Gail Weisz

Professor Wertheimer

LIS 610 (Assignment # 5)

28 October 2004

Research Critique

     The basis for this critique is a quantitative research article taken from the Library Quarterly, “What Do Librarians Think About Marketing?  A Survey of Public Librarian’s Attitudes Toward The Marketing Of Library Services” and I will present my critique in two parts: “Summary of Research” and “Critical Evaluation.”  In the “Summary of Research” section I will include a brief summary of the author’s thesis statement and finding, methodology, significance of findings, and qualifications of the study.  Next, for the “Critical Evaluation” section I will evaluate the overall contribution of the study and summarize how I think the study could have been improved in terms of research methodology (i.e., sampling, generalizability, etc.) what I learned, and finally, I will conclude with my personal thoughts on LIS research and how my critique of this material will help shape my future assessments of LIS articles and research.

Summary of Research

Author’s Thesis Statement and Finding

     The purpose of this study was to identify attitudes of public librarians toward the marketing of library services and relate these attitudes to selected independent variables (Shontz, Parker, and, Parker 63).  To achieve this purpose, Shontz, Parker, and Parker surveyed members of the New Jersey Library Association with a questionnaire on marketing and the findings of the survey illustrated how all respondents had a positive attitude toward marketing, but that there were some differences between the subgroups.  For example, more positive attitudes toward marketing were expressed by library administrators, librarians who had taken a course or workshop in marketing, and those who perceived marketing to be a high priority in their libraries (Shontz, Parker, and, Parker 63).

     This study was conducted within the context of the following: marketing in the library community is still somewhat contentious and although, marketing among librarians has increased in recent years, there is still a debate over the use of marketing among librarians.  For example: some librarians associate the word “marketing” with profit based institutions and feel it is inappropriate or unnecessary for libraries to use this practice. Additionally, recent research has shown that librarians are interested in marketing, but have a narrow understanding of the marketing concept. 

Methodology

     The method in which the survey was conducted was as follows: public librarians were given a questionnaire on their attitudes toward marketing and the marketing of library services.  The questions in the survey addressed involvement in marketing, attitudes toward marketing, and how attitudes were influenced by selected independent variables.  The respondents answered the questions using a seven-point scale to score their level of agreement or disagreement with statements about marketing.  To conclude the survey, the last section consisted of questions addressing various independent variables. 

     The face validity of the questionnaire items was determined by pre-testing and reviewing the questionnaire with library students, practicing librarians and faculty members in the library science and marketing (Shontz, Parker, and Parker 66).   The New Jersey Library Association (NJLA) provided a list of its members for the survey mailing list and in February 2001, 1,198 questionnaires were sent out to individual members of the NJLA.  For this study, only public librarians were included in the data analysis.  The main dependent variables were the attitudes that librarians have toward marketing and the independent variables were the individual librarian’s characteristics.  Also, community characteristics (population size and income level) were considered in this study.

Significance of Findings

     In their questionnaire of forty-four items related to attitude and knowledge concerning marketing the most important finding was that positive responses outweighed negative responses regarding attitudes concerning marketing.  Another important note concerning the findings is that although six hundred twenty three NJLA members completed the questionnaire, only four hundred fifteen of the respondents answers were considered as the other respondents were not public librarians; they were school librarians, etc.  Additionally, according to the questionnaire 95.3 percent of the respondents had not taken a course in marketing during their library education and 49.5 percent of respondents had never taken a course or workshop on marketing during the past five years.  Finally, it is also important to note that 74.9 percent reported being forty-six years old or older.    

     In order to reduce all of these responses to a manageable number of variables, factor analysis was used to construct three composite scales by combining similar and highly intercorrelated items (Shontz, Parker, and Parker 70).  The three composite scales were promarketing, antimarketing, and marketing knowledge and experience.  There was a correlation between promarketing and marketing knowledge and experience.  Those who had knowledge of marketing and used marketing in their library were more apt to respond positively with respect to marketing.  Also, two independent variables: years of experience, and number of years since the completion of their education correlated with promarketing attitudes.  In essence, librarians with more experience saw a need for marketing of library services.  Antimarketing attitudes were negatively correlated with marketing knowledge and experience.  Those who had a lack of understanding and knowledge of marketing techniques had negative attitudes about marketing.   Antimarketing was also inversely related community income, which may mean that libraries in lower income communities may not see the need, or have the resources, to market their services (Shontz, Parker, Parker 71).  Lastly, marketing knowledge and experience was positively correlated with years of library experience. 

Qualifications of the Study

     Marilyn L. Shontz, Jon C. Parker, and Richard Parker conducted the study “What Do Librarians Think About Marketing?”  Marilyn Shontz is an associate professor in the Department of Education/Foundations of Education at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey.  She received her M.L.S., from Case Western Reserve University (1967), and P.H.D., from Florida State University (1986).   Jon C. Parker is a librarian at Camden Free Public Library in Camden, New Jersey and he received a M.A. (librarianship) from Rowan University (2001).  Richard Parker is a professor of marketing and MBA program director at Rowan University in Glassboro, New Jersey.  He received a M.B.A. (marketing/management) from Rutgers University in (1983) and P.H.D. (sociology) from City University of New York (1980).  I was encouraged to note that Jon C. Parker was a practicing librarian and that Richard Parker had such a strong background in marketing.  In light of the above diverse qualifications I feel that these researchers were sufficiently qualified to conduct an effective study on marketing.

 Critical Evaluation

     Since there have been very few studies on marketing with regards to librarians, this study can be used as a model for developing further studies on marketing.   Following that line of thinking I would argue that more research needs to be conducted to evaluate the attitudes of librarians toward marketing.  As this study was conducted using only New Jersey Public librarians, I do not feel that it accurately portrays the average librarian’s knowledge of marketing, even though this particular region may have benefited.  Even the title of the article is misleading as it gives the reader the impression that a larger pool of respondents was included than just New Jersey Public librarians. 

     Coupled with my previous observations, these are my recommendations to improve this type of research: First, the study could have been improved by sampling a larger number of librarians from different regions in the United States.  Second, different types of librarians should be included in the study.  It may also be helpful to include graduate students in the study to illustrate future librarian’s knowledge and understanding of marketing or lack thereof.  Third, once marketing strategies have been implemented in a library, a study needs to be conducted to validate the need for marketing in libraries.  Fourth, more diversity in the age of the respondents would provide a broader spectrum of librarian’s knowledge and understanding levels with respect to marketing.  In this study the average age of the respondents was forty seven, which biased the survey towards the attitudes and opinions of that generation of librarians.  And my fifth and final recommendation is that the researchers need to consider using multi-mode survey techniques (email, website, or mail).  Multi-mode survey techniques can provide a faster response time and improve representation of the sample without biasing other results and when one uses email there is a higher rate of return.  

Conclusion    

     Evaluation of this study has enabled me to take the findings of Shontz, Parker and Parker and determine if they are also applicable with other research and opinions in the library community.  This semester I am also taking “Services in Libraries” with Dr. Weingand and throughout her course she has stressed the importance of “marketing” the library.  In that class I have learned the meaning of marketing in terms of librarianship and how it can benefit the library and that presenting library resources to customers is an important part of library services that can be conducted using marketing strategies.  With this is mind I would recommend identifying the feasibility of offering more marketing related classes in the MLISc graduate program as I feel that knowledge is power and by educating future librarians on marketing strategies they can plan more effectively for their libraries. 

          In summary, during the course of this critique I was able to learn three important aspects of critically evaluating a study or research.  First, I learned about statistical testing for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.  Second, I discovered that in order to validate a study the questionnaire needs to be pretested and reviewed prior to the study as this is an indicator that provides reliability for the study.   Third and lastly, I learned about the statistical technique of analysis variance or ANOVA. This is used to examine the relationships between the independent and the dependent variables in the study.  Although I have what I consider limited knowledge concerning marketing in libraries, I was able to understand the reasoning and importance of this study for the future of libraries and more importantly that conducting research is a timely project. When I evaluate research in the future I will now understand that although the findings of the survey are important, understanding the methodology of how the survey was conducted is just as important.

Works Consulted

Shontz, Mary, Jon C. Parker, and Richard Parker. “What Do Librarians Think About

     Marketing? A Survey Of Public Librarians’ Attitudes Toward The Marketing of Library       

     Services.” The Library Quarterly Jan. 2004: 63-84.

Weingand, Darlene. Administration of the Small Public Library. Chicago and London:

     American Library Association, 2001.

Welcome to Research Methods Resources on WWW. Ed. Mary Sue Stephenson. The University

     Of British Columbia School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies. 20 Oct. 2004

     < http://www.slais.ubc.ca/resources/research_methods/index.htm >