Selección de material

In determining a methodological fit for this research, both the philosophical approach and research questions were considered. Listening to what librarians themselves had to say about how they make decisions in order to uncover what types of evidence are important and how evidence is used, was seen as of utmost

importance. While the research questions were probing how academic librarians made decisions, the researcher’s focus was on an overall approach of discovering what types of evidence librarians used, and how they went about making decisions that occurred in everyday practice. Hence, decision making was viewed from a qualitative perspective, rather than an experimental one often used in decision making research, where specific testing would be done. It was not the researcher’s intention to test or determine the right answer, but rather to listen and try to

understand how academic librarians underwent a process in their everyday practice. Given that the research questions were mainly exploratory and the researcher wanted to understand evidence use by librarians, a qualitative approach was considered to be the most appropriate.

Many qualitative approaches were reviewed to determine the one that would be the best fit. Eventually, this focused upon three major approaches that seemed most appropriate. Phenomenology, ethnography and grounded theory were considered in more detail and are discussed below.

Phenomenology is concerned with the study of lived experience and capturing the essence of a phenomenon (Adams & van Manen, 2008; Swanson, 2001). This approach is used to study how a person consciously experiences a particular

phenomenon and what the phenomenon means to them (Morse & Field, 1995). Key aspects of this type of methodological approach include the determination of a particular phenomenon to be studied, in-depth conversations with those who have experienced the phenomenon, and the description of the lived experience of that phenomenon. The object is to describe how the phenomenon was experience by a particular group of people. There is no attempt to impose a framework on the data being collected, or to interpret what those lived experiences mean in general terms (Swanson, 2001).

68 In this study, a possible phenomenon on which to focus would have been the

concept of EBLIP itself, but exploring how librarians experienced EBLIP as a

phenomenon was not a core part the research questions posed; the focus was on a deeper understanding of how academic librarians work through the entire process of decision making and how evidence is used within that process. EBLIP as a

phenomenon was not the focus, and a shared point of experience related to decision making was not easy to identify with a diverse group of academic librarians. As well, the researcher did want to probe deeper into the interpretation of data which could lead to a theory about evidence use in practice. Hence, it was decided that

phenomenology was not the right methodological approach for this study.

Secondly, an ethnographic approach to research focuses on a particular group of people and their culture. The researcher integrates him or herself with groups of people for a lengthy period of time (usually at least 6 months) in order to better understand the environment in which those people live or work and what is important to them as a group, such as their values and beliefs. This generally involves long- term field work, interviews, and participant observation (Armstrong, 2008; Fetterman, 2008; Morse & Field, 1995).

It was decided that ethnography required more sustained participation and observation than the researcher would be able to give. As well, the researcher wanted to learn from a number of individual librarians at different institutions across Canada, rather than at one specific library, since the EBLIP process has focused on individual practitioners. An ethnographic approach could be very valuable in learning more about the organisational dynamics of a library or a group of librarians, but the research questions for this study focused on individual librarians.

Finally, grounded theory is a methodological approach that is concerned with building theory from the qualitative analysis of data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

Grounded theory best addresses process questions, and deals with the experiences of individuals as they interact with others in particular situations, in order to generate theories of human behaviour (Swanson, 2001). The methodology is systematic, providing flexible guidelines for researchers, with a focus on simultaneous collection and analysis of data (Charmaz & Bryant, 2008). Any number of data collection

69 methods can be used, including interviews and observation. Central to grounded theory is the process of constant comparison, whereby pieces of data are continually compared to one another over the period of data collection and analysis, enabling an iterative process that leads to focus of the data towards theoretical concepts

(Swanson, 2001).

A grounded theory approach was determined to be most appropriate for this

research because the researcher was interested in exploring how and why academic librarians use evidence, and wanted to interpret the data leading towards a

theoretical contribution to the literature of evidence based library and information practice. The researcher was focused on working through the process of decision making and the place of evidence within that process. Grounded theory allows for the discovery of theoretical concepts related to the process of decision making via the lived experiences of librarians. This was a good fit with the researcher’s

pragmatic philosophical stance, since the methodology builds theory based upon what emerges from the experiences of research participants, tying theoretical concepts directly to actions and practices. The lived experiences of practitioners could lead to discovery of concepts related to evidence use, which in turn could potentially improve practice. Further exploration of grounded theory and how it was used in this study is noted below.

3.4.1 Grounded theory

Grounded theory methodology was created by Glaser and Strauss during their collaborative research related to dying in hospitals (1965). In 1967 they published their landmark work, The discovery of grounded theory. This book laid the foundation of grounded theory and the strategies for doing a grounded theory study. The

discovery of grounded theory was so important because the new methodology broke

with the positivist paradigm that was so prevalent at the time, while also introducing a more systematic way of doing qualitative research than had previously existed. As Charmaz notes, it “provided a powerful argument that legitimized qualitative research as a credible methodological approach in its own right” (2006, p.6).

Glaser and Strauss began to view grounded theory differently and eventually parted ways. Glaser was more influenced by positivism and Strauss by pragmatism. Glaser

70 remained true to the original text on grounded theory, and focused on emergence of theory from the data, while Strauss began to focus on verification and a systematic approach. In 1990, Strauss published Basics of qualitative research: Grounded

theory procedures and techniques with his co-author, Corbin (Strauss & Corbin,

1990), officially documenting a different grounded theory approach. Since then, other grounded theorists have contributed to discussions about the methodology and have taken slightly different approaches. Most notably, Charmaz (2000), a former student of Glaser and Strauss, who put forth a constructivist view of grounded theory. In addition, Clarke (2005) approached grounded theory from a postmodernist viewpoint. Grounded theory is widely accepted as flexible enough to allow for different approaches, although a researcher should make clear which grounded theory version they are primarily following.

All versions of grounded theory share three key methodological elements, including a focus on developing theory via theoretical saturation of categories, theoretical sampling, and constant comparison (Hood, 2007). The basic goal is that of

constructing theory based on the data collected in the course of doing the research, resulting in a theory that is “grounded” in that data. The researcher must be open to the possibilities of what will emerge from that data, and does not come to the

research with any preconceived notions that he or she is trying to substantiate (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007). In grounded theory, analysis of data is done concurrently with the collection of that data and involves theoretical sampling, in which the

sampling is “responsive to the data rather than established before the research begins” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 144). Concepts that emerge from early data analysis continue to drive the focus of questioning with later participants, and as further concepts emerge from the data, the initial data is examined again to

determine similarities and differences. This process is called constant comparison, wherein incidents in the data are continually compared to one another in order to find conceptual similarities that can be grouped together into higher level concepts

(Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 73). Grounded theory researchers use strategies such as asking probing questions, coding data at different levels, looking for patterns, memoing throughout the process, looking for negative cases, and creating diagrams (Charmaz, 2006).

71 The methodological approach used in this study drew mainly from Charmaz’s (2006) constructivist version of grounded theory. Charmaz uses the same grounded theory principles that are noted above, with the main difference being the constructivist approach taken. A constructivist approach to research denies that there is one objective reality, and instead looks at the world as being shaped and influenced by individual context. “Epistemologically, constructivism emphasizes the subjective interrelationship between the researcher and participant, and the coconstruction of meaning” (Mills, Bonner & Francis, 2006, p. 26). The researcher is part of the reality he or she constructs, and his or her values and experience play a role in the

development of theory arising from the data. Charmaz (2006) notes that

“Constructivists study how—and sometimes why—participants construct meanings and actions in specific situations” (p. 130). This must be acknowledged and

embraced as part of the process of creating the grounded theory. Consequently, constructivists must acknowledge that their theory is an interpretation – “The theory

depends on the researcher’s view; it does not and cannot stand outside of it.” (p.

130).

Constructivist grounded theory bases the development of theory on experiences within a particular context. Charmaz (2006) notes that “We try to learn what occurs in the research settings we join and what our research participants’ lives are like. We study how they explain their statements and actions, and ask what analytic sense we can make of them” (p. 2-3). The researcher also must be reflective regarding his or her own preconceptions and how those preconceptions affect the research. In this study, the constructivist grounded theory approach allowed the researcher to be reflective regarding her own experiences with evidence use and her place in the ongoing narrative of evidence based library and information practice. Acknowledging that it was time to look at evidence based library and information practice with fresh eyes allowed the researcher to meet participants openly and with trust, listening and learning from them to form a deeper understanding of how and why academic

librarians use (or do not use) evidence as part of their decision making process. Instead of following a pre-existing model and imposing it upon the participants, the research methodology allowed for an inductive model of evidence based practice in academic librarianship to be formed, based upon the data gathered from

72