Understanding and applying research methods is fundamental to advancing library and information science (LIS) while maintaining the highest ethical standards. Before implementing any research methodology, careful attention must be paid to ethical considerations, particularly regarding human subjects protection. As Small and Mardis (2018) emphasize, researchers must develop written plans that eliminate potential conflicts of interest and guarantee appropriate precautions to protect participants' rights and welfare through carefully designed methods and procedures. Additional ethical concerns including plagiarism and intellectual property rights must also be thoughtfully addressed throughout the research process.
Research methodology in LIS encompasses both quantitative and qualitative approaches, each serving distinct but complementary purposes. Quantitative research methods focus on collecting and analyzing numerical data to find patterns, test causal relationships, and make predictions that can be generalized to wider populations. Quantitative approaches, such as well-designed surveys with closed-ended questions and balanced response options, are particularly valuable when seeking to measure specific variables or understand relationships between factors (Bhandari, 2020). For example, these methods might be used to analyze usage statistics or measure user satisfaction through systematic survey instruments.
In contrast, qualitative research methods seek to understand phenomena through rich description and interpretation of human experiences and behaviors. According to Connaway and Powell (2010), qualitative research in LIS settings often employs techniques such as focus groups and interviews to gather nuanced insights about how people interact with information and library services. These methods must be conducted with particular attention to ethical considerations given the personal nature of data collected.
The ability to evaluate research literature is equally important as conducting original research. This involves understanding methodological approaches well enough to assess the quality, reliability, and applicability of published studies. This evaluation requires careful consideration of research design, sampling methods, data collection techniques, and analysis procedures. Information professionals must be able to synthesize findings across multiple studies while accounting for methodological strengths and limitations.
Successful research in LIS requires careful attention to research design principles regardless of methodology. Effective research design begins with clear problem definition and research questions, followed by selection of appropriate sampling strategies that align with study objectives. The design must include rigorous data collection procedures and systematic analysis approaches while maintaining ethical considerations throughout the process. These design decisions should be driven by the research questions being investigated rather than personal preference for particular methods. As Wildemuth (2016) notes, sometimes mixed-method approaches combining both quantitative and qualitative techniques may provide the most comprehensive understanding of complex information phenomena.
My understanding of research methods and commitment to ethical research practices is demonstrated through several key pieces of evidence:
1. My CITI certification in ethical research with human subjects demonstrates my thorough understanding of protecting participants' rights and welfare. This comprehensive training program covered essential ethical standards established by the Belmont Report, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. I gained extensive knowledge about informed consent procedures, including how to develop clear, accessible consent forms that fully disclose research procedures, risks, and benefits without using coercive language.
The certification enhanced my understanding of privacy and confidentiality protections, teaching me concrete strategies for securely managing sensitive data through proper storage, limited access protocols, and data anonymization techniques. I learned to identify and mitigate various types of research risks, from direct physical or psychological harm to more subtle social or economic consequences that might affect participants. The certification emphasized special protections required for vulnerable populations, including children, prisoners, pregnant women, and individuals with diminished capacity to consent.
2. My research paper examining sustainable digital heritage collections demonstrates my ability to evaluate and synthesize research literature while identifying methodological approaches across multiple studies. The paper systematically analyzes eight peer-reviewed studies using various research methodologies, from Boamah's qualitative interviews with 27 digital preservation management professionals to Stitzlein et al.'s quantitative analysis of metadata records from 338 collections.
This analytical work required me to assess each study's methodological appropriateness, rigor, and limitations. For example, I examined how Boamah's semi-structured interview approach with cultural heritage professionals revealed nuanced insights about technological, economic, and social barriers to digital preservation in developing nations. My analysis identified the strengths of this qualitative method for exploring complex sociocultural factors while noting limitations in generalizability across different national contexts.
Similarly, I evaluated the effectiveness of Borrego's citation analysis methodology for measuring scholarly impact of digital heritage collections. My analysis considered how this quantitative approach effectively tracked academic usage patterns but had methodological limitations in capturing broader educational outcomes or impact on non-academic users. By synthesizing these methodologically diverse studies, I was able to identify convergent themes about metadata standards, institutional collaboration, and community engagement that transcended individual methodological approaches.
3. My literature review matrix analyzing cultural property protection (CPP) research showcases my ability to systematically evaluate diverse research approaches across multiple studies. The matrix demonstrates sophisticated critical analysis of various methodological approaches, from Van der Auwera's document analysis and expert interviews to Blythe's field study of archaeologists' encounters with looting. For each study, I assessed the appropriateness of the chosen methodology for addressing specific research questions, identified key findings, and evaluated methodological limitations.
My analysis of Blythe's research demonstrates my ability to assess methodological strengths and weaknesses in qualitative research. I identified how her mixed-method approach, combining surveys with open-ended questions and follow-up interviews, yielded compelling insights about why archaeologists often fail to report looting incidents. My evaluation noted how this methodology effectively captured sensitive information about professional dilemmas that might not have emerged through more structured approaches.
The matrix also demonstrated my ability to critically assess research claims based on methodological limitations. For example, I evaluated how McCarthy's analysis of GIS mapping during Hurricane Katrina relied heavily on descriptive case study methods rather than comparative analysis, limiting causal claims about the technology's effectiveness for cultural property protection. This critical assessment reflected my understanding that research conclusions must be evaluated in light of the methods used to generate them.
Through my academic works, I've demonstrated proficiency in designing appropriate and ethical research methodologies, evaluating and synthesizing existing research literature, and applying both quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches. Each piece reflects careful attention to methodological rigor while acknowledging real-world constraints and considerations in library and information settings.
Moving forward, I will apply this understanding of research methods and ethical principles to evaluate and improve library services while contributing to the profession's knowledge base. By maintaining CITI certification and staying current with evolving ethical guidelines, I will ensure that my research practices continue to prioritize participant protection and welfare. I plan to use both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess user needs, measure program effectiveness, and explore emerging technologies in information settings, always grounded in ethical research principles. To remain current, I will regularly consult Research Methods in Library and Information Science, participate in Association of College Research Libraries' Research and Statistics Committee webinars, and engage with current methodological and ethical discussions through the Journal of Academic Librarianship.
Bhandari, P. (2020). What is quantitative research? Definition, uses & methods. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/quantitative-research/
Connaway, L. S., & Powell, R. R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians (5th ed.). Libraries Unlimited.
Small, R. V., & Mardis, M. A. (2018). Research methods for librarians and educators. Bloomsbury.
Wildemuth, B. M. (2016). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400613739