Bridging the gulf: Mixed methods and library service evaluation

Australian Library Journal

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 285-305

  Haynes, Abby ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012507669     PISSN: 00049670     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00049670.2004.10721656     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. ACT Customer Services and Information (1997), Australian public libraries: 1996–97 selected national indicators [Online]. Available: http://www.info.act. gov.au/functions/librarysurv9697.pdf [Accessed 26 October 2003].
2. Association of Research Libraries (ARL) (2003), Libqual+™: Charting library service quality [Online]. http://www.libqual.org [Accessed 15 September 2003].
3. Australian Library and Information Association (1990), Towards a quality service: goals, objectives and standards for public libraries in Australia, Panther, Canberra, ACT.
4. Australian Library and Information Association (2000), Statement on Professional Conduct [Online]. http://alia.org.au/policies/professional.conduct.html [Accessed 24 October 2003].
5. Australian Library and Information Association (2002), ALIA Core Values Statement [Online]. http://alia.org.au/policies/core.values.html [Accessed 30 September 2003].
6. Biddiscombe, R (2001), ‘The development of information professionals’ needs for internet and IT skills: experiences at the University of Birmingham’, Program: electronic library & information systems, vol 35 nº2, pp157–166.
7. Braverman, MT & JK Slater (1996), Advances in survey research, new directions for evaluation, vol 70, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
8. Cook, C, F Heath & B Thompson (2000), ‘Libqual+: One instrument in the new measures toolbox’, Association of Research Libraries Bi Monthly Report, vol 212. http://www.arl.org/newsltr/212/libqual.html and http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla66/ papers/028-129e.htm
9. Covey, DT 2002, Usage and usability assessment: library practices and concerns, Digital Library Foundation, Washington, DC.
10. Davis, D & A Bernstein (1997), ‘From survey to service: Using patron input to improve customer satisfaction’, Technical Services Quarterly, vol 14 nº3, pp47–61.
11. Dervin, B (1989), ‘Users as research inventions: how research categories perpetuate inequities’, Journal of Communication, vol 39 nº3, pp216–232.
12. Dervin, B (1992), ‘From the mind’s eye of the user: the sense-making qualitative- quantitative methodology’, in Qualitative Research in Information Management, eds JD Glazier & RR Powell, Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO, pp61–84.
13. Dervin, B (1999), ‘On studying information seeking methodologically: the implications of connecting metatheory to Method’, Information Processing and Management, vol 35, pp727–750.
14. Dervin, B 2003, ‘Human studies and user studies: a call for methodological inter-disciplinarity’, Information Research, vol 9 nº1, http://InformationR. net/ir/9-1/paper166.htm
15. Dervin, B & K Clark, 1987, Asq: asking significant questions, alternative tools for information needs and accountability assessments by libraries, Peninsula Library System, Belmont, CA.
16. Dervin, B & P Dewdney, 1986b, ‘Neutral questioning: a new approach to the reference interview’, RQ, vol 25 nº4, pp506–513.
17. Dervin, B & M Nilan (1986a), ‘Information needs and uses’, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, vol 21.
18. Duffy, A & A Ketchand (1998), ‘Examining the role of service quality in overall service satisfaction’, Journal of Managerial Issues, vol 10 nº2, pp240–256.
19. Durrance, JC (1991), ‘Research needs in public librarianship’, in Library and Information Science Research, eds C. McClure & P. Hernon, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
20. Durrance, JC & KE Fisher, (2002), How libraries and librarians help: context-based, outcomes evaluation toolkit [Online]. http://www.si.umich.edu/libhelp/toolkit/ index.htm [Accessed 17 September 2003]
21. Durrance, JC & KE Fisher (2003), ‘Determining how libraries and librarians help’, Library Trends, vol 51 nº4, pp541–570.
22. Eisenhart, M (2002), ‘The paradox of peer review: admitting too much or allowing too little?’ Research in Science Education, vol 32 nº2, pp241–255.
23. Fitzgerald, B (2003), ‘Informing each other: bridging the gap between researcher and practitioners’, Informing Science, vol 6 pp13–19. http://esc01.midphase.com/~inform/Articles/Vol6/v6p013-019.pdf
24. Greene, J (2000), ‘Understanding social programs through evaluation’, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds NK Denzin & YS Lincoln, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, Ca, pp981–999.
25. Greene, JC & VJ Caracelli (1997), ‘Advances in mixed-method evaluation: the challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms’, New Directions for Evaluation, vol 74, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
26. Harris, RM & P Dewdney (1994), Barriers to information: how formal help systems fail battered women, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
27. Henry, G (1996), ‘Does the public have a role in evaluation? Surveys and democratic discourse’, in Advances in survey research, eds MT Braverman & JK Slater, Jossey Bass Publishers, San Francisco. pp3–15.
28. Henry, GT, G Julnes & MM Mark (1998), ‘Realist evaluation: an emerging theory in support of practice’ New Directions for Evaluation, vol 78, Jossey-Bass Publishers., San Francisco.
29. Hernon, P & RE Dugan (2002), An action plan for outcomes assessment in your library, American Library Association, Chicago.
30. Hernon, P & JR Whitman (2001), Delivering satisfaction and service quality: a customer-based approach for libraries, American Library Association, Chicago.
31. Ingwersen, P (1995), ‘Information and information science’, in Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, ed K Allen, vol 56, Dekker, New York, pp137–174.
32. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) (2003a), More about IFLA [Online]. http://www.ifla.org/III/intro00.htm [Accessed 24 October 2003].
33. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) (2003b), Information for all: the key role of libraries in the information society (Report Prepared for the World Summit on the Information Society, November 2003) [Online http://www.unige.ch/biblio/ses/IFLA/rol_lib_030526.pdf [Accessed 20th September 2003].
34. Jackson, K & W Trochim (2002), ‘Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses’, Organizational Research Methods, vol 5 nº4, pp307–336.
35. Janesick, VJ (2000), ‘The choreography of qualitative research design’, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds N. K. Denzin & YS Lincoln, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, Ca, pp379–399.
36. Julien, H (1999), ‘Barriers to adolescents’ information seeking for career decision making’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol 50 nº1, pp38–48.
37. Kuhlthau, CC (1993), Seeking meaning: a process approach to library and information services, Ablex Publishing, Westport, Connecticut.
38. Kyrillidou, M (2002), ‘From input and output measures to quality and outcome measures, or, from the user in the life of the library to the library in the life of the user’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol 28 nº1, pp42–46.
39. Latu, T & A Everett (2000), Review of satisfaction research and measurement approaches, Department of Conservation, Wellington, NZ.
40. Limberg, L (1999), ‘Experiencing information seeking and learning: a study of the interaction between the two phenomena’, Information Research, vol 5 nº1, http://informationr.net/ir/5-1/paper68.html
41. Marshall, J (1984), ‘Beyond professionalism: the library in the community’, in Citizen Participation in library decision-making: The Toronto Experience, ed J Marshall, Dalhousie University/Scarecrow Press, Metuchen, NJ.
42. McNabb, R (1999), ‘Making all the right moves: Foucault, journals and the authorization of discourse’, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol 31, pp20–41.
43. Morris, RCT (1994), ‘Toward a user-centered information service’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol 45 nº1, pp20–30.
44. Motylewski, K (2002), Outcomes: libraries change lives — oh yeah? Prove it [Online]. http://www.imls.gov/grants/current/PLA-02-2OBE.pps [Accessed 20 September 2003].
45. Norlin, E (2000), ‘Reference evaluation: a three-step approach - surveys, unobtrusive observations, and focus groups’, College and Research Libraries 61 [6] pp546–553.
46. Parasuraman, A, V Zeithaml, & L Berry (1994), ‘Reassessment of expectations as a comparative standard in measuring service quality: implications of further research’, Journal of Marketing, vol 58 [Jan] pp111–124.
47. Pawson, R & N Tilley (1997), Realistic evaluation, Sage Publications, London.
48. Pelz, DC (1978), ‘Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy’, in Major social issues: a multidisciplinary view, eds JM Yinger & ST Cutler, The Free Press, New York.
49. Pettigrew, K (1999), ‘Waiting for chiropody: contextual results from an ethnographic study of the information behaviour among attendees at community clinics’, Information Processing and Management. vol 35 nº6 pp801–817.
50. Pettigrew, KE, JC Durrance & KT Unruh (2002), ‘Facilitating community information seeking using the internet: findings from three public library–community network systems’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol 53 nº11, pp894–903.
51. Pothas, A, A De Wet & J De Wet (2001), ‘Customer satisfaction: keeping tabs on the issues that matter’, Total Quality Management, vol 12 nº1, pp83–94.
52. Poustie, K (2002), Whither Australian public libraries: ALIA Conference 2000 Proceedings [Online]. http://conferences.alia.org.au/alia2000/proceedings/kay. poustie.html [Accessed 26 October 2003].
53. Radford, GP & ML Radford (2001) ‘Libraries, librarians, and the discourse of fear’, Library Quarterly, vol 71 nº3, pp299–330.
54. Rodski Group (date unknown), Two core questions — importance and performance [Online]. http://www.rodski.com.au/research/company/methods.cfm [Accessed 6 November 2003].
55. Rudd, P (date unknown), Documenting the difference: demonstrating the value of libraries through outcome measurement, [Online]. http://www.imls.gov/pubs/ pdf/pubobe.pdf [Accessed 30 September 2003].
56. Savolainen, R (1995), ‘Everyday life information seeking: approaching information seeking in the context of ‘Way of Life”, Library and Information Science Research, vol 17 nº3, pp259–294.
57. Sheppard, B (2002), Showing the difference we make: outcome evaluation in libraries and museums [Online]. http://www.imls.gov/grants/current/crnt_obe.htm [Accessed 19 September 2003].
58. White, C (2003), ‘Little evidence for effectiveness of scientific peer review’, British Medical Journal (BMJ), vol 326 (7383), p241.
59. Whitmire, E (2001), ‘The relationship between undergraduates’ background characteristics and college experiences and their academic library use’, College and Research Libraries, vol 26 nº4, pp233–247.
60. Widdows, R, TA Hensler & MH Wyncott (1991), ‘The focus group interview: a method for assessing users’ evaluation of library service’ College and Research Libraries, vol 52 nº4, pp352–359.
61. Witkin, BR (1994), ‘Needs Assessment since 1981: the state of the practice’, Evaluation Practice, vol 15 nº1, pp17–27.