for­the­­researcher­to­produce.­Intel- lectually,­they­are­often­the­highest­ order­outcomes­of­a­research­study­ and­represent­the­culmination­of­the­ investigator’s­thinking.­There­are­ other­problems,­too.­They­omit­detail­ pertaining­to­particular­problems­or­ issues­–­insights­that­may­be­useful­to­ information­professionals.­Models­also­ tend­to­be­short­on­the­specifics­as­to­ what­the­individual­should­do­in­practice­ and­may­appear­insufficiently­tied­to­ reality.­For­some­professionals,­models­ depict­a­“way­of­thinking”­about­the­ salient­matters,­instead­of­affording­ an­actual­solution.­The­very­nature­of­ “idealised”­models­dictates­that­they­ are,­at­best,­likely­to­operate­at­the­ strategic,­rather­than­operational,­level.­ Certainly,­a­heavy­burden­will­probably­ fall­on­readers­to­interpret­the­com- ponents/processes­in­terms­which­are­ meaningful­to­them­and­then­generate­ their­own,­more­precise­responses­to­ the­particular­challenges­they­face.


Participants’ responses It­is­appropriate­at­this­point­to­offer­ a­small­caveat.­By­no­means­all­the­ material that is of practical use to readers ­ sections­


­will­be­found­in­the­closing­


­of­the­research­report.­Draw- ing on the language of Michael Quinn Patton,3


­we­can­label­the­options­set­


down­above­as­analyst-constructed­ utilities­–­in­each­instance­what­has­


been­created­has­been­synthesised­by­ the­researcher.­It­is­entirely­possible­that­ in­qualitative­work­the­writer­can­offer­ other­utilities­that­are­indigenous.­These­ have­been­disclosed,­often­in­story­form,­ directly­by­a­participant,­and­the­writer­of­ the­report­recalls­them­in­detail,­ideally­ using­the­individual’s­own­words,­in­the­ belief­that­highlighting­them­will­result­ in­benefits­to­readers’­practice.­Imagine,­ for­example,­that,­in­a­study­investigating­ young­people’s­information­behaviour,­ an­informant­refers­to­a­method­that­ they­employ­highly­successfully.­It­may­ not­necessarily­be­the­participant’s­own­ design;­it­may­have­been­taught­to­them;­ they­could­have­read­about­it­or­observed­ it­being­practised­by­someone­else.­A­ school­librarian­who­sees­the­report­may­ enhance­their­own­IL­teaching­pro- grammes­by­incorporating­the­personal­ strategies­disclosed.­The­value­of­the­ researcher­


­offering­user-related­benefits­


in­a­capacity­as­a­mere­communicator­ is­often­underrated­in­research­and­it­ receives­relatively­little­coverage­in­many­ of­the­standard­textbooks.­


Pitch research to your audience What­decision­needs­to­be­made­to­ render­a­study­most­useful­to­readers?­ At­the­end­of­their­investigation,­should­ the­­researcher­offer­specific­recommen- dations,­a­facilitating­question-based­ framework­or­an­abstract­model?­There­is­ no­single,­ideal­solution­to­the­challenge­


of presenting the implications of a research ­


­project,­although­the­inclusion­ of useful insights from participants is­­always­worthwhile­in­a­qualitative­ report.­The­writer’s­wisest­course­no­ doubt­lies­in­defining­from­the­out- set­the­purpose­of­their­document,­ identifying­its­intended­audience­and­ then­adopting­the­strategy­for­creating­ outcomes­which­is­most­­appropriate.­If­ the­primary­readership­is­that­of­staff­ in­the­organisation­where­the­research­ has­taken­place,­option­one­would­seem­ most­suitable.­Indeed,­any­information­ professional­wanting­recommendations­ that­are­inherently­practical­may­well­ favour­this­possibility­as­long­as­they­ are­prepared­to­accept­the­limitations­ of­context.­If,­however,­they­seek­the­ opportunity­to­develop­a­response­that­ directly­addresses­their­own­day-to- day­concerns,­the­second­option­would­ seem­more­sensible.­Senior­managers,­ meanwhile,­may­well­prefer­guidance­ pitched­at­the­strategic­level­that­is­ characteristic­of­the­third­option.­If­the­ writer’s­target­readership­is­especially­ wide­–­consisting­of­managers­and­ information­professionals­both­within­ and­beyond­the­organisation­where­the­ fieldwork­took­place­–­they­may­reason­ that elements of all three strategies should­be­incorporated.­IP


References 1 Sagan, C. Cosmos. London: Macdonald, 1981.


2 Gorman, M. Our Singular Strengths: Meditations for Librarians. Chicago, Illinois: American Library Association, 1998.


3 Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990.


April-May 2019 INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 53


Shenton research pp51-53.indd 6


25/04/2019 11:11


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60