Research Design 1m53v

Running head: DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services

Team 5 Azra Basic, Holly Larson, Dawn Osborne LI810XU July 25, 2013 Emporia State University

1  

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

2  

Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services Purpose of Research Libraries offer a variety of services and programs to their patrons, from borrowing books and free access to computers to reference and customer services (researching topics, getting help from a librarian). Though, while libraries do their best to address the needs of both their patrons and the community-at-large in a timely, pleasant, and cost-efficient manner – usually getting it right – the simple truth is that libraries do not always hit the mark the first time around. While patrons are likely to overlook an occasional misstep without making too much of a fuss over it, when a pattern of continued failure begins to emerge patrons begin to feel unwanted and uncared-for, often resulting in a slow (yet steady) decline in both patronage and funding – both public and private. The first step in identifying areas of critical failure within the library system is an accurate assessment of the situation. The question then becomes: How does the library conduct its evaluation in a manner both timely and accurate, while simultaneously addressing the needs of patrons, library s, and the constraints of ever-tightening budgetary concerns alike? In the business world, entrepreneurs have traditionally made use of a process called SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) to evaluate the likelihood of their own continued success when faced with increasing competition in the marketplace. With for-profit businesses – many of them online – now beginning to offer services traditionally offered only by libraries, it has become necessary for libraries to reevaluate themselves and their services in order to compete more effectively against the new forces rising to take their place, or risk becoming irrelevant to their own patrons. The objective of this study will be to determine whether or not the use of a SWOT – thereby taking a more business-like approach toward addressing the issues that face many libraries today – will improve a library’s services as it

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

3  

attempts to more adequately address the needs of its patrons. A review of the related literature suggests potential benefits for both the librarians and patrons; therefore, this study will attempt to identify some of the potential benefits for implementing a SWOT assessment within a library system. Furthermore, the study will strive to answer the following questions: • What values do libraries provide patrons through the services offered? • What are appropriate metrics and measures for evaluating a library’s services? • How should libraries manage and operate their services to provide more and continued value to their patrons? Because the research will primarily explore issues of the perceived benefits and potential applications of a SWOT analysis relating to a generic library system, a qualitative approach will permit research subjects to express themselves freely while simultaneously allowing the researchers to provide structure to both the study’s body and its conclusions. Research Paradigm As it continues, the research design and paradigm of this project will broaden its analytical framework to make use of a mixed-method approach. Thus far, the research for the Literature focused on gaining sufficient knowledge of the most effective qualities shared among successful libraries, through an operational application of standard SWOT principles to the programs and services each library offered. At the project's inception, the initial questions were broad in nature; and continuously refined throughout the research process. This approach, also known as Constructionism, is a better fit for this research paradigm than the Objectivism approach since the library’s social phenomena is not an independent variable from its patrons. The definition of a Constructionist approach is “An ontological position (often also referred to as

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

4  

constructivism) that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings are continually being accomplished by social actors” (Bryman, 2012, p. 710). In this project, the Constructionist approach is part of the creative, istrative, and subsequent analytical phases of the survey. The survey’s data is then further developed through the use of the quantitative method. The nature of the survey’s questions will then provide specific quantitative data use to develop the SWOT. Finally, in the analysis stage many of the survey’s questions will have a number value assigned to each possible answer, thereby allowing the researchers to more easily quantify the respondent’s answers simply by adding up the quantitative totals of their answer ‘score.’ Through quantifying the data at this point it will be easier to see trends start to take shape within the results and transfer the information into the SWOT model’s questions asked within Table 1 below. (SWOT is found at the ALA site: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/advleg/advocacyuniversity/frontline_advocacy/frontline_public/goi ngdeeper/swot) Table 1: SWOT analysis • • •

• • •

STRENGTHS What are your library’s strongest contributions to your community? What does your library do that no one else does? What do your s like best about your library?

• •

WEAKNESSES In what areas does your library have fewer resources than you need? What else needs improvement? What do your s wish you did better?

OPPORTUNITIES What could you do if only your library had • the resources to do it? What is happening in the world now that • you would like to take advantage of? How can your strengths open doors to • opportunities for your library?

THREATS What is happening in the world that could impact your library negatively? What library services are provided elsewhere with greater ease for s? What weaknesses leave you vulnerable to cuts in or competition for your services?

•

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

5  

Though much of the survey is quantitative in nature, other questions will make use of either or both the theoretical and qualitative approaches to information gathering, as a general aid to understanding how the survey participants selected their answers to each of the questions from among those available. Later analysis of these responses will provide useful insights into the respondents perceived needs as they relate to the survey’s questions and the project’s stated goals, which the researchers will then use in the formulation of meaningful theories regarding the project’s subject matter and the participant’s responses to the survey. This, in turn, will provide researchers with the information necessary to further refine the project’s objectives, and will serve as the basis for subsequent construction of end-stage information gathering and analysis. Although this project’s paradigm primarily takes a Constructionist approach to its research, when it comes to assessing the qualitative, theoretical informational sections of the survey it will be necessary to rely in large part on the use of interpretivism. This will aid the researchers in identifying, understanding, and assessing the underlying conditions underpinning the responses of the survey participants. This will also aid the researchers in the creation of the assumptions required for the development of theories essential to accurately identifying the concerns of survey participants, thereby enabling the creation of the project’s final phases and leading to its successful conclusion. Though there is an inherent danger in using subjective tools to measure objective data, any theories or concepts derived from the careful analysis of the information gathered will have through the project’s accumulated research data, as well as the results of the survey. It is worth noting here that all of the research team are currently active participants in a number of library environments outside the scope of this project, having been employed at a variety of public and private institutions for a number of years. Additionally, some team have specific, specialized training in the use and

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

6  

analysis of a SWOT assessment in a business environment. It is, therefore, posited that these experiential factors lend credence to the application of interpretivism when analyzing the more subjective pieces of the project’s research puzzle. Lastly, because of the scope of the topic, an inductive approach, defined as “An approach to the relationship between theory and research in which the former is generated out of the latter” (Bryman, 2012, p. 712), will incorporate the research design. This approach fits well in the project’s mixed-methods model: Although the research design has a sound application of wellestablished information-gathering techniques, it will be difficult to either prove or disprove a complete hypothesis in a project with such a limited scope and timeframe. Also, it is possible that a single transferable theory may not readily present itself. However, through the comprehensive analysis of the data concepts should be generated that will accurately represent the findings of the research. The researchers concluding theories and/or concepts will then be used to assist libraries in improving the quality of programs and services offered to their patrons. Finally, the research conclusions will produce concepts that will be at least in part readily transferable in a generic form to libraries not connected to this research project; this generalization of the project’s resultant concepts and theories as they apply to multiple libraries will lend external validity to the research findings. Research Design The approach of this research design is a mixed-methods approach to research to gain the required information to create a well developed SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) assessment within the Salt Lack City Public Library (SLL). Creating a literature review strengthened Team 5's knowledge on what types of programming libraries use and also how to use a SWOT effectively.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

7  

With this knowledge and the research results, Team 5 can then use a SWOT analysis within the SLL to articulate the results; basing the research on both logistic analysis of the SWOT, and its structured development to evaluate its usefulness within the library. A SWOT analysis may be used for not only a business, but products, places, or even a person. It involves specifying the objective and identifying the internal and external factors which are favorable and unfavorable to achieve that objective. Necessary Permissions Team 5 will attain the needed permissions from the ESU’s Internal Review Board (IRB) through applying for approval to use Human Subjects (see Appendix D). As part of this process, Team 5 must a training test with a minimum of 80% and also prove access to the Salt Lake City Public Library (SLL) and information and consent process for prospective participants. To start, first is through an introductory email sent to the SLL istration. Sent later, a letter (using an ESU letterhead) will officially request the use their facilities (see Appendix C). Also, as part of the IRB, is an Informed Consent document (see Appendix A) to inform prospective participants of what the research involves, their participation requirements, any benefits and/or liabilities, and an estimate of time requirement. This Informed Consent form must be read and signed by each participant before taking the survey. Participant Sampling Method This study aims to gather detailed qualitative and quantitative information from patrons and staff of the Salt Lake City Public Library (SLL) regarding their opinions and insights towards the programs and services offered through the library. Since opinions and insights can vary greatly individuals, it is important that the researchers seek out participants from varying backgrounds.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

8  

This study means to gather information on services and programs through the use of individuals having the most experience with them – the patrons and staff. Participants will be selected using the Convenience sampling method, meaning “A sample that is selected because of its availability to the researcher” (Bryman, 2012, p. 710). Though, a diverse sample is also desired since it will represent a larger range of responses and insights. For this reason, researchers will promote the questionnaire through posters (see Attachment E for example) and encourage the library staff to the research survey. The Research Method, Data Collection and Survey Instrument This study has five discrete phases, each designed to serve a specific, individualized function which will eventually lend itself to the creation of a single, unified whole at the completion of the project. The first phase of research will be the creation of the survey (in which to gather all subsequent research); the majority of the questions are to be answerable by a fixedchoice response, and also with inclusions of some general sorting questions. The protocols and guidelines for how to conduct the research will also be generated at that time. The second phase will be the actual implementation of the research design: This will take the form of traveling to the SLL, identifying the target groups at the SLL that fit the research parameters, presenting them with and explaining the survey in a clear and concise fashion, and answering any immediate questions research participants might have. The surveys will be accessible via SurveyMonkey on public computers the SLL makes available for use by Library patrons. (SurveyMonkey is an internet accessible tool capable of collecting and sorting survey responses through a wide variety of customizable filters.) The questionnaire will then remain available to SLL employees and patrons from 1 September 2013 to 31 December 2013. At the conclusion of the second phase, researchers will retrieve all completed surveys, having answered any

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

9  

questions regarding the study (specifically paying attention to the issues of anonymity and the security of individual identities), remove all remaining physical copies (if any) from the environs of the SLL, and delete the survey from the Library’s computers. (These last two tasks will prevent the corruption of research data by accidentally incorporating information received after the last scheduled date of the information-gathering phase.) The project’s fourth phase will deal largely with retrieving the data from completed surveys, collating and recording the data, and finally analyzing the data through the use of qualitative analysis. In this phase, the team will also generate theories regarding the viability of using a business-model SWOT assessment to improve programs and services at a public library; this is to be accomplished through the use of a mixedmethod analysis of all available data. In the fifth and final phase of research, a written report will provide information on the SWOT's viability within a library environment. This will include an actual SWOT assessment based on the information provided by the survey participant's responses, and will also include any theories discovered. The final conclusions are to be presented to the SLL Board of Directors at their meeting in February 2014. Pre-testing the Questionnaire A fundamental step in the development of a successful research survey is to field-test it prior to its inclusion in the project (Bryman, 2012). Testing a questionnaire is a prerequisite for research involving the use of survey analysis as a key component of its information gathering, for several reasons: First, testing identifies any poorly worded questions, misplaced in order of significance, or whose instructions are unclear (Bryman, 2012). Testing will also identify any typographical errors in the questionnaire, covering everything from the proper spelling and use of each word, up to and including an examination of each question’s grammar. In addition, testing a survey allows for careful construction of its format; from the font size to the

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

10  

style of script to the width of its margins and everything in between, testing the questionnaire provides the researcher with the opportunity to see how the survey actually looks, sounds, and performs under real-world conditions. The ability to judge the performance of a survey prior to using it in the research is especially important; as this gives the researcher the chance to identify which questions respondents are either reluctant or unable to answer. Most likely, if multiple respondents ignore or have problems with the same question it should be reevaluated. Though, if participants are ignoring entire sections of the survey, then the issue may be the overall construction of the survey, and may indicate flaws (such as needing an inordinate amount of time to complete, or of being too complex for the subjects the survey targets) that could require extensive revision. Finally, testing a survey provides the researcher an opportunity to determine areas to possibly pre-code within questionnaire, and can save the investigators a great deal of both time and aggravation during a project’s analytical phase (Bryman, 2012). To meet the generally accepted standards requiring the testing of a questionnaire prior to its use, each team member will pre-test the questionnaire; taking it to a public library other than the SLL, and taking care to avoid known employees and patrons of the SLL (to avoid possible future data contamination when presented at the SLL). The team anticipate that this field-testing will take no longer than a week; though, if necessary, more time can be allocated. During pretesting, one or two staff and patrons from the targeted library (again, not the SLL) will complete the questionnaire. Each respondent, in advance, has knowledge that they are completing the questionnaire solely for the purposes of analyzing the survey’s content, construction, and ease of understanding. Respondents will assess the questionnaire after completing it, giving regarding any potential additions, deletions, modifications, or clarifications considered needed within the survey instrument.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

11  

Once the process of field testing is complete, each team member will report the results of their testing and suggest any necessary modifications to improve the survey instrument. An additional period of testing may be required if determined that adjustments to the survey must be made although this will largely depend on the overall viability of the survey – in whole or in part – after evaluating the survey’s performance during the initial testing cycle. Once the modifications are complete, and the team believes the survey instrument will properly meet the project’s research goals, the questionnaire will then be taken to the SLL, and the information gathering phase of the project will begin. Parameters of the Research As mentioned in the literature review, much of the information on improvement of library services and programs using a SWOT is anecdotal. The results of this questionnaire may possibly add to that anecdotal literature. However, the results may also serve as a tool to inform the SLL of which services not only well developed; but also, which must be updated, created, or dropped. Such may possibly spur discussion or even action to improve upon the libraries services and programs. In the creation of the instrument, Team 5 believes that the development of the SWOT through the information attained from the survey questions may provide ideas for future programs and services. The consideration of the potential influences on the use of a SWOT and possible future programming changes within the library should not be a detrimental risk by the research team. Additionally, new ideas concerning the use of a SWOT to help the programming may be revealed to the research team from the answers provided in the questionnaire. Such information might be useful for future research; thus, it is the intention of the team to share the questionnaire results with the SLL, the information concepts may be utilized by other public

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

12  

libraries. The questionnaire itself may inspire improved library services and programming to its patrons. The objective of the research problem is to determine which services and programs the library offer its patrons, and how the patrons respond (positive, negative, or neutral) to them. Results from this questionnaire will hopefully reveal enough data about what the SLL programming offered is doing correctly and not. This data will allow the research team to assess the information, making observations on differences between the services that work, and do not work, within the library system. It is not within the scope of this research for the team to make recommendations for future library services or programs or the effectiveness of the SWOT. However, the library itself may choose to utilize the resulting survey data in such a manner. Significance of research The significance of the research is the results of the SWOT analysis. These results, arrived at through the extensive study of literature and the knowledge obtained through this research project, allow the development of the SWOT and the ability to assess its usefulness. There are no limits to the significance in this research; it may be adaptable to other libraries and other such businesses (like art, history, or science museums), where a business is willing to do the extensive investigation to get relevant information. Ultimately though, the significance of the research is not what the results are of the research, but how individuals interpret and use them. Ethical Considerations Every research project carries with it at least a nominal risk of causing harm to the very subjects it is attempting to study; it is, therefore, incumbent upon those individuals conducting research to identify and mitigate any potential flaws in either the design or the execution of the

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

13  

research, in order to safeguard the wellbeing of its research subjects. In addition, it is also critical that all of a research team familiarize themselves with any guidelines and protocols native to the research topic, including the geographical area and the subject groups that the researchers intend to study. Failure to correctly identify and adhere to previously established guidelines could not only increase the level of risk to a study’s participants, but might also invalidate the findings of the research, as well (Bryman, 2012). In an effort to eliminate the potential hazards to either the value of its study or to the participants in its research, Team 5 has identified the following areas of potential risk and has taken steps to conduct this research in an ethical, successful manner: Harm to Participants - ensuring the wellbeing of participants is the first priority in this study. According to Bryman (2012), harm to participants can entail a number of facets, including physical harm; harm to participants’ development; loss of self-esteem; stress; and inducing subjects to perform “reprehensible acts” (p. 135). Team will properly store and secure all collected data. Respondents are voluntarily completing an online questionnaire that is not financially driven, and have an option not to participate in the research, as well. It is, therefore, unlikely for the survey respondents to be affected by this study in a harmful way. Anonymity and data storage - having in mind a public library setting, this questionnaire design is to provide a high level of anonymity which reduces social anxiety for its respondents. As part of the research, participants will not have their name recorded. Additionally, any other personal information is to have encoded identifiers (e.g. pseudonyms and/or reference numbers). This will also eliminate some concerns regarding data storage. A secure off-line computer will store the encrypted data, with access to the stored data limited to research using secured s and s.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

14  

Informed Consent - provided to all participants, an Informed Consent document must be read and signed. The participants must be at least 18 years of age and must be considered legally competent. The participants may be either employees or patrons of the Salt Lake City Public Library (SLL); however, minors, due to the survey's concepts and methods, will not participate. Participant’s informed consent must be based on a clear understanding of what participation in the research involves; they must also understand they have no obligation to participate in the research if they have no wish to do so. Finally, for participants having further questions regarding the study, the Informed Consent document includes both a phone number and email address. All team will be responsible for both maintaining this email address and for answering any questions from survey participants. Guidelines and Protocols - Each team will testing on the research guidelines involving human subjects as provided by both the SLL and The Emporia State University (ESU). Team will also obtain the necessary approvals from each division in the Library choosing to participate in the research, as well as from each of the interest groups electing to respond to the survey. While researchers can never wholly guarantee the safety of the participants in its study, through the careful application of research design and execution Team 5 is confident it will provide a reasonable level of protection to its survey participants, and has, therefore, successfully met the burden of conducting its research in a safe and ethical manner.   Limitations The purpose of this research is to describe or understand the dynamics of a public library as seen through the eyes of survey respondents. The team’s findings will be in harmony with the views of the participants, ultimately providing results as free from bias as can reasonably be

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

15  

managed. The study’s participants will ultimately be the final arbiters of the project’s credibility – witnessing for themselves the changes (or lack thereof) in SLL policies and programming as compared to their own anonymous responses. It is, nonetheless, incumbent upon the researchers to demonstrate they have made a good-faith effort to present conclusions free of thoughtless errors. Credibility, therefore, is perhaps the single most crucial variable involved when assessing the reliability of any research; from the earliest stages of its development to the last sentence on its final page, research is trustworthy only if the researchers have gone to great lengths to limit potential biases in their work. With this in mind, Team 5 has worked diligently to develop and adhere to protocols designed to identify possible shortcomings in the study’s design or execution. Although rarely is it possible to produce research that is inherently without flaws the of Team 5 have actively sought to identify any shortcomings in its study, and has corrected them where able. Unfortunately, it is often the case that some limitations must simply be acknowledged once identified as no corrective action is possible given the impact such changes would have on the research. Team 5 has taken this approach where necessary; therefore, this portion of the study will identify those shortcomings native to the research design, paradigm, and team composition for which it has been unable to take corrective action, as well as identifying and acknowledging those limitations for which mitigating steps are already in place to prevent their potentially negative impact on the study’s outcome. One primary limitation the team identified early on in the process was the acknowledgement that all team are Library and Information Science graduate students at ESU. The potential for unwitting bias is strong here as it is possible that preconceptions – whether valid or invalid – of which library services or programs should receive the most

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

16  

attention (favorable or otherwise) might unknowingly taint the entire process. However, having become aware of this possibility – and in an effort to avoid omitting important research data as a potential negative consequence – the of Team 5 have committed to remaining vigilant in adhering to the study’s guidelines in all phases of the research, regardless of where that research leads. In addition, team will take notes on the work in each phase, aiding bias identification and elimination and ensuring the inclusion of all viable data. Finally, Team 5 will utilize elements of both the qualitative and quantitative approach to information gathering and analysis; this mixed-method approach will lend added to the team’s conclusions by reducing the potential effects of bias during the phase of information analysis. Another important limiting factor to note is the small sample size, which could be expanded through the number of participants or libraries (to create multiple SWOT analysis's). The SLL is a sample of convenience as opposed to a random sample. This means that the results of this study cannot necessarily be generally applied to libraries at large, only suggested as Bryman (2008) states: “findings can be generalized only to the population from which [the] sample was taken” (p. 187). Another limiting factor is the use of a questionnaire as the primary tool for information gathering. The results could be strengthened further if team made use of subject interviews, instead of relying solely on a survey to generate data. Doing so could have added material qualitative data and greater understanding of the participant’s motivations, providing valuable insight on everything from a respondent’s preferred library service options to why the time they choose to participate in the study in the first place. Research bases its quality on the ability to its transferability and application to similar situations. Limiting participants to only

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

17  

staff and patrons (18 years and older) from the SLL may compromise the transferability of the research, along with the feasibility of the SWOT analysis as an effective research tool. The study also runs the risk of limiting the number of its participants by istering the survey via the computers provided by the SLL, as some potential respondents may not possess a high enough level of computer literacy to feel comfortable answering the survey electronically. Additionally there is always the issue of non-responses to consider; it is difficult to make generalizations from the data when a sizeable proportion of the survey population chooses not to respond to a particular question. (Nevertheless, the views of non-responders have the ability to relate critical information to the design of future efforts, by highlighting the presence of potentially weak portions in the current research project (i.e., overall questionnaire length or the construction of individual questions contained in the survey).) This study also faces the prospect of receiving a suboptimal number of responses from which to retrieve data, due primarily to the study’s limited budget and narrow information gathering window. It is impractical to do more than speculate on how a SWOT analysis might have influenced participants’ long-term thinking over an extended period, given this project’s relatively short life span. Many of the insights that come from experiential interventions such as this one may not show up until long after the intervention ends. Finally, respondent subjectivity is another of this study’s limitations to consider, as well. It is entirely possible – indeed, quite common – for individuals to filter their understanding of a question through the prism of their own experiences and subsequently base their replies on what they merely perceive to be the question, instead of answering the question actually asked. Very little can be done to alleviate the problem, since, even the simple act of explaining a question to a respondent can skew the resulting data and lead to false conclusions.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

18  

Regardless of how thorough the design of a research project or how flawlessly executed, often there are unforeseen limitations which inhibit the project’s development, data collection, or information analysis. To that end, Team 5 has endeavored to identify the potential limitations existent in its research and has taken steps to mitigate their impact on the project when possible to do so.  

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

19  

Appendix A INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT Title of Study: Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services Principal Investigators: Dawn Osborne Orem, UT

Azra Basic SLC, UT

Holley Ogden, UT

Background: You are invited to take part in a research study. Before deciding to participate, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask a researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Purpose of the Study: This study is about library services and programs offered. It is being conducted by the above principal investigators through Emporia State University, Kansas. The purpose of this study is to examine the Salt Lake City Public Libraries’ services and programs and recommend changes as needed. Study Procedure: You will be asked to complete a survey, which will take 20-30 minutes to complete. The survey includes questions about which services and/or programs you use and do not use. Other survey questions will address your perceptions of how well they work for what you want and what else you expect from them. Risks: No risks are anticipated from taking part in this study. If you feel uncomfortable with a question, you may skip that question or withdraw from the study altogether. If you decide to quit the study your answers will NOT be recorded. Benefits: There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However, the information obtained from this study may benefit the Salt Lake City Library to continue to improve their services and programs. Confidentiality: Every effort will be made to preserve your confidentiality. No names will be requested within the survey and responses will be kept anonymous. Person to : Should you have any questions about the research or any related matters, please the researchers at: [email protected], 801.221.4814/801.240.8839. Institutional Review Board: If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the Investigator, please the Emporia’s Institutional Review Board Office at 620-341-5351.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

20  

Voluntary Participation: Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part in this study. If you do decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part in this study, you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. You are free to not answer any question or questions you choose. Costs to Subject: There are no costs to you for your participation in this study. Compensation: There is no monetary compensation to you for your participation in this study. Consent: By g this consent form, you acknowledge that you have read this information and agree to participate in the research, with the knowledge that you are free to withdraw your participation at any time without consequences. Also, by g this consent form, you affirm that you are at least 18 years of age.

Signature _____________________________________________ Date __________________

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES   Appendix B Pretest Questionnaire

21  

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

22  

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

23  

Appendix C Letter Requesting Use of Library Facilities

July, 20 2013

Main Library 210 East 400 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Director, Re: Application for use of facilities to conduct a research study To follow up on our earlier email communication, we would like to formally request use of computers in your facility to conduct a survey on library services and programs to develop a SWOT model. The results are intended to see whether application of SWOT analysis can be used to enhance libraries transition from an average information facilitator to a community builder. We hope the findings will help enlighten librarians, researchers and patrons to target libraries programs, producing generations of ionate readers and knowledgeable, engaged communities. The purpose of this research study is to give insights on current trends within market planning; particularly those utilizing marketing functions as a critical element of strategic planning and execution within a Library. The project will be conducted by Emporia State University SLIM students Azra Basic, Dawn Osborne and Holly Larsen. For this survey, we request two computers, preferably easily located in the library. In this study, participants must be 18 years and older. An Informed Consent document will be presented to potential research participants before the survey begins. The consent document will use appropriate language for the participant population. Technical jargon will be avoided. Each survey will take approximately 30-40 minutes to conduct. We will maintain a clean space and check in and out directly with both you and the reference desk on a daily basis. Since this is a computer based survey, the survey will be set up in a way that the potential participant must click on a ‘button’ or type in a response indicating that he/she has read the consent/assent information and agrees to participate (along with the paper form). Once the ‘button’ is selected, the potential participant will be redirected to the research survey questionnaire. That is, the survey questions are not viewed by participant until he/she clicks on or types in a response to indicate his/her voluntary participation. The survey will also indicate that refusal to participate or discontinuing participation at any time without penalty.

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES   All information will be kept confidential and no names will be used. Also participant will be able to print their completed questionnaire if they would like to keep a copy for themselves (at our cost). The proposed time frame for the survey’s availability is: September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013. The results of this study will be presented to the SLL Board of Directors in February 2014. The final report will be available in the March 2014. Sincerely,

On behalf of LI81XU Research Team 5 Utah Valley University Library 800 West University Parkway Orem, UT 84058 Telephone: Email address:

24  

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

25  

Appendix D Application for Approval to use Human Subjects For R&G Use Only Date approved: __________________ Approved by: ________________________ Protocol No. ____________________ Full Review _____ Expedited Review _____ Exempted Review _____

This application should be submitted, along with the Informed Consent Document and supplemental material, to the Institutional Review Board for Treatment of Human Subjects Research and Grants Center, Plumb Hall 313F, Campus Box 4003. Before approval can be given to use human subjects, applicants must review the Human Subjects Training Module and achieve at least 80% on the Human Subjects Training Quiz. Instructions for the Training Module and Quiz are available at: http://www.emporia.edu/research/irb.htm.   Human Subjects Training Quiz was taken on: 07/15/2013. Score (will be entered by Research and Grants Center): _____ 1.

Name of Principal Investigator(s) (Individual(s) istering the procedures): Dawn Osborne, Azra Basic, and Holley Larsen

2. Departmental Affiliations: School of Library and Information Science 3. Person to whom notification should be sent: Dr. Rajesh Singh Mailing Address: School of Library and Information Management Emporia State University 1200 Commercial Street Emporia, KS 66801 Telephone: (620) 341-5181 Email address: [email protected] 4. Title of Project: Developing a SWOT: A Component in Bettering Library Services 5. Funding Agency (if applicable): N/A 6. This is a: _____dissertations _____ thesis __X__ class project _____ other research study 7. Time period for which you are requesting approval (maximum one year): from August 1, 2013 to August 1, 2014. If the research project extends past the end date requested, you will need to submit a request for a time extension or an annual update. This form is available at: www.emporia.edu/research/docs/irbmod.doc. 8. Project Purpose (please be specific): The primary goal of this study is to determine if the use of a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) assessment within a library setting to improve their services and

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

26  

programs. Particular attention will be paid to the types of services and programs patrons use most, what their opinion of the service is, and ways in which the library can improve and/or build upon them. 9. Describe the proposed subjects: (age, sex, race, expected number of participants, or other special characteristics, such as students in a specific class, etc.) Patrons and Staff of the SLL (Salt Lake City Public Library). Age: over 18 years old. Any sex or race. Expected number of participants: Pilot study = 12 (twelve). Research sample = 75 (seventy-five). 10. Describe how the subjects are to be selected. If you are using archival information, you must submit documentation of authorization from applicable organization or entity. A random sampling technique for qualitative research will be employed. The participants will depend on who enters the library and is willing to fill out the survey. 11. Describe in detail the proposed procedures and benefit(s) of the project. This must be clear and detailed enough so that the IRB can assure that the University policy relative to research with human subjects is appropriately implemented. Any proposed experimental activities that are included in evaluation, research development, demonstration, instruction, study, treatments, debriefing, questionnaires, and similar projects must be described here. Copies of questionnaires, survey instruments, or tests should be attached. (Use additional page if necessary).  

The results of this study are intended to be a springboard for further research and use of the SWOT within library systems. The benefits are intended to show, from both patrons and staff view library services and programs in general, and what they believe should be improved or offered in the future. Possible ways in which libraries can use this information is to evaluate the SWOT to know not only what they could improve; but also, what they are doing well. Reporting the results of this survey to the SLL Board of Directors may focus their attentions on the importance of the libraries services and programs. A research questionnaire will be istered to a random sample of participants. An Informed Consent document (see Appendix A) will be given to each participant including information on the nature, purpose, procedures, and voluntary nature of the study; in addition, the estimated time required assurances of confidentiality, and information of both the principle investigators and the IRB office. Signatures will be gathered from those over 18 (under 18 will not be allowed to participate). A copy of the questionnaire is attached (see Appendix B). 12. Will questionnaires, tests, or related research instruments not explained in question #11 be used? ____Yes __x__ No (If yes, attach a copy to this application.) 13. Will electric or mechanical devices be applied to the subjects? ___Yes __x__ No

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

27  

14. Do the benefits of the research outweigh the risks to human subjects? __x__ Yes ___ No (If no, this information should be outlined here.) 15. Are there any possible emergencies which might arise in utilization of human subjects in this project? _____Yes __x__ No (If yes, details of these emergencies should be provided here.) 16. What provisions will you take for keeping research data private/secure? (Be specific – refer to the section Safeguarding Information in the IRB Policies.) •

• • •

Questionnaire responses and other data gathering instruments and procedures are designed to limit the personal information required, and only collected if essential to the project. Names, places, and other identifying characteristics are not requested in the questionnaire. Information, such as age, sex, and marital status will be encoded. All obsolete data stored on any storage medium and other records will be destroyed after the completion of this project. Security of the transfer, storage and handling of data will be maintained. Access to the data will be locked, and access will be limited to the three of Group 5 (Dawn Osborne, Azra Basic, and Holley Larsen) and their professor, Dr. Rajesh Singh.

17. Attach a copy of the informed consent document, as it will be used for your subjects. See attached form (Appendix A) INVESTIGATOR’S ASSURANCE: I certify that the information provide in this request is complete and accurate. I understand that as Principal Investigator I have ultimate responsibility for the protection of the rights and welfare of human subjects and the ethical conduct of this research protocol. I agree to comply with all of ESU’s policies and procedures, as well as with all applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding the protection of human subjects in research, including, but not limited to the following: • • • •

The project will be performed by qualified personnel according to the research protocol, I will maintain a copy of all survey instruments, interview questions, data collection instruments, and information sheets for human subjects, I will promptly request approval from ESU’s IRB if any changes are made to the research protocol, I will report any adverse events that occur during the course of conducting the research to the IRB within 10 working days of the date of occurrence.

Signature of Principal Investigator

Date

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES  

28  

FACULTY ADVISOR’S/INSTRUCTOR’S ASSURANCE: By my signature on this research application, I certify that the student investigator is knowledgeable about the regulations and policies governing research with human subjects and has sufficient training and experience to conduct this particular study in accord with the approved protocol. In addition, • • •

I agree to meet with the student investigator on a regular basis to monitor study progress, Should problems arise during the course of this study, I agree to be available, personally, to supervise the principal investigator in solving them, I understand that as the faculty advisor/instructor on this project, I will be responsible for the performance of this research project.

Faculty advisor/instructor on project (if applicable)  

Date

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES   Appendix D Sample Poster

 

29  

DEVELOPING A SWOT TO BETTER LIBRARY SERVICES   References Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30