R madden qqml2013

Ronan Madden Arts & Humanities LibrarianUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland

PhD Students in the Humanities: Understanding the Information Behaviour of Graduate Information Literacy Course Participants

Ronan Madden QQML June 2013


Overview

• Background: PG6009 module• Literature Review• Research Question

& Methodology• Results: Surveys and interviews• Discussion• Conclusions• Questions


Background 1.

• Accredited & assessed IL module (5 ECTS), University’s structured PhD since 2008

• Devised through partnership UCC, NUI Galway, and Trinity College Dublin

• 6 compulsory units + reflective essay. face-to-face workshops, tailor-made online material


Background 2.

• Each unit: different member of Library staff

• Delivered as block & workshops• Originally STM audience. 2011 re-

imagined: Humanities & Social Sciences

• New: Irish archives, new content effective use of the web for research

• Now 15 hours class-contact time & online

PG6009 Module Content

Unit 1: Research Resource Discovery

Unit 2 : Using the Web Effectively & Evaluating Resources

Unit 3: Tracking Down Results & Keeping Up-to-date

Unit 5: Ethics in Using Information

Unit 4: Managing Information

Unit 6: Publishing & Disseminating

Unit 7: Using Archives for Research

incl. effective database searching

incl. a section on bibliometrics

using ‘Endnote’

incl. open access publishing

This study:

• A conduit: examine information seeking needs/behaviour 1st year humanities PhDs

• Better support 4th-level humanities researchers

• Draws on Kuhlthau’s (1991) ‘Information Search Process’

• Deeper understanding of a specific group during initial months of PhD research



Literature Review: General

• Few studies: generic IL courses for PhDs

• Lack of research: information practices of PhDs renewed interest

• Catalano’s (2013) systematic review of information behaviour of graduate students.

• Lack of research info seeking needs/behaviours humanities graduates Barrett (2005). Thorough review: Case (2012)


Literature Review: Humanities 1.

• Humanities scholar working alone, variety of approaches; professional network

• UK RIN (2011) ‘richness and variety’, increased collaboration, technology

• Importance of serendipity in humanities research

• Wide variety of source material, complex nature

• Subject-specific studies diversity across humanities

Haphazard beginnings

Diverse needs


Literature Review: Humanities 2.

• Catalano (2013) no agreement on consistent information behaviours among humanities, Barrett (2005): do share common approaches, ‘tend to initiate research projects in haphazard, serendipitous ways’. Research supervisors key.

• Digital resources in humanities Warwick et al. (2008) wide range of resources, still true in digital environment, face-to-face


Literature Review: Beyond Humanities 1.

• George et al (2006) multidisciplinary study, graduate students, ‘random motions of information seeking’ when choosing area of focus. People play central role

• Rempel (2010) ‘lack of a single path’ through lit review process. Difficulty scoping projects.

• Bruce (2001) challenges faced by ‘neophyte’ graduate, scope of lit. review in early stages


Literature Review: Beyond Humanities 2.

• Problems with IL skills postgrads• Streatfield et al. (2010) U.K.

difficult choices e.g. training-based approach or other means e.g. embedding librarians in research teams; concentrate on department/faculty-based training or direct support

Literature Review: ‘Zones of Intervention’

• Fleming-May & Yuro (2009). Library must become known. Research needed into the ‘zones of intervention’ particular to PhD study

• Barrett (2005) think in terms of ‘zones of intervention’ recognising ‘patterns in humanities graduate student research behaviour’

• Rempel (2010) ‘zones of intervention’ targeted and tailored to meet the particular needs of researchers



Literature Review: ‘Library-centric’

• Haglund & Olsson (2008) personalized solutions; ‘what they actually want rather than what we think they want’

• Macauley & Green (2007) caution librarians viewing doctoral students as ‘information literacy deficient’ assuming all require IL. 1-on-1 interactions

• Bawden & Robinson (2009) complexity of information behaviour, deeper understanding, beyond a ‘library-centric’ view of IL


Kulthua’s ‘Information Search Process’

• Individual seeking meaning in course of seeking information

• Uncertainty & vagueness at outset (‘initiation’ stage)

• Optimism during the ‘selection’ stage • ‘Exploration’ stage, confusion & doubt, become

orientated & sufficiently informed to focus topic • ‘Formulation’ stage, sharper, clearer focus,

increased confidence.• ‘Collection’ stage, then ‘presentation’ stage• Final stage: ‘assessment’ of what has been

achieved. • Uncertainty key concept, ‘zones of intervention’

areas in which user requires assistance to enable progress. Interventions outside this zone are unnecessary, potentially overwhelming.


Research QuestionOn the evidence of literature review:

• Information seeking requirements of humanities researchers diverse, particular challenges at outset

• People play important role, N.B. research supervisor.

• Value of ‘zones of intervention’, patterns in humanities research behaviour

• Lack of consensus: interventions should be one-to-one basis, services tailored to individual needs, or if generic courses have worthwhile role, especially in regard to support for humanities research.


Is a generic information literacy module an appropriate method of intervention in the initial months of a humanities PhD? What can we learn from the course participants that will give us a better understanding of their information behaviour in order that the Library can improve its approach to supporting them?


Methodology

• Questionnaire 1: early October 2012, all new humanities PhDs who had registered for PG6009, beginning of PhD programme, prior to attending the module - examine general perceptions regarding PhD, research topic, how they intended to meet information needs.

• Questionnaire 2: February 2013, to

those who had completed the full module. Also to second year PhD students who had attended the module during first year.


Methodology

• Interviews: 6 participants, richer understanding of how information seeking needs evolved. - Dervin’s ‘sense-making methodology’ - ‘Gap’ is central. - Describe greatest obstacles encountered during initial months, - How they bridged gaps, what helped (or not) to “make sense” of their situation.

Transcripts coded and examined alongside the data from questionnaires.


Very confident

Confident

Somewhat confident

Not that confident

Not at all confident

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

How confident do you feel about literature searching at this stage of your programme?

No respondent indicated they felt ‘very confident’ about literature search; nine (36%) indicated ‘confident’. Another nine (36%) ‘somewhat confident’, six (24%) ‘not that confident’ & one ‘not at all confident’.

Questionnaire 1: 25 responses


Fully decided Close to Fully decided Somewhat Decided Not Really Decided0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Five (20%) ‘fully decided’, ten (40%) ‘close to fully decided’ on their research topic. Seven (28%) ‘somewhat decided’, three (12%) ‘not really decided’

To what extent do you feel that you have decided on your research question/topic?


Very clearly aware

Have a good idea

Have some idea

Not sure yet

Not at all sure

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

To what extent are you aware of the information sources that you are likely to require for your literature review?


No one ‘very aware’ of information sources likely to use, fifteen (60%) had ‘a good idea’ of the sources. Five (20%) said they had ‘some idea’ of sources, another five (20%) either ‘not too sure’, or ‘not at all sure’.



How confident do you feel in using these information sources ef-ficiently and effectively?

Very confidentConfidentSomewhat confidentA bit unsureNot sure at all

One student said ‘very confident’ in using the sources, eleven (44%) indicated ‘confident’, six (24%)‘somewhat confident’, five (20%) were ‘a bit unsure’, two (8%) were ‘not at all sure’ of using sources.


People, groups, departments, organisations offer them support during the lit search process. 18 of 25

• Supervisors mentioned by 7, 4 mentioning first • Library or library staff mentioned in 9

responses• Other lecturers & academics mentioned by 7

respondents, fellow students mentioned twice. • Also: ‘people who teach generic modules’, ‘IT

support’, local historians/societies, national organisations


• Reasonably confident in their ability to critically evaluate information sources: 3 (12%) claimed could do so ‘very well’, 13 (52%) claimed able to do so ‘well’, 5 (20%) ‘neither well nor badly’, 4 (16%) ‘not well’.

• Ability to manage information 4 (16%) said could do so ‘very well’, 5 (20%) ‘well’, 12 (48%) ‘not well nor badly’, 4 (16%) ‘not well’.

• Less sure about ability to keep up-to-date with latest research, 17 (68%) indicated that they had not yet developed an effective approach



A Lot Somewhat Not a Lot Not at All0

2

4

6

8

10

12

One respondent said his/her research topic had changed ‘a lot’, 11 changed ‘somewhat’ (55%), five (25%) ‘not a lot’, three (15%) ‘not at all’.

Questionnaire 2 : 20 responses

To what extent has your research question/topic changed since then?


Very aware

Aware

Not that aware

Not at all aware

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

1

12

6

1

When asked how aware they had been (at the beginning of the PhD) of the information sources they are now using, one said he/she had been ‘very aware’, twelve (60%) ‘aware’, six (30%) ‘not that aware’, and one ‘not at all aware’.

In hindsight, to what extent were you aware of the information sources that you are now using?


What major obstacles (in regard to the literature search)

• 8 mentioned difficulties with scope, focus and narrowing their topic

• 6 mentioned searching and finding good information

• 2 mentioned managing information• 2 referred to issues relating to time

management • Others mentioned: keeping up-to-date

with research, technology, knowing more about archives, language skills, understanding philosophical frameworks, and knowing what other skills would be needed


What helped most during that period:

• 7 mentioned PG6009 • 6 referred to their supervisor • 6 referred to other courses they had

attended • 4 mentioned self-reliance • 4 mentioned other students• 3 mentioned library staff • 1 mentioned the web• 1 mentioned funding information


Very HelpfulHelpful

Not that HelpfulNot at all Helpful

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Thirteen (65%) ‘very helpful’, seven (35%) ‘helpful’

How helpful was the PG6009 module?


Rank the various aspects in order of usefulness (for the early stages of research)

Top 3 were:

1. Research resource discovery 2. Evaluating information 3. Using the web effectively


• Timing of module - all 20 respondents indicated first year appropriate - 6 mentioned a flexible approach, option

of block delivery & workshops was suitable- 5 mentioned follow-up sessions

• Method of delivery- 8 (40%) indicated face-to-face only

- 12 (60%) preferred face-to-face plus online. - No one preferred online-only delivery.


More that the Library can do?

– 6 (of 19 respondents to this question) happy

– 7 suggested further sessions later-on. New topics suggested were: new databases, preservation, Zotero, primary sources from other countries, writing and journalism.

– 3 said one-to-one assistance from specific librarians would be useful.

– Other items mentioned: access to more databases and more books in the Library.


Interviews: Theme 1

• Outset: not aware of everything will need to know- unlike Masters, PhDs figure out themselves

• Many decisions re. structured modules, courses, workshops. Sequence work and attendance in optimal way

• Serendipity in what they learned ‘may be all part of the literature review process’.

• Rushing-in to some aspects of their research:‘I did a lot of work before I even started, but in

another way it didn’t help because I wasn’t that ready, and I shouldn’t have been trying to do that really, and I did all of that without much help from technology’


Interviews: Theme 2

Different to other PhDs, Insecurity & anxiety constructing understanding of what being a PhD student means. Gap bridged through informal channels, other students at courses, conferences E.G. one student spoke of challenge of having to ‘work out how you are supposed to be a PhD student…you find information from people who are further down the road’Another:

‘I thought PhDs had two heads and I was amazed when I started going to conferences and stuff and meeting people who are doing PhDs and they were fairly normal, so then I realised that it was within my grasp’PG6009, or other events, offers opportunity to interact


Interviews: Theme 3

Technology a recurring theme, bound-up with challenge of finding out what they need to know, and sequencing their research and attendance at courses and workshops. E.G. one interviewee stated that:

‘For me the biggest things were the technologies that I’m going to be using for part of the PhD.... and understanding what was going to be relevant to the PhD itself’


Interview: Theme 4

PG6009: clear that first term was a suitable time, but option of attending workshops later also important:

‘It was a really good time to run it in the first term,

because even if like me you’re not using all the tools right from the start, you know they exist and at what point you need to bring them in’Another said:

‘’Even now if you offered me the whole module again I’d probably go’


Interview: Theme 5

Content - very positive clear that even if they may have known some of the content, they appreciated hearing things again, and from a different angle.

‘there were some bits I already knew but I think if you’re doing a course like that you’ve got to cater to everyone and I didn’t get bored, I found it interesting…there are other angles and different ways of searching that maybe I didn’t know about’


Discussion: initial stages 1.

• Various levels of confidence, extent they had decided on research topics, how aware of information sources

• Interviews: some slightly later point in process

• Most found: topic changed during initial months (only 15% indicated that it did not change at all)

• Important for library not to make assumptions re. preparedness, be aware: working through a process

• 40% of the students not been aware of information sources they were to use later

Discussion: initial stages 2.

Kuhlthau’s ‘Information Search Process’:• 1st questionnaire: initiation/selection stage of

research, variety of confidence levels • Likely exploration stage coincided with

delivery of the module in November and January.

• Timing of PG6009 should help participants become better equipped for exploration stage, build confidence, hone research topic

• Interviews in April: formulation and collection stages.


Discussion: literature search

• Scoping & focussing: challenge, corroborates lit review

• Searching & finding, ‘haphazard’ early stages borne out

• ‘Lack of a single path’ choice of courses, workshops,

• Interviews: some rush in, not aware of sources & technologies, Planning & sequencing a challenge

• Serendipity: what’s learned during modules & courses

• Technology, awareness takes time. Coincides with other challenges: scoping, planning, sequencing

• Process of making sense of what it means to be a PhD researcher, uniqueness of their own research, how they ‘fit in’



• Supervisors key for some, variety of people play a part

• Role of other students/researchers + own self-reliance.

• PG6009: important role as did other courses• All found module good or very good-

despite relatively generic nature of PG6009, wide range of humanities disciplines, clear benefits

• Some aspects not new to some, happy to hear new angle

• Topics: helped overcome greatest challenges during first year, i.e. searching, scoping & evaluating

Discussion: interventions


Discussion: PG6009 timing/content

• Initial months: good time, flexibility also valued

• ‘Haphazard’ nature of initial research- some wish to revisit. Some aspects may be appropriate for some later

• Valued awareness of resources early-on: how fits within evolving needs of own research & potentially busy schedule

• N.B. Library let PhDs know welcome to repeat workshops

• Essential: seek feedback, improve, avoid Bawden and Robinson (2009) ‘library-centric’ approach

• Try new topics, workshop series format can accommodate


Discussion: face-to-face

• Clearly preferred• Opportunity to meet other researchers • For librarians: direct contact,

invaluable feedback• module assessment reading the essays

enhances our understanding of the research process and offers a deeper understanding of researcher information needs.


Discussion: suggestions

• Lit. review questioned if 1-to-1 optimal. Demand not strong here.

• Attending module, aware of different librarians (different expertise e.g. Subject Librarians, Archivists, IR Manager) sufficient for most in early stages?

• Researchers encouraged to contact specific librarians

• 1-to-1 sessions at wrong stage inefficient?• Making itself known, Library, reduce anxiety,

attrition rates • Librarians increasing profile/relevance,

research habits of future academics. Vital that content reviewed, updated


Conclusions 1.

• Despite generic nature, diversity of humanities research, course had clear benefits for participants.

• Confirmed first year PhDs in humanities scoping and amending topics. Learning to narrow topic, find and manage quality information a challenge, as are issues relating to technology.

• Planning and sequencing their research + attendance at seminars/training & courses difficult at time when they are making sense of what it means to be a PhD researcher.

• Variety of people play crucial role in helping to bridge initial gaps, space for the Library.

• Most appropriate time to attend PG6009: initial months of the PhD. Some preferred particular units later as stand-alone workshops, or option of repeating particular topics; this should be encouraged.


Conclusions 2.

• Most valued elements (for early stages) included resource discovery, effective use of the web, and critical appraisal.

• Face-to-face delivery is valued. • Scope for additional follow-up sessions on specific topics,

critical that Library continues to gauge reaction to content, amend course as appropriate.

• Some potential for encouraging further one-to-one contact with librarians but may not be something all PhD students require as priority in the early stages.

• Direct benefit of module: researchers develop an understanding of potential of the Library. Likewise, the librarians teaching PG6009 are greater insight into work of PhD students, information practices as researchers, how they cope in the first year.


Thank you for listening!


Appendix: Interview Questions(Looking back to the first few months of your PhD: thinking of your literature review in particular)

1. What were the greatest challenges/obstacles/confusions that you encountered/experienced during those initial months?

Why was that a particular challenge (prior expectations)?How did you feel about the research project then?

2. How did you cope with those challenges, get around the problems, do things differently than previously envisaged?

3. What helped, Why and How did that help (were other people a help)? What got you through? What was unhelpful or set you back?

4. If you could wave a magic wand & go back to the beginning what would have helped (to bridge that gap)? What can UCC do to help researchers with those challenges? What can the Library do?

5. What are your thoughts on the PG6009 module (content, timing, delivery)?

R madden qqml2013

Education

Transcript of R madden qqml2013