Massey-Burzio, v. \"From the Other

¶ … Massey-Burzio, V. "From the Other Side of the Reference

Desk: A Focus Group Study." The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 24 no. 3 (1998): 208-15.

Always a critical part of research methodology, the evolution of reference services has become even more important in the electronic age. While the same principles should be used to evaluate traditional, hands-on, materials and tools -- other traditional research methods (e.g. surveys, questionnaires, observation, focus groups, and case studies), may also me appropriately utilized in an electronic environment. Additionally, though, the improvement in electronic delivery and availability of reference and research materials has made a vetting process vital to ensure the continuum of scholarly standards under the rubric of research (Whitlach, 2001).

Kuruppu (2007) suggests that there are a number of techniques that remain necessary when evaluating the standards and expectations of both standard and electronic research: accuracy, satisfaction, and objectivity, useful, practical, verifiable. Of course, this is but the start of the paradigm of adopting a keen eye and even keener sense of skepticism when dealing with source material. Pierce (1984) further suggests that there are two major approaches to critical library evaluation: goal based and professional standard. Goal-based seeks validation of sources based upon a specific question or problem that needs solved; if the thesis (the goal) or problem is objective, then it is relatively easy to seek and find the appropriate reference-based solution. Professional standards represent a broader audience -- the standards of the profession or institution that would be weighed if the reference in question were peer reviewed (Ibid 9-21).

"From the Other Side of the Reference Desk: A Focus Group Study," seeks to offer solutions to issues that are becoming more endemic as the age of the Internet and electronic media becomes more pronounced in libraries; and to establish a base line rubric for reference librarians as to the perceived needs of their clientele. "The goal of this study was to gather information from library users about their experiences in the library in order to see if the library was providing the kinds of services library users really wanted and were using, and, if necessary, to find better ways to meet their needs and preferences" (Massey-Burzio 1998 208). Specifically, the study wanted to outline a more robust understanding of the way in which patrons dealt with the rapidly changing technological environments in the library, and how well they believed reference librarians were fulfilling their needs when they needed guidance. The setting was Johns Hopkins University, a smaller, private university that has a stunning reputation for high undergraduate and graduate academic standards. Admittedly qualitative, the study consisted of six focus groups of 4-10 individuals between Spring 1995 and Spring 1996. This was not a longitudinal study -- there was not a follow up component to understand evolving needs of students, rather the groups (consisting of a variety of majors, genders, and ethnic backgrounds) all had the commonality of writing papers that required them to use the reference section of the JH library in person, not remotely (Ibid 209).

The study concluded as reflectors of 38 total individuals, finding several major themes:

Students are often intimidated and uncomfortable asking reference librarians, or staff, questions or even seeking help from library staff.

Students believed that while they could, of course, improve their research techniques, they were efficient enough for their particular needs.

Most are unaware, or even disbelieving, that the library is a complex informational system that required particular knowledge and skill to utilize properly.

In spite of their overall confidence in their abilities, most have difficult with basic information retrieval.

The more advanced the scholar, the more they believed that skill development was "trial and error" learned as part of the evolution of their academic skill sets.

Trial and error is the most common method used; and, as would be expected, the more experienced the scholar, the less frustrated with the research process.

Simple, bullet point, one-sheet explanations are the preferred method of learning research methodology.

Most were unwilling to invest in classes or even seminars regarding proper use of library reference materials.

The library "information desk" was perceived as unhelpful and further, unwilling to be helpful. The "barrier" between the patron and the desk disallows the librarian to visit the computer with the client and do one-on-one tutoring.

Desk staff refer less than 10% of the questions to reference librarians, even when clearing dealing with questions far beyond their purview (Ibid 210-12).

Using the standards suggested by Kuruppu, one is able to glean a broad critique of the Massey-Burzio study:

Issue

Massey-Burzio Use

Comments

Methodology

Focus Group

Good as a primary identifier of questions and direction, inappropriate as a data source; responses are too broad, lack the specificity necessary to tabulate, and only "suggest" data use or further research, does not define (Kuruppu 375).

Sample Size

38 Individuals over time

Admitted small sample size, too small for statistical validation. However, as tool suggested above, the first step in the research, the materials is valuable and suggests some issues with the library, as well as numerous questions for additional research.

Longitudinal Rate

1-Year, new focus group participants over time

Lacks robust veracity -- see above.

Detailed Questions

Limited

Questions limited, does not really reflect the actual need of the initial thesis of the study; may simply be too limited, and study author should have indicated that this was simply an overview prior to actual data collection (Ibid).

Moderator

Knowledgeable about reference materials; not a trained FG moderator

Probably immaterial in this case, but if longer group, a trained moderator who would have probed more and used incoming data to suggest further research; study as Part 1 of a larger, and longer systemized approach, might have proven helpful (Ibid 376).

Assumptions

Generalities of behavior

Conclusions reached indicated that these students are a) representative of the general population of undergraduate and graduate students at Johns Hopkins and b) that the participants are indicative of college age/bound individuals globally. Interpretation of the data suggests a broader study, utilizing differing demographic and pscyhographic profiles, with longitudinal aspects to follow up -- even the act of the FG has changed the way in which the participants utilize the library (375).

Conclusions

Broad Strokes

As a broad stroke discussion point, study is valid and interesting; as an academic discourse with verifiable and universal conclusions, it falls short.