I work for the Chief of GI at the Yale Medical school and am surrounded by labs that perform basic research daily. A large part of my responsibility as his assistant is to aid in the submission of grants and publications, so I have a first hand understanding of the importance of research in a profession. This said, the last “true” research experiment I undertook occurred when parachute pants were the height of fashion, involved a Bunson burner, and ended badly. As a future academic librarian, however, I realize that conducting original research will be a part of my job although, thankfully, without the boiling water. Ron Powell’s comprehensive explanation of LIS research and associated methods in chapter 15 was a great first step toward that future.
I was excited to learn that LIS research is on the rise and that its quality is improving because I feel that research is essential for advancing the profession in a direction that will ensure best practices and needed services. Perhaps because I working at a research driven medical school where it’s “publish or perish,” I was surprised that 50% of the librarians who read research journals only occasionally apply research results to professional practices (Powell, 2008, p. 117). I appreciate that research alone cannot generate improved practices and services, but it certainly plays a significant role. As LIS research increases, spurred by technological advances, I hope this number will concurrently increase.
I was particularly intrigued by comparative librarianship and technology-centered research. I plan on becoming a digital humanities librarian, so my users could conceivably be familiar with a variety of different practices from throughout the country and even the world. It would be very interesting to understand these different practices and determine which would work best under which conditions. An internationally known academic library could provide the ideal platform to conduct this type of research. Also, because I hope to work to make cultural information accessible digitally, I am interested how users interface with digital systems. This includes understanding the effectiveness of the various systems that deliver information and preferred methods of access across an in cultures.
I was excited to learn that LIS research is on the rise and that its quality is improving because I feel that research is essential for advancing the profession in a direction that will ensure best practices and needed services. Perhaps because I working at a research driven medical school where it’s “publish or perish,” I was surprised that 50% of the librarians who read research journals only occasionally apply research results to professional practices (Powell, 2008, p. 117). I appreciate that research alone cannot generate improved practices and services, but it certainly plays a significant role. As LIS research increases, spurred by technological advances, I hope this number will concurrently increase.
I was particularly intrigued by comparative librarianship and technology-centered research. I plan on becoming a digital humanities librarian, so my users could conceivably be familiar with a variety of different practices from throughout the country and even the world. It would be very interesting to understand these different practices and determine which would work best under which conditions. An internationally known academic library could provide the ideal platform to conduct this type of research. Also, because I hope to work to make cultural information accessible digitally, I am interested how users interface with digital systems. This includes understanding the effectiveness of the various systems that deliver information and preferred methods of access across an in cultures.
Powell, R. E. (2008). Stepping back and looking forward: Reflections on the foundations of libraries and librarianship. In Ken Haycock & Brooke E. Sheldon (Eds.), The portable MLIS: Insights from the experts. Westport, Connecticut, Libraries Unlimited.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment