Research Methods Literature Review
The previous three literature reviews examine the concept of organization in the areas of knowledge organization theory, published research in knowledge organization in libraries, and personal information management. From these three reviews, a few points can be concluded. First, it can be concluded that organization is both a conception issue as well as a practice one. Second, research on and questions about organization can occur in a variety of subject domains. And lastly, that organization plays a vital role in information science and libraries. These Conclusions contribute to organization being a rich area for future observation and research. The purpose of this current literature review section is to examine the multitude of research methods that have occurred in the literature that was examined in the three previous reviews Introduced earlier. The result of this examination will be to determine the best methods for researching personal organization practices of research scientists in comparison to traditional knowledge organization schemes used in libraries. This determination will, in turn, inform my approach for the dissertation research I pursue. To reach this result the following literature review begins with an examination of research methods used to study knowledge organization theory. Next, the focus of the piece changes to discuss the methods used in knowledge organization research. After analysing knowledge organization, research in personal information management will be examined. Discussion then turns to the limitations of the research methods being conducted in these three areas. Lastly, this literature will evaluate the effectiveness of all these methods and suggest the most successful method for evaluating scientific personal organization practices in comparison to traditional knowledge organization schemes found in libraries. The terms used to describe methods in this literature review come from the works of Pickard (2007), Powell (1991), and Bush and Harter (1980). Definition, Purpose, and Scope
The Review of related literature involves the systematic identification, location, and analysis of documents containing information related to the research problem. The term is also used to describe the written component of a research plan or report that discusses the reviewed documents. These documents can include articles, abstracts, reviews, monographs, dissertations, other research reports, and electronic media. The literature review has several important purposes that make it well worth the time and effort. The major purpose of reviewing the literature is to determine what has already been done that relates to your topic, This knowledge not only prevents you from unintentionally duplicating another person’s research, it also gives you the understanding and insight you need to place your topic within a logical frame. Put simply, the review tells you what has been done and what needs to be done. Previous studies can provide the rationale for your research hypothesis, and indications of what to be done can help you justify the significance of your study. Another important purpose of reviewing the literature is to discover research strategies and specific data collection approaches that have or have not been productive in investigations of topics similar to yours. This information will help you avoid other researchers’ mistakes and profit from their experiences. It may suggest approaches and procedures that you previously had not considered. For example, suppose your topic involved the comparative effects of a brand-new experimental method versus the traditional method on the achievement of eighth-grade science students. The review of literature might reveal 10 related studies that found no differences in achievement. Several of the studies,...
References: Barreau, D. (1995) Context as a Factor in Personal Information Management Systems. Journal
of the American Society for Information Science
Barreau, D. (2006) Personal Information Management in Context.
Barreau, D. & Nardi, B. (1995) Finding and Reminding: File Organization from the Desktop. SigChi Bulletin. (July) 27 (3).
Busha, C. & Harter, S. (1980) Research methods in librarianship: Techniques and interpretation.
Dupre, J. (1993). The disorder of things: metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Hjørland, B. (2008) What is knowledge organization (KO)? Knowledge organization. international journal devoted to concept theory, classification, indexing and knowledge
representation, 35(2/3), 86-101
Hubenthal, U. (1998). Interdisciplinary thought. In Newell (ed.) Interdisciplinary: essays from
the literature.New York: College Entrance Examination Board
Jones, W. (2007). Personal information management. Annual Review of Information Science and
Miksa, F. (1998). The DDC, the universe of knowledge and the post-modern library. Albany,
New York: Forest Press
Olsen, H. (1998) Mapping beyond Dewey’s boundaries: Constructing classificatory space for
marginalized knowledge domains
Andrews, C. P., & Wynekoop, J. (2004). A framework for comparing IS core curriculum and IS require-
ments for accounting majors
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review,
Barling, J., & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour Management, 5(1), 41-51
Barnes, S. J. (2005). Assessing the value of IS journals. Communications of the ACM, 48(1), 110-112.
Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for psychological bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 172-
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educa-
tional objectives: The classification of educational goals
Boote, D. N., & Belie, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature
review in research preparation
Campeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial
Cougar, J. D. (1989). Preparing IS students to deal with ethical issues. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 211-220.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd
Culnan, M. J. (1978). An analysis of the information usage patterns of academics and practitioners in the
computer field: A citation analysis of a national conference proceedings
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance. MIS Quarterly,
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A com-
parison of two theoretical models
Davison, R. M., Vreede, G.-J. de, & Briggs, R. O. (2005). On peer review standards for the information
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information system success: The quest for the dependent vari-
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success:
A ten-year update
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1991). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction: Theoretical and
Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Grover, V., Seung, J. R., & Segars, A. H. (1996). Information systems effectiveness: The construct space
and patters of application
Please join StudyMode to read the full document