1. The IMLS Graduate Student Study: A Mixed-Methods Approach C. Todd White Staff Anthropologist Report to the Library Staff Wed., Jan. 23, 2008 C. Todd White Staff Anthropologist Report to the Library Staff Wed., Jan. 23, 2008

2. Goals ‣ To understand how River Campus doctoral students conduct research, write papers and dissertations, and collaborate with each other and their advisors ‣ To explore how doctoral students use the library and the resources it provides ‣ To understand how River Campus doctoral students conduct research, write papers and dissertations, and collaborate with each other and their advisors ‣ To explore how doctoral students use the library and the resources it provides

3. Objectives ‣ To use this information to create an online authoring environment that will facilitate the work of graduate students and faculty ‣ To present the information learned to campus librarians in order to help them to better understand the needs and practices of these students ‣ To use this information to create an online authoring environment that will facilitate the work of graduate students and faculty ‣ To present the information learned to campus librarians in order to help them to better understand the needs and practices of these students

4. Qual/Quant: The Mixed Methods Approach Best studied on a BEACH!

5. The Qualitative Approach ‣ Traditional ethnographic methods of participant observation ‣ Advantage: personal, biographical and “humanistic” ‣ Yields good anecdotal evidence and strong narrative data ‣ Drawback: can’t see the forest for the trees ‣ Traditional ethnographic methods of participant observation ‣ Advantage: personal, biographical and “humanistic” ‣ Yields good anecdotal evidence and strong narrative data ‣ Drawback: can’t see the forest for the trees

6. The Quantitative Approach ‣ Can use statistical measure to evaluate larger data sets and relate the average to the outlier ‣ Danger: Don’t apply averages to rank or ordinal data (use the right tool for the standard of measure) ‣ Drawbacks: Difficult to analyze nominal or anecdotal data ‣ Advantage: Can bring the collective into focus and better understand (and perhaps predict) group behaviors and beliefs ‣ Can use statistical measure to evaluate larger data sets and relate the average to the outlier ‣ Danger: Don’t apply averages to rank or ordinal data (use the right tool for the standard of measure) ‣ Drawbacks: Difficult to analyze nominal or anecdotal data ‣ Advantage: Can bring the collective into focus and better understand (and perhaps predict) group behaviors and beliefs

7. Advantage to Mixed-Methods Approach ‣ Double the size of your analytical toolkit ‣ Create lean, mean research designs ‣ Can understand and convey group dynamics while still capturing rich ethnographic and anecdotal data: no one is “just a statistic” ‣ Double the size of your analytical toolkit ‣ Create lean, mean research designs ‣ Can understand and convey group dynamics while still capturing rich ethnographic and anecdotal data: no one is “just a statistic”

8. Qualitative Aspects of the Study

9. Interview Protocol, general ‣ What is the topic/subject of the dissertation? ‣ How does the student conduct research? What resources does he or she most often use? ‣ What are the student’s writing practices? ‣ Does the student collaborate with other students? How does he or she collaborate with their advisor? ‣ What is the topic/subject of the dissertation? ‣ How does the student conduct research? What resources does he or she most often use? ‣ What are the student’s writing practices? ‣ Does the student collaborate with other students? How does he or she collaborate with their advisor?

10. Accomplishments so far ‣ Recorded 26 interviews with doctoral students pertaining to their dissertation research and collaboration with their advisors ‣ Coordinated viewing sessions with librarians ‣ Have set up three student/faculty teams for DocuShare pilot study ‣ Have begun disseminating information in presentations to the LIS and higher education communities ‣ Recorded 26 interviews with doctoral students pertaining to their dissertation research and collaboration with their advisors ‣ Coordinated viewing sessions with librarians ‣ Have set up three student/faculty teams for DocuShare pilot study ‣ Have begun disseminating information in presentations to the LIS and higher education communities

11. Interviews and Participant Observation ‣ Videotaped interviews with 27 graduate students in their work environment ‣ Interviewed librarians on the project team and several faculty members ‣ DocuShare pilot study ‣ Retrospective interviews (in process) ‣ Videotaped interviews with 27 graduate students in their work environment ‣ Interviewed librarians on the project team and several faculty members ‣ DocuShare pilot study ‣ Retrospective interviews (in process)

12. Quantitative Aspects of the Study

13. Purpose of the Survey ‣ To try to “map” the target population and writing practices of the entire graduate student body through inferential statistics ‣ To complement the interviews by helping to determine how representative each student is to the target population ‣ To bolster the reliability and validity of our results so that we might publish our methods and findings in peer-reviewed journals ‣ To try to “map” the target population and writing practices of the entire graduate student body through inferential statistics ‣ To complement the interviews by helping to determine how representative each student is to the target population ‣ To bolster the reliability and validity of our results so that we might publish our methods and findings in peer-reviewed journals

14. Survey Protocol ‣ What technology do graduate students use for research? (hardware and software) ‣ What online resources do students most use? ‣ Are there any notable differences among students in the three disciplines in question? ‣ What technology do graduate students use for research? (hardware and software) ‣ What online resources do students most use? ‣ Are there any notable differences among students in the three disciplines in question?

15. Ratio by Discipline: River Campus Doctoral Students N=405

16. Survey Tallies ‣ Secured the name and contact information for 405 doctoral students from the registrar ‣ I was unable to contact 9, which brought my sample universe to 396 doctoral students ‣ Secured the name and contact information for 405 doctoral students from the registrar ‣ I was unable to contact 9, which brought my sample universe to 396 doctoral students

17. Is it enough for inferential measures? ‣ YES! ‣ For a confidence level of 7% ‣ (Ideal would be 5%; acceptable would be 10%) ‣ YES! ‣ For a confidence level of 7% ‣ (Ideal would be 5%; acceptable would be 10%)

18. Respondents by Discipline

19. What do we make of this skewing? ‣ Expected 15 humanities responses; received 23 ‣ Expected 63 science responses; received 54 ‣ Social sciences were good: 26/27 ‣ Expected 15 humanities responses; received 23 ‣ Expected 63 science responses; received 54 ‣ Social sciences were good: 26/27

20. ‣ First question: Why? ‣ Second question: will the data need to be weighted due to the skewing? ‣ First question: Why? ‣ Second question: will the data need to be weighted due to the skewing?

21. ‣ Obtained Chi-Square Value: 5.591 ‣ Critical Value with 2 degrees of freedom and a risk level of.05: 5.99 ‣ So: the difference is notable but within acceptable variability. (No weighting!) ‣ Obtained Chi-Square Value: 5.591 ‣ Critical Value with 2 degrees of freedom and a risk level of.05: 5.99 ‣ So: the difference is notable but within acceptable variability. (No weighting!) (Whew! I passed...) the Chi-Square Test

22. Let the Analysis Begin

23. Time Spent at Computer ‣ Humanities: 6.4 hrs/day ‣ Sciences: 7 hrs/day ‣ Social Sciences: 7.6 hrs/day ‣ Avg. overall: 7 hrs/day ‣ Humanities: 6.4 hrs/day ‣ Sciences: 7 hrs/day ‣ Social Sciences: 7.6 hrs/day ‣ Avg. overall: 7 hrs/day

24. Personal website or Face- Page ‣ Yes: 49 of 104 ‣ No: 54 of 104 ‣ Yes: 49 of 104 ‣ No: 54 of 104

25. What kind? (tentative) ‣ Facebook: 22 (21% total) ‣ MySpace: 10 (10% total) ‣ U of R Webpage: 16 (15%) ‣ Facebook: 22 (21% total) ‣ MySpace: 10 (10% total) ‣ U of R Webpage: 16 (15%) N=104

26. RSS feeds? ‣ Yes: 25 ‣ No: 78 ‣ Yes: 25 ‣ No: 78 N=104

27. Google or Yahoo? ‣ Group ID ‣ Evenly tied! (38/39) ‣ Group ID ‣ Evenly tied! (38/39) N=104

28. Who requested payment N=104

29. Del.icio.us ‣ Del.icio.us account: diuimls ‣ http://del.icio.us/diuimls http://del.icio.us/diuimls ‣ Del.icio.us account: diuimls ‣ http://del.icio.us/diuimls http://del.icio.us/diuimls

30. Wudda-Done-Differents ‣ Started survey right away and used SurveyMonkey ‣ Would have made minor changes in the survey questions ‣ Started survey right away and used SurveyMonkey ‣ Would have made minor changes in the survey questions

31. Yet to Accomplish ‣ One more interview ‣ Complete and edit 7 more of the interview transcriptions ‣ Continue observing DocuShare use ‣ Conduct retrospective interviews ‣ Continue data analysis from surveys ‣ One more interview ‣ Complete and edit 7 more of the interview transcriptions ‣ Continue observing DocuShare use ‣ Conduct retrospective interviews ‣ Continue data analysis from surveys

32. Ongoing ‣ Continue to work with Nathan Sarr, Sean Morris, and other members of the core and project teams to relate our findings to the software development process ‣ Continue to participate in co-viewing sessions and to present data to librarians ‣ To present papers and generate publishable articles ‣ Continue to work with Nathan Sarr, Sean Morris, and other members of the core and project teams to relate our findings to the software development process ‣ Continue to participate in co-viewing sessions and to present data to librarians ‣ To present papers and generate publishable articles