Bibliography
Home Up Participation Bibliography Research Paper User Study

 

Research Question and Annotated Bibliography 

Formulate a researchable question, and locate at least five published reports of original research to help answer it. Sometimes it's easier to find at least some of the research first and then formulate the question. Even if you formulate a question first, you may reformulate it once you've started reading the existing research. 

  1. Identify and select a relevant topic that has yielded a significant body of related research
  2. Locate and select appropriate research studies
  3. Define a research question or hypothesis around which you can organize your paper

You can use this assignment to get a start on the research paper; see the description of that assignment for ideas about some possible topics. Some ways to locate research studies you can use:

  1. Check databases like ERIC, Library Literature, and EBSCO. Limit your search to peer-reviewed journals. Use the names of research methods as descriptors. 
  2. Go to the library and browse through peer-reviewed journals in your area. Look for research articles that appeal to you. When you find them, use their bibliographies and/or Social Science Citation Index to find others that are related. 
  3. If you pick Research Paper Option 2 ("Evaluate the research of a productive LIS scholar"), start by looking for five or more articles on the same general topic by that scholar -- and/or by others who cite that scholar's work. Check the "more research needed" comments in the conclusions of the earliest articles. Do they forecast the scholar's subsequent work? Maybe this will help you define a research question or hypothesis, too.

A good reason to hand this assignment in on time, even if you don't think it's ready: feedback on this assignment can improve your research paper. Your grade on this assignment may be raised retroactively if you make good use of feedback.

When you hand in this assignment, it should consist of:

  1. A first-draft introduction to your literature review, including a problem statement (specifying the "so what?" of your investigation – why should we care about the answers?) and a purpose statement (specifying your exact question or hypothesis, in a researchable form). The problem statement should place the literature review firmly in either a research context, a professional context, or both. Examples:

    Research context: "Previous studies of reference question formation had assumed that questioners are motivated by their own felt need for information. When Gross (date) identified the 'imposed query' -- for which the questioner's motivation may be a school assignment, a work supervisor's request, or a friend's need -- reference librarians immediately recognized the phenomenon. This paper will examine how the work of Gross, Saxton, and others has integrated the 'imposed query' phenomenon into existing models of information seeking behavior."

    Professional context: "A decade ago, as the Internet gained visibility, the famous 'digital divide' between information haves and have-nots was put forth as a major reason to fund technology in public libraries. Since then many studies have shown that children who have home access to technology perform better on tasks X, Y, and Z (citations go here). The issue has not gone away, and in light of the No Child Left Behind Act it seems more important than ever."

  2. Purpose statement should state one or more clear research questions or hypotheses, defining or predicting the focus and structure of the paper. Notice that good hypotheses and research questions contain variables, which will need to be defined. Examples:

    Research questions: "How successful have libraries been in helping to narrow the digital divide? To help answer the question, we will look for evidence of 

    1. what funding the libraries have won for their technology; 

    2. what level of Internet access public libraries now provide; and 

    3. how public library Internet access is used." 

    "Success in narrowing the digital divide" is a variable, but you need to define it better before you can measure it. In the long range, "success" might mean "making sure that kids without home computers can succeed in school and work at the same rate as kids who do have home computers." But to measure that would need a longitudinal study -- it could take years -- and it would be difficult to screen out other influences on school and work achievement -- do kids with home computers also have better educated, richer parents? So you might want to look at "operational definitions" of "success" that are more like the shorter-range objectives in your planning process. The first -- securing funds -- would be relatively easy to measure: how much money? how many grants? The second is also fairly easy -- how many Internet access points per member of the population served? The third looks harder, and you might need to operationalize some more. How many libraries have time limits on terminals? How many people are waiting to use terminals at any given times? What do they use them for? Can you find out without violating their privacy? 

    Hypothesis: "There should be a significant relationship between the librarian's use of probe questions and the successful outcome of the reference transaction." 

    1. Independent variable: The librarian's use of probe questions. To measure this, you would have to define "probe questions." Would you just want to count all probe questions, or would you sort them into types of probe and count each type? 

    2. Dependent variable:  Outcome of the reference transaction. How would you define "success"? Right answer? Relevant retrievals, with not too many irrelevant ones? Customer satisfaction? 

    You would probably find that different studies you reviewed would have slightly different operational definitions for each of these variables, and you should address the differences in your paper.) 

  3. An annotated list of the research reports. (You may also find other materials, such as published literature reviews summarizing the existing research, or relevant opinion pieces. You may include these in your bibliography but annotating them is optional. Consider them supplementary to the reports of original research.) Each annotation should include a complete bibliographic citation, and should summarize briefly 1) what the researcher(s) intended to find out (or prove); 2) what methods were used (e.g., survey, participant observation, systems analysis); 3) strengths and/or weaknesses you can discern in the way the study was conducted; and 4) what was in fact discovered -- the findings.

Your introduction and annotations will be written in complete sentences, but need not be long or detailed; this assignment should take 2-3 pages. Criteria for grading:

Includes clear hypothesis or research question (see glossary for definitions of "hypothesis" and "research question"), and persuasive rationale for investigation
Articles listed are reports of original research (see glossary for definitions of "research"; use Peritz or Shera), and are relevant to stated problem
Annotations are clear, informative

Needless to say, your paper should have your name and a good title at the top of the first page, and if you submit it electronically, you should give it a file name that includes your name as well as the assignment. "ChrisMarloweBib557" would be much better than just "Bib557" or "Bibliography." 

Rubric to be used in evaluating and grading your work

Introduction: 30%

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): the topic is useful and well-framed. The problem statement develops a convincing rationale for studying the topic, weaving relevant research and non-research literature into a cohesive account of the current state of affairs. The purpose statement states what variables are to be investigated, defines them in operational terms, and specifies any relationships the writer expects to find between them. The writer demonstrates a strong understanding of professional relevance and research logic.  

Meets the standard (B): the topic is relevant and clear. The problem statement places the topic adequately in either a professional or a research context, or both. The purpose statement is clear, explaining what research questions or hypotheses are to be investigated. 

Approaches the standard (B- and below): the topic may be irrelevant or minimally relevant to the course. The problem statement may be sketchy and unconvincing, or may concentrate on the author's personal needs and tastes rather than on the needs and tastes of the library public. The purpose statement may be unclear, and may demonstrate misunderstandings of the logic of research (e.g., mistaking the nature of variables and how they could be related to each other). 

Selection: research studies evaluated: 30%

One snag here: identifying what is actually research. What is the difference between a case study and a "how we do it real good at our library" article? Remember these two tests: 

  1. Purpose: research is undertaken in order to add to or test human knowledge; if the activities reported were undertaken for other reasons and then just seemed worth reporting, it's probably not research. 
  2. Method: research is systematic; if there's not a clear explanation of how data were collected and analyzed, it's probably not research. When in doubt, ask.  

There should be a minimum of 5 related research studies; non-research articles, which may be cited as relevant in the introduction or conclusion, do not count toward this total. Studies evaluated should be taken whenever possible from peer reviewed research journals (like Library and Information Science Research, J of the American Society for Information Science, or College and Research Libraries), and not from trade magazines (like American Libraries or Library Journal) that may popularize the results of research without describing its methods. Studies evaluated should contribute to resolving the question or testing the hypothesis formulated in the purpose statement.

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): more than 5 studies; studies are fully relevant to the research questions or hypotheses formulated in the purpose statement; studies are significant, and are taken from peer reviewed journals

Meets the standard (B): 5 studies, relevant to the purpose statement, and taken from peer reviewed  journals

Approaches the standard (B- and below): fewer than 5 studies; studies not actually research; studies drawn from readily accessible but less authoritative journals or online sources; studies not germane to research question or hypothesis

Annotations: 30%

For the examples below, assume I'm doing a literature review on the general question of "How can GSLIS better meet the needs of students in on-line courses?" Obviously, that question needs refining; I'd need a profile of the students and an operational definition for their needs, for starters. I might start my literature review with too broad a question, and define it better as I go. And even if I put the article by Collins and Veal (2004) in my annotated bibliography, I might decide it didn't belong in my paper.  

Each annotation should describe the study's methods of gathering and analyzing data, as well as its findings. What you want is not necessarily a long description, but enough information so that your reader can understand the basis for your evaluation. Example: "Collins and Veal (2004) had a convenience sample of 143 off-campus adult learners complete two questionnaires: Bostick's Library Anxiety Scale, and an Attitude Toward Educational Use of the Internet scale developed by Duggan et al. Using regression analysis, Collins and Veal determined that two factors associated with library anxiety -- knowledge of the library and affective barriers -- accounted for 9% of the variance in respondents' attitude toward the Internet."

Each annotation should evaluate the study largely on the basis of its methods. Example: "Although the statistical sophistication of this study is impressive and the questionnaires had been validated in previous studies, the sample of adult learners was small and non-random. We should be cautious in generalizing this estimate of the relationship between library anxiety and attitudes toward Internet research." 

Annotations should also evaluate studies for their contribution to answering the student's research questions. Example: "If we replicated the Collins and Veal study with MLIS students as participants, the effect size might be even smaller than 9%; few MLIS students are likely to have serious cases of library anxiety, but observation shows a much wider variation in their attitudes toward the Internet. This study gives us limited guidance in helping our adult MLIS students use their library skills to overcome Internet-related anxiety and skills deficits." 

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): studies are described in sufficient but not excessive detail; both findings and methods are clearly understandable in summary. Studies are evaluated both in their own right and in relation to the student's research question, and it is easy to understand which studies support any given response to the research question. Evaluation of generalizability or transferability is well grounded in a logical understanding of research methods. 

Meets the standard (B): findings and methods of studies are adequately summarized; it is clear what research method or methods were used in each study; studies are intelligently related to the research question.

Approaches the standard (B- and below): studies may be described incompletely (e.g., findings may dominate, and important aspects of the research method, like survey response rate, may be omitted). It may be impossible to tell from the annotation whether or not the article was really reporting a research study. Studies may be evaluated on subjective grounds, without regards to methodological adequacy (e.g., "this is a useful study because it shows us how important good service is"; "this study is not valuable because it is too hard to read and too theoretical"). Little attempt may be made to evaluate generalizability or transferability, and student's understanding of research methods may seem shaky. (If your understanding IS shaky, ask for help early and often. That's what you're supposed to be learning in this course!) The contribution of each study to answering the paper's central question(s) may be unclear.

Mechanics: 10%

Exceeds the standard (B+ and up): almost no typos or grammatical errors. Research terms and statistics are used appropriately. Organization is clear and easy to follow; annotations are given in a logical order (e.g., alphabetical, chronological, or grouped by methods or findings) and the order is explicitly stated. Citations are correct, complete, consistent, and made whenever appropriate -- not just when there's a direct quotation. The paper is handed in on time, unless the student experiences an unpredictable emergency that prevents it (such as an illness, or a family tragedy). 

Meets the standard (B): few typos or grammatical errors, and any that occur do not interfere with comprehensibility. Citations are correct, complete, and made whenever appropriate -- not just when there's a direct quotation. The paper is handed in on time, unless the student experiences an unpredictable emergency that prevents it (such as an illness, or a family tragedy), or makes suitable arrangements in advance for predictable problems (such as a trip to Bermuda or an onslaught of perfectionism resulting in writer's block).

Approaches the standard (B- and below): paper may be poorly proofread; typos and poor grammar may require translation. Citations may be incorrect (e.g., with authors' names spelled wrong), incomplete (e.g., with volume or page numbers missing), inconsistent (e.g., some with the date between the author and the title, others with the date after the publisher), or simply not given at all when called for; the annotations may not be in any clear order. The paper may be late with no acceptable excuse.