Research Synthesis Methodologies

Webinar today on emerging research synthesis methods (from expertsearching):

  • Tuesday July 25, 2017 from 12:00-1:00pm EST/6:00-7:00pm CET
  • Speaker: Sarah Young, Carnegie Mellon University Libraries
  • RSVP / Join

Additional Reading

Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Tricco, A.C., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., Lillie, E., Tran, J.,  D’Souza, J., Hui, W., Perrier, L., Welch, V., Horsley, T., Straus, S.E., Kastner, M. (2016). A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73: 19-28. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Research Synthesis Methodologies

Discovery in Real-Life: Observation from the Field

A real search observed yesterday:

  1. Informed library user working in Central European Time (CET) does a Google Scholar search with library links enabled.
  2. User follows the SFX links to get the official full-text.
  3. Two databases have the full-text; user clicks each link, to major databases.
  4. The first database link is broken, the second database is being updated (the time: around 6AM Eastern Standard Time…noon CET, peak working time for the user).
  5. User tries to go directly through the second database to compensate for the broken link. That database is also being updated.
  6. User gives up the official search path and goes to Sci-Hub. Full-text retrieved within seconds.

 

 

 

Posted in Discovery, P2P | Comments Off on Discovery in Real-Life: Observation from the Field

Under Discussion: Flagging Books, Articles with Integrity Issues as a Lesson in Complexity

This week, collib-l featured several posts about how to deal with books from reputable publishers when they have been found to contain plagiarized content. Two schools of thoughts emerged:

  • One encouraging pulling items off the shelves
  • The other advocating keeping the items, perhaps in a special section, together with the letter from the publisher about the content, as a learning tool.

Participants in this discussion acknowledged such situations do not arise very often, but it did remind me of a teaching situation this past semester in which I, in a one-off instructional session, showed students an example of research misconduct (an official U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Research Integrity case) using an article flagged as “retracted” in its host database. The case study was an extremely compelling learning tool and provided students with an example of short-term decision making which had long-term implications. Because of this, I really like the idea of keeping items with integrity issues on the shelves, clearly noting the academic integrity issue, as a way to show students “real world” examples of ethical issues in practice.

The discussion also spurred my contemplation about the realm of thought our research group is currently investigating, which I’ve christened in my own mind as “The Wild West of Individual Science Communications Decision Making.” As I write this, it seems to me there are three broad, greatly simplified conceptual areas in which individual (science-related) decisions are made:

  • Decisions about research areas formalized in content (often peer-reviewed) made by scientists for other scientists.
  • Representations of this content written by scientists or journalists for the general public, varying in level of trueness to original content and in format (e.g., press release, blog, social media post). Decisions are made here by scientists or journalists in crafting the secondary representation(s).
  • Individual representations/interpretations within the minds (note: I’m undecided at present about a better way to say this) of those reading or interacting with secondary communications about topics, themselves discovered and read in a variety of settings within a communication environment (or multiple environments). These individual “frames” are then – potentially – used or modified whenever future decisions (career, personal) touching upon a topical area are required.

At each of these places, there is room for “pollution,” as Kahan (2017) puts it, leading to an erosion of the power of “free, reasoning citizens to recognize valid science, and hence to fully realize its benefits” (preprint version, 11). Sometimes, the scientific and environmental “certifiers of truth” (researchers, journalists, publishers, libraries) fail – and when this happens, individual decision makers are left to their own devices in interpreting truth. This is the frontier, the Individual Decision Making Wild West.

Turning back to the collib-l discussion, it seems to me as I write this that it’s important to keep items with academic integrity issues on the shelves, in the databases – but to highlight any problematic areas. It’s maybe one small way to help students develop their thinking in relation to ethical issues by exposing them to complexity and failure points of scientific research and publishing in order to, perhaps, help them when they reach  decision making frontiers in the course of their careers and personal life journeys.

Additional Reading

Kahan, Dan M., On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance (June 13, 2016). Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication (Forthcoming); Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 548. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2794799

 

 

 

Posted in Academic Integrity, Plagiarism | Comments Off on Under Discussion: Flagging Books, Articles with Integrity Issues as a Lesson in Complexity

Reflections on IATUL 2017

Writing this commentary several weeks after this year’s annual IATUL conference, my thoughts keep returning to Rick Anderson’s 2015 UKSG Insights opinion piece, “A quiet culture war in research libraries,” in which he describes the inherent tensions between strictly institutional (“soldier”) and strictly global (“revolutionary”) professional orientations. Such orientations are themselves not necessarily binary in nature, of course, and they often exhibit themselves differently according to particular local contexts situated within broader environmental (online networked) environments.

However, what struck me about this year’s IATUL meeting was a real openness of participants to global/revolutionary perspectives. To me this was refreshing and inspiring, and I was able to discuss complex, pressing issues (e.g., what do we do about P2P sharing in relation to interlibrary loan requests?) openly and without institutional blinders. Perhaps this had something to do with the conference theme (Embedding Libraries – Services Development in Context), but perhaps we are beginning to see a real shift in perspectives as the necessity of change hits home, particularly for those of us working in libraries very closely with professors and students and who are conducting our own research activities.

While final papers have not yet been published, I wanted to share here just a few highlights about notable presentations.

  • Researchers Paolo Lugli (Rector, Free University of Bolzano) and Edwin Georg Keiner (Faculty of Education, Free University of Bolzano) both discussed the library in terms of a (in Keiner’s words) “critical, informed knowledge space” with active contribution to learning, research, and institutional reputation – and even the “structural transformation of the public sphere” through “shared worldwide conversations” (Keiner). Lugli mentioned going beyond traditional collection emphasis to assistance with complex student/research support tasks (e.g., electronic labs books, supporting the machinery for language exams in a trilingual environment).
  • Elisha Rufaro Chiware (Director, Cape Peninsula University of Technology Library, South Africa) provided an update of how the cross-institutional e-Research Infrastructure and Communication platform (eRIC, hosted by the Technical University of Munich) has been used to integrate research data management services into local institutional workflows.
  • Göran Hamrin (KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden) described a case study in evaluating the efficacy of information literacy initiatives in improving master degree projects using comparative (i.e., pre- and post-information literacy intervention) interpretive content anaysis.
  • Lee Yen Han (King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudia Arabia) described preparations for a campus-wide roll out of a mandatory online plagiarism tutorial.
  • Roy Tennant (OCLC Research) continued elaborating his long-term vision of a post-MARC discovery world.

You get the idea. I’ll post the link to full papers, once they become available.

As not to make this initial blog post too lengthy, I conclude for today by calling your attention to the article listed below, called to my attention by two Canadian colleagues at IATUL, in which Beall notes:

I think predatory publishers pose the biggest threat to science since the Inquisition. They threaten research by failing to demarcate authentic science from methodologically unsound science, by allowing for counterfeit science, such as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to parade as if it were authentic science, and by enabling the publication of activist science.

With our new science communications research group, we hope to examine related and broader issues from interdisciplinary perspectives. How do scientists communicate with one another (really)? How do non-scientists interpret scientific information? What problems are impeding interpretations of “authentic” science?

This blog will serve as a platform for non-formal contemplation of such issues.

Additional Reading

Anderson, R. (2015). A quiet culture war in research libraries – and what it means for librarians, researchers and publishers. Insights. 28(2), 21–27. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.230

Anderson, R. (2017). Fake news and alternative facts: five challenges for academic libraries. Insights. 30(2), 4–9. http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.356

Beall, J. (2017). What I learned from predatory publishers. Biochemia Medica. 27(2), 273-278. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2017.029

 

Posted in IATUL 2017 | Comments Off on Reflections on IATUL 2017