It was an immensely valuable experience to learn to work more formally in groups in the iSchool. I had no issues with group work. In fact, I miss it. Having had good group partners all throughout my MLIS experience, I feel I was able to contribute to something greater than what I'd have produced on my own. We learned to challenge each other to create better work, to take advantage of members' strengths, and to help with weaknesses.
Besides that, as a newly minted social scientist, I feel I ought to be able to say I've done original research -- and I can. I enjoy the linear process of completing research -- define problem, design test, collect data, analyze it, present findings -- and I enjoy conjuring up the imagination required to succeed at this linear process. The intersection of those two kinds of thinking is what makes research fulfilling for me. And now, I can see a lot of other projects in my life through the same dual lens, which makes them more rich and meaningful to me -- and also puts me on a more solid ground when attacking problems. I am more confident, because I've successfully completed an original research project, which you can see here (PDF, new window).
This particular project studied whether students at the UW's College of Fishery Sciences prefer to use the database which is intended for them, the Aquatics and Fisheries Sciences Abstracts database (AFSA). We surveyed all of the graduate students in that discipline about whether they use AFSA, how often, what they like about the resource, and what they use instead if they do not use AFSA. 21.4% of the population returned the survey (which was actually a census, since it was sent to all students in the program and not a sample). We had not theorized that a clear alternative to AFSA would emerge, but one did - Web of Science. Through a mix of qualitative and quantitative questions, we received results which show which avenues of further research would be productive.
It is my opinion that our research project contributes productively to this area of study. It suggests that barriers to use exist among scholarly resources, and that surveys are necessary to help database providers lessen these barriers. We discovered that despite enrollment in COFS, some students who studied policy or tourism can naturally have their needs better met by a database other than AFSA. Our project also encouraged the question: If Web of Science is as acceptable to students in Fisheries as AFSA is (or more so), might not Expanded Academic Index appeal to humanities scholars as much as more specialized databases? Any information science professional interested in starting research in this area would benefit from reading our research paper, which would show how and why we studied what we did, and provide a jumping-off point for further research.
For example, in our literature review of similar studies, other researchers found that graduate students in some disciplines depended on free and/or Web resources, rather than indices and databases intended for their subject. These authors lamented this development, and suggested workshops and training sessions to encourage the students to use databases "properly." This brings up the question: if PhD students are not depending on scholarly resources, how does that affect the research they are doing? By extension, how does it affect the corporate producers of databases, and others connected with academia?
The Space Needle project (the PDF is here)
was more about imagination, and built scholarly confidence in a related
but different way: My ideas and conclusions have value, even if they're
not completely revolutionary, or based on analyzing Patrick Wilson or
other grand masters of the canon. It is important to me to bring
passion into my approach to my field, and I learned how to accomplish
that through diligent and creative thinking. I am honored to have the
scholarly freedom to make analyzing the architectural drawings in
Special Collections my "area." It matters how these drawings were made,
and how they informed the process that eventually led to the Space
Needle we have today - like it or not!
My time at the iSchool --
with innumerable readings reminding us that "only preliminary
conclusions can be drawn, and further opportunities for research exist
in this area" -- has showed me that not everything of value has been
discovered. In fact, as Sandra suggested, I am capable now of
discovering something myself and presenting it to the world.
Sandra Kroupa commented on the paper:
This was an excellent paper. I liked that you explain the nature of
what the role of architectural drawings are - I think you sum up
exactly what their function is.
I was glad to see you provided the
historical context for looking at the selected drawings by talking
about the history of the Fair itself. Your observations about the role of metadata for drawings such as these were very thought provoking.
I would like to encourage you to think about working on this paper more
with the idea of potentially publishing it -- either in a journal or
offering parts of it to Special Collections to be a web essay about the
drawings you are highlighting here.