The second stage of data collection was to select the samples discussed in and send invitations to participate to them. A couple of weeks before this began, the researcher contacted LibraryThing and the moderators of each Goodreads group to inform them of the beginning of the survey. A staff member from LibraryThing posted a short message in each group to let users know that the research would be taking place and had been given LibraryThing’s approval, to ensure invitations were not seen as spam. (LibraryThing required this step as part of their approval of the research; see , .) Goodreads moderators were welcome to inform their groups of the upcoming research.
The purposive sample was drawn from LibraryThing users who posted messages collected during the content analysis phase. Each of these users was sent an invitation letter, included in , . The private message features of LibraryThing were used to send the invitations to the selected users; while LibraryThing users can include an e-mail address in their profile, not all did so. Reminder invitation letters (, ) were re-sent two weeks and four weeks after the beginning of data collection to remind individuals who had not completed the survey and thanking users who had. The convenience sample was drawn by posting an invitation, included in , to each of the LibraryThing and Goodreads groups selected during the content analysis phase. This invitation was re-posted to the same groups two weeks and four weeks after the beginning of data collection, to help ensure as many group members and visitors as possible saw it and had a chance to respond. Permission was granted by LibraryThing and Goodreads staff for this method of data collection (see , sections and ).
These guides are the result of a joint effort of the Writing@CSU project and the Colorado State University Writing Center. Development of these guides began in 1993, when the original Online Writing Center was developed for campus use at Colorado State University. Several guides were developed in Asymmetrix Multimedia Toolbook and then migrated to the Web in 1996. Over the years, additional guides were developed and revised, reflecting the efforts of many writers and writing teachers. We thank them for their generosity. You can learn who developed a particular guide by clicking on the "contributors" link in that guide.
In 2012, the guides were moved into a content management system developed for the Writing@CSU site. Members of the staff in the Colorado State University Writing Center were among the group that migrated the guides to the new system. We are particularly grateful to Carrie Lamanna, Patricia Lincoln, Aubrey Johnson, Christina Shane, Jennifer Lawson, Karen Buntinas, and Ellen Palmquist for their efforts in migrating, editing, and updating the guides.
Some research designs are better than others (see ). The most trustworthy conclusions are those reached in double-blind randomized controlled trials with a representative sample of sufficient size to detect the smallest worthwhile effects. The weakest findings are those from case studies. In between are cross-sectional studies, which are usually plagued by the problem of interpreting cause and effect in the relationship between variables.
This chapter presents the methods and research design for this dissertation study. It begins by presenting the research questions and settings, the LibraryThing and Goodreads digital libraries. This is followed by an overview of the mixed methods research design used, incorporating a sequence of three phases. Each of the three methods—qualitative content analysis, a quantitative survey questionnaire, and qualitative interviews—are then presented in detail. The codes and themes used for analysis during the qualitative phases are discussed next. The chapter continues with sections on the management of the research data for this study; the validity, reliability, and trustworthiness of study findings; and ethical considerations. The invitation letters and informed consent statement; survey instrument; interview questions; a quick reference guide used for coding and analysis; and documentation of approval from LibraryThing, Goodreads, and the FSU Human Subjects Committee are included in appendices.
This article is written in the form of a literature review for the journal Sportscience. A few of the requirements for form and content are unique to Sportscience, but most are common to all good scientific journals. You can therefore use this article to help you write a review for any journal. You can also use this article to structure a literature review for a thesis, but check with your supervisor for any special requirements.
As stated in the purpose of this research, taking a social perspective on digital libraries, is to improve understanding of the organizational, cultural, institutional, collaborative, and social contexts of digital libraries. The following two research questions satisfy the purpose of the proposed study within the approach, setting, and framework introduced in :
Any recorded written, spoken, sung, or otherwise recorded narrative (words) can be content analyzed -- song lyrics, recorded dialogue, television commercials, etc.
1) Formal content analysis
A systematic sample of texts is used in the study, and classification systems are devised to identify different features of the text, which are then counted with an emphasis on objectivity and reliability.
Judges were able to identify global themes in TV commercials aimed at children. The content was sorted into 7 themes: achievement, conflict, dependence, enablement, mood alteration, trickery, and violence. Here are some examples
The weaknesses of thematic analysis is that researchers can choose themes that suit them and that there may be a lack of understanding behind the reasons for using themes.
These two questions explore the existing and emergent worlds that may surround digital libraries in social, collaborative use and behavior. RQ1 focuses on examining how LibraryThing and Goodreads may support existing collaboration, communities, and other social activities and behaviors across social and information worlds, with a specific eye to translation, characteristics indicating coherence of existing worlds, and uses of the digital libraries as boundary objects. RQ2 focuses on examining how LibraryThing and Goodreads may support coherence and convergence of new, emergent social and information worlds and their characteristics, as indicated by use of the digital libraries (as boundary objects) as new, localized standards. The questions focus on the roles of each digital library, be there one role, multiple roles, or possibly no role played by LibraryThing and Goodreads. These roles may or may not include explicit support for collaboration, communities, or social contexts. The research questions use and incorporate the definitions, concepts, and propositions of social digital libraries (see ), the social worlds perspective (see sections and ), the theory of information worlds (see ), and the synthesized theoretical framework for social digital libraries (developed in ). Coherence and convergence are seen as the same concept in boundary object theory (see ), leading to overlap between the concepts—and the two research questions—in operational data collection and analysis. The connotations of the two indicate convergence will lead to new, emergent worlds, and this meaning is indicated by its use in RQ2, but not RQ1.
4) Audience analysis
Considers the response of the audience of mass media - whether they accept or reject the content and what it means to them.