Friday, 20 April 2012
Work-life balance: is it possible?
The issue had come to the fore when seeking to discover what was considered an 'appropriate' amount of holiday for research students to take. No guidelines were available from the university or in the research students' handbook; instead, the term 'work-life balance' was used, which some students felt to be a vague and unhelpful term.
The group felt that 'holidays' and 'work-life balance' were actually quite separate concepts, and that guidelines on the former would be helpful, but that the latter was impossible to legislate for. Indeed, academic staff in the UK often have a notoriously poor work-life balance, despite having set amounts of annual leave. Moreover, the issue is complicated by the difficulty of defining what constitutes 'work' in academia. While some activities are obviously 'work', such as research, teaching and administration, what about checking email, social media, Second Life, or reading a relevant novel? Am I 'working' while writing this blog? It could further be argued that the primary role of academics engaged in research is (or should be) to think - an activity which is not measurable, and which cannot be switched on or off at will. If I sit in the department all day struggling with a thorny research problem, and then the solution comes to me later on in the pub, was I working a) while in the department; b) while in the pub; or c) both?
The group concluded that guidelines on an appropriate amount of holiday would be useful, and that supervisors should talk about this - and about work-life balance more generally - with their research students. This issue is important to well-being, and the university provides a helpful publication and training days for academics who need to signpost students to appropriate support services.
Monday, 12 March 2012
Quality management in academic libraries in Nigeria (by Halima St Egberongbe)
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
More on academic writing - Restoration bloggers?
One of the things that was not mentioned in Angharad's entry on blogs was the informality of the language. The relative freedom afforded by blogs allows ideas and thoughts to be presented without having to frame them according to the strictures associated with academic literature. However, I often wonder just when, how and why academic literature became subject to so much restraint. One of the many delights of the Internet is that it provides the opportunity to read documents that, a few years ago, would have been accesible only to hard-core archive addicts. Amongst these documents are early copies of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
I've reproduced two entries from the first issue. Apart from showing the breadth of interest of Robert Boyle (best known to GCSE students for his laws relating to pressure of gasses), they are also notable for the nature of their writing. They read far more like 17th Century blog entries than modern academic articles.
Monday, 20 February 2012
Narrative as an element of communication in cultural heritage organisations (by Paula Goodale)
- Find out more about general users’ information behavior, using survey and observational methods.
- Establish the current state of play on the use of narrative, using desk research and interviews with museum personnel.
- Explore which are the most promising opportunities for incorporating narrative into user engagement, using open-ended and creative tasks in different systems (including PATHS and one or more social media sites), both individually and collaboratively.
- Evaluate the outcomes of the task-based activities giving consideration to qualitative measures such as satisfaction with the results, perceived outcomes, quality of the user experience, etc.
- Analyze the content of the narratives produced via task-based activities to understand more about the nature of narratives produced by general end users compared with those produced by experts.
Friday, 10 February 2012
Surveying online survey tools (by Angharad Roberts)
Following on from Andrew's blogpost about online surveys, yesterday's session provided an excellent opportunity to discuss people's experiences of different online survey tools. I presented a document (which can be viewed below or here) describing a range of online tools, evaluated according to four criteria which seemed important to me: compliance, compatibility, clarity and cost.
Compliance relates in part to the important issue of data protection, raised at the end of last month's meeting. EU Data Protection laws say data shouldn't be transferred to countries outside the European Economic Area, unless the country it is transferred to has equivalent laws. US laws are not regarded as providing the same level of protection (9 countries which do are listed here) but it does have some of the biggest data storing servers, including Google and SurveyMonkey. There is something called the US-EU safe harbor framework, which enables US-based companies to show that their data protection procedures meet EU standards. Google complies with this, as do many big online survey companies. Another compliance issue is to do with the accessibility of the survey - for example, does it work with screen reader technology which may be used by people with visual impairments?
Compatibility relates to the options a survey tool provides for how data can be exported - can it be downloaded directly into SPSS, or would it be available as an Excel spreadsheet?
Clarity - for me, this mostly relates to question types and particularly so-called skip logic questions. I have a number of different potential target audiences and although I want to ask most of them the same questions, there are some questions I only want to ask one particular group. Skip logic allows for different pathways through the same survey, depending on answers to particular questions.
Cost - there lots of free versions of survey tools but these often have very limited functionality. I've set these out in the limitations column of my document. For example, SurveyMonkey just allows 10 questions and 100 responses in each free survey. Export options may be limited in some free tools as well. So I may need a paid for survey tool, which means it's helpful to know what the range of potential costs could be, including potential discounts for academic / research use (SurveyGizmo offers a free student account, but badges these surveys with a SurveyGizmo student research logo - which may not be the image I want to project). It also raises the question: are there survey tools in use within the department which it might be useful to know about?
This was followed by a very valuable group discussion about some of these issues. In response to a question from Alex Schauer, I clarified that most of these survey tools allowed for surveys in "all languages" or 40+ languages. I'm not sure whether these terms are used interchangably, with no survey tool appearing to list more than 59 supported languages - these figures seem to be related to the Unicode standards for supported language character sets. Bristol Online Surveys only supports 10 languages in addition to English (at extra cost); the free version of QuestionPro has no multi-language support (a point omitted from the version of the document I presented yesterday, but included in the copy linked to from this post). Barbara described problematic experiences with attempting to export data from survey tools, and suggested experimenting with the export process before choosing a tool to run the actual survey. Liz Chapman described the different approach to data protection displayed in one recent US survey ("we can't promise anything about your data...") and some of the limitations of SurveyMonkey, which may be addressed in one of the more expensive subscription versions. Mark Hall talked about his experiences of using Lime Survey, and the exciting prospect of an in-house survey tool, developed in the iSchool, which would potentially give iSchool researchers complete control of their survey data. Paula also described some of the more powerful features offered by QuestionPro.
You can view, download and print the summary document here or view this on Scribd:
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Surveying Universities: A Modest Proposal
The background
I am drawing near to the end of a project to look at the information behaviour of students at various stages of education; beginning with Key Stage 3 (11 to 14 year olds), and going all the way up to postgraduates.
A key part of the project involved surveying universities in the Midlands and the North of England. Between us, my colleague (Mary Crowder) and I approached 12 universities with a view to asking them to circulate our survey amongst students and staff. Responses to our request varied. All too often however, we got one of two answers.
1) We were told that there was nobody in particular responsible for posting surveys and that we could try Computing Services, Students' Union, Marketing, Student Administration, or various local equivalents; or
2) They already had numerous questionnaires generated by their own staff and students and were concerned that people would get survey fatigue.
In the end, we got responses from students and staff at five universities. As an inducement, we offered to enter respondents into a prize draw, with the opportunity to win a £50 Amazon voucher. At each university, two vouchers were offered to students, and one to lecturers. The project therefore paid £750 in prizes. Since the response rate at one university was very low, some students and staff had an extremely high chance of winning.
The modest proposal
I presume that we are not alone in wishing to learn about the views of university staff and students across the UK. We are also not the only project to offer the inducement of a prize draw. I suggest therefore, that UK research councils with an interest in educational research should consider setting up a central site on which RCUK-funded researchers can post surveys. Completion of a survey would qualify a student to enter a draw with prizes provided from Research Council funds. To enter the site, it would be necessary to log on with an .ac.uk email address.
So far (according to the blogger statistics) this blog has been viewed 3000 times by readers in 16 countries. If anyone has knowledge of such a scheme within their country, or can suggest ways to elicit opinions of students and staff across Higher Education, I would very much appreciate receiving their comments on this subject.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
"Not unfriendly, just unsociable" - Making the iSchool more sociable
Doyle (2000) notes that "Survey after survey shows that employees value having a friendly working atmosphere...The Harvard Business Review reports that Sears found that a 5 per cent rise in staff satisfaction leads to a 0.5 rise [sic] in productivity."
As evidence of the fact that people value work for reasons other than income, Doyle cites an article from the Guardian (2000), which reported the case of Mr Fullerton-Ballantyne, who won £1.89 million in the National Lottery. He initially quit work, but then returned to buy the company that had employed him so that he could carry on working there. Presumably he missed his colleagues. Certainly that was the case for Nicky Cusack, who in 2011, returned to her job in Asda after winning £2.49 million.
Not only are sociable workplaces more desirable and possibly more productive, there is also the fact that, despite all the advances in information technology, much exchange of information still takes place face to face; and if people work in a setting where face never meets face, it has negative effects on the exchange of information and ideas.
When Professor Levy's question was put to the assembled researchers however, their initial response was to ask "Do we want to be more sociable?" Some voiced the concern that, in an effort to encourage sociability, events might be organized which would lead to embarrassing gatherings, where people stood talking to their usual associates, while looking around covertly, trying not to catch the eyes of people to whom they thought they should be speaking.
The iSchool, it was felt, is a reasonably friendly place - just not a sociable one. When forced into social situations, we don't always know what to say to each other. What was needed, people thought, were activities appropriate to the aims and objectives of the iSchool, but which provided scope for social interaction.
An example of such an activity was given by some of the newer PhD students. They had enjoyed their induction, and had created an email list enabling them to maintain contact with others from their cohort. Some of the more established PhD students expressed regret that they had not been given similar treatment when they first arrived at the iSchool.
A second example discussed had been provided earlier in the day by Alex Schauer. At lunch time he gave a seminar about the findings of his PhD project to date. At the end he announced that, to mark the festive season, he had brought a stollen. People gathered round the cake. Some stayed and chatted; others grabbed a piece and departed. Ana Guedes Rosa recalled that, according to a marketing course she had once attended, people linger longer if there are drinks available. "Ah!" exclaimed the gathering, "Give us wine and we'll socialize!". Ana countered by noting that hot drinks are better because hotter drinks lead to longer lingering.
Applying analysis and synthesis to the discussion therefore, it becomes clear that an answer to the question:
"What types of activities should we be organising to help make the iSchool a more sociable place?" is
"Ones in which mulled wine is served".
Doyle, J., 2000. New community or new slavery. The Industrial Society
Rucci, A. J., Kirn, S.P., Quinn, R.T. (1998), “The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain atSears,” Harvard Business Review, 76 (January-February), 82-97
Spence, R., 2000. "How would you handle being rich?" Guardian, 03/06/2000