior courses in the library could also be beneficiaries of the findings.

Critique of the research problem

In the case of the chosen research, the research problem was not clear as expected. In fact, one has to analyze cautiously to notice the problem being researched. This ought not be the case, as the research questions have to be clearly stipulated in the problem statement section, to ensure readers and users of the article are informed of the question under consideration. The writer of this article, however, revealed the problem in the reference model experiments. The problem was whether to adopt the in-person research support needs, or to retain the public desk services, which already seemed futile in servicing the students of the university.

Research methodology

Putting into consideration that both the qualitative and quantitative study was used, then the methodology section was well done. Research has to contain both methods of data collection to ensure well established data. The most common qualitative method used was the observation by the librarians. The librarians were asked to check on activities that went on in the third and fourth floor of the library. These areas were specifically chosen because they were the computer and study rooms, hence much of research works were expected to take place there. The librarians also allowed students to vet their services and give reports that analyzed their service delivery.

The librarians also provided questionnaires that contained questions that were inquisitive of; directions and building locations, reference and general library information etc. The librarians contacted 28 people over a period of two weeks only, which was an average turn up for the research. The target group was well established, as the librarians targeted students and the community, which were the most frequent users of the library. It would have been unjust to choose a group that hardly did any academic research. The data gathered was also reliable and relevant, because it came directly from the users of the electronic library, and they were in the best position to understand what affected their research. The researches were lenient enough to avoid biasness, as they were gender sensitive and did their sampling sensitively. The methods of secondary data collection were rightfully adopted and implemented, because of the fruitful results and analysis.

Statistical analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative analysis was well established. Different times were provided for the collection of data through giving students questionnaires to fill and return observation of students by their librarians and adoption of the new model to observe the response. The allocation of time for data collection was efficient to ensure the students were observed during their research and after their research too. The librarians ensured they did not collide research time with the time for lessons as it would hinder data collection and also limit the amount of information required. The researchers used the right procedures; they collected data, analyzed the data and later interpreted to make a conclusion based on the information collected. However, the data was not well reported in the research paper. The writers of the paper were obligated to provide a deeper analysis of their findings, information they received, the media of communication with the target group and many other aspects that they left out. Reporting data collection and analysis is critical for any research work and writing.

Gaps in the research design, methodology and implementation

There were a few gaps in the research paper. The design of the paper lacked very fundamental aspects that need not be ignored. The problem statement was not as clear as expected by standards. However, the objective of the research was well tackled. The writers should have given a more detailed objective that is supposed to be framed in positive terms. The background and significance of the research was not dealt with, increasing the gaps left by the researchers and authors of the article. The authors were also expected to enumerate the benefits that come after the research such as the services it would render to community. This was mentioned in the paper, but in unclear terms.

Link of research conclusion with objectives of research

The best way to conclude the research and integrate this conclusion with the objective is to conclude by providing a summary statement that notes whether the research managed to fully answer the research questions earlier stated. When doing the conclusion, it is necessary to include the right time frames and show the authors skillfulness during the research (Website, 2012). The conclusion would therefore be that the paper under scrutiny was not well concluded, as per the expectations. In conclusion, any other critique would support me that regardless of the fact that the author of the paper tried to present a good case, there are still numerous elements in the paper which ought to be revised and corrected.

Reference

Okladot (2012). Contents of a Research Proposal. Retrieved 19 October, 2012 from http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/spr-rip/spr-pdf/submission.pdf