Critical Analysis of Research
Introduction
Research entails the scientific exploration of
specific problem or issue. The purpose is to identify
the problem and then explore its various components
such as how the problem evolved, its causes, factors
responsible for its emergence or how it could
be resolved. Since research study is a process,
it requires the researcher to take step by step
approach and work towards the problem resolution.
In this context the researcher has to make careful
evaluation as to the problem to be addressed,
the method used to solve the problem and the structure
of the study. The choice for the methodology is
therefore key to its problem identification and
resolution. There are two broad categories of
research methodology, namely the qualitative and
quantitative approaches. While qualitative research
requires the descriptive and theoretical study
of the problem, quantitative methodology provides
numerical and statistical evidence for exploration
or resolution. There are many who highly recommend
qualitative approach while others who prefer the
quantitative approach. Nevertheless, in the author's
opinion, the choice depends on the problem solution
and its discipline. In the following discussion
the author attempts to critically analyze why
the researchers Amanda Spink, H. Cenk Ozmutlu
and Seda Ozmutlu have chosen to adopt specific
method(s) for researching their problem issue
and whether it is a sound research or not.
Critical Analysis
In the study by Amanda Spink, H. Cenk Ozmutlu
and Seda Ozmutlu's the researchers have chosen
the combination of qualitative and quantitative
approach for studying "Multitasking information
seeking and searching processes." The choice
of a combination of qualitative and quantitative
approach has become a trend in research studies
due to its practical implications.
Qualitative research according to Michael D.
Myers, "involves the use of qualitative data,
such as interviews, documents, and participant
observation data, to understand and explain social
phenomena." (Myers 1997). Usually the choice
for qualitative analysis in the information technology
discipline stems from the fact that aspects of
information systems and usage have been the result
of human interaction with technology. For the
purpose of understanding human behaviors theoretical
frameworks are required. On the other hand the
researchers have also incorporated statistical
analysis in the study which provides numerical
evidence of the same. The reason for this choice
is perhaps to quantify the legitimacy of their
research outcomes. The authors have used a balance
of the two so as to provide sound judgment and
come to conclusive results for their problem study.
The approach used by the researchers serve the
purpose of scientific exploration as well as it
takes into account of the humanistic perspective
that is human behavior in multitasking and information
seeking. Therefore in this regard it could be
said that the choice of the research methods have
been adequate.
Despite this fact, the author is of the opinion
that the lack of organization in the study does
not make up for the balance. The theoretical framework
which the researchers identified as critical for
the study has been distributed at the beginning
of the study under "Related Research"
and partly at the end of the study under the heading
"Implications". Although the integration
of a theoretical background at the beginning of
the research is justified as it helps in orienting
the readers for the subsequent study area, the
theories provided under "Implications"
somewhat displaces the readers. Furthermore, the
author is of the opinion that the theoretical
framework provided has not been adequate to address
the complexity of the study. Little has been included
to address information seeking behavior in humans
as well as the reason for this seeking behavior.
Not only this, but the absence of the literature
review has been the reason why there has been
no transitional relation established for human
seeking behavior and their search patterns online.
Perhaps for this reason, the researchers have
also been vague in identifying the benchmarks
through which they would measure the quantitative
approach to research as well as the variables
involved. The inclusion of four categories of
study, namely A, B, C and D indicate the difficulty
in identifying these variables. However, the four
studies as the researchers admit, are extensive
in their approach to cover almost all aspects
of the topic. Furthermore, the sampling and population
size have been large enough to minimize standard
deviation and error which are critical for accurate
research results. From the quantitative aspect,
thus the research could be considered sound providing
ample study area and aspects for exploring the
depth and breadth of the problem identified. Similarly,
it could be seen that each of the study category
addresses the objective which indicates that the
researchers are focused in their research design
and approach. Each of the study represents one
objective which has been addressed comprehensively
through surveys and analysis.
Even the analysis of the data under the heading
"Discussion" clearly outlines the purpose
of the data collection, the sampling bias as well
as the authenticity of the data collected. The
researchers comprehensively relate the data with
problem identified by providing explanation for
the different user behaviors. This not only connects
the data with the theoretical framework but it
also allows the readers to relate how quantitative
data are explained in the context of the problem
under study. In research “discussion”
and “analysis” of this nature is critical
and the focus of the study as this section forms
the basis for proving the hypothesis, or in this
case the objectivity of the research.
Once the hypothesis has been proven, the researchers
then conclude. However, Amanda Spink, H. Cenk
Ozmutlu and Seda Ozmutlu's study the researchers
have integrated the "Implications" section
to further explain the consequences of such multitasking
and information seeking behaviors among database
users and library users. The researchers thus
treated the Implications as the conclusion to
the study. The actual conclusion is brief recapture
the research objective, study problem and structure.
The reader is left with an incomplete feeling.
Instead the researchers could have provided some
more depth to the implications as to how the problems
could be resolved with details on the nature of
human behaviors and how it could be resolved through
IR technology processes.
Alternatives
Although the choice of research method has been
ideal because the study problem required in-depth
view as well as consideration for the depth view
of the data collected. To analyze and relate the
humanistic aspect of the study the brief theoretical
framework set up had been appropriate too. However,
the researchers have excluded a formal literature
review that would have covered all aspects of
human information seeking behaviors. The literature
review would also cover the relation of IS with
the same issue which would have provided the readers
with both humanistic and technological view of
the problem.
Similarly, instead of outlining hypothesis, the
researchers identified the problem without any
preamble. Hypothesis testing on the other hand
would have allowed the researchers with alternative
views to the same problem issue. In outlining
the hypothesis the researchers would have to outline
the null hypothesis and the positive hypothesis
as well as the conditions for such proofs. Adoption
of the hypothesis therefore negates bias that
researchers may have had towards the problem issue.
Apart from the literature review and the absence
of the hypothesis, the author is of the opinion
that the methodology, data collection and analysis
have been adequate in its approach as well as
depth. This is because, data of quantitative nature
does not represent nor does it resolve problems
on its own. It has to be backed up with theoretical
framework and explanation for the same, which
the researchers did provide adequately. The results
of the data have also been simple and easy to
interpret without extensive reader knowledge requirements
making the study easy to read and comprehend.
However, the language used has been confusing
as it used technical terms and nomenclature that
only professionals in the field of IS and psychology
can understand. The reason for this is perhaps
due to the fact that the article is meant for
Journal readers, who are well versed in their
fields and discipline. Therefore complexity in
the use of language has justified.
However, the conclusion provided could have been
improved as it lacks climax and completion. In
the author's opinion a conclusion should leave
the reader with a complete feeling so that there
are no questions left unanswered for the research
at hand. Even if there are, the questions could
be addressed in further research by others. Furthermore,
a conclusion in such problem/issue studies is
not adequate; it should be followed by a recommendation
list that would allow the readers to explore alternatives
for resolutions. This has been missing in the
conclusion provided by the researchers Amanda
Spink, H. Cenk Ozmutlu and Seda Ozmutlu.
|