what do patrons really do in music libraries? an ethnographic approach...

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 04:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Music Reference Services QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmus20

What Do Patrons Really Do in MusicLibraries? An Ethnographic Approach toImproving Library ServicesDavid W. Hursh a & Christine B. Avenarius ba Music Library, East Carolina University , Greenville , NorthCarolina , USAb Department of Anthropology, East Carolina University , Greenville ,North Carolina , USAPublished online: 16 May 2013.

To cite this article: David W. Hursh & Christine B. Avenarius (2013) What Do Patrons Really Do inMusic Libraries? An Ethnographic Approach to Improving Library Services, Music Reference ServicesQuarterly, 16:2, 84-108, DOI: 10.1080/10588167.2013.787522

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2013.787522

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmus20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10588167.2013.787522

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10588167.2013.787522

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Music Reference Services Quarterly, 16:84–108, 2013Published with license by Taylor & FrancisISSN: 1058-8167 print/1540-9503 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10588167.2013.787522

What Do Patrons Really Do in Music Libraries?An Ethnographic Approach to Improving

Library Services

DAVID W. HURSHMusic Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA

CHRISTINE B. AVENARIUSDepartment of Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville,

North Carolina, USA

Traditional approaches to gathering the data necessary to makeinformed decisions aimed at improving library services begin withlibrarians identifying issues they think may be in need of investi-gation. The ethnographic approach, on the other hand, allows theactions of library patrons to identify the issues of importance totheir specific patron population. For this to occur, librarians mustbecome participant observers, carefully recording what patrons doand then using the mixed methods approach to verify the findings.In this study, investigators based the methods they employed on the“sweeps” concept—an observation technique gaining popularity incurrent-day patron observation studies.

KEYWORDS music libraries, ethnography, patron activities,observation, sweeps, mixed methods, collaborative learning

Improving services is what librarians are all about. Of course, doingthat requires them to first determine what needs improving—a processthat typically involves activities such as number-gathering (e.g., circulationstatistics and gate counts), face-to-face patron interviews, surveys, and obser-vation, all of which individually have shortcomings. If the source of thedata is reliable, number-gathering is a highly accurate evaluation method.

© David W. Hursh and Christine B. AvenariusReceived: 15 October 2012; Revised: 13 February 2013; Accepted: 13 February 2013.Address correspondence to David W. Hursh, Music Library, East Carolina University,

Greenville, NC 27858, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

84

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4

What Do Patrons Really Do in Music Libraries? 85

Unfortunately, this method cannot be used to address all inquiries, andit lacks the human element that brings life to research. Face-to-face inter-views and surveys may introduce the human element, but can be misleadingbecause people often say one thing and do another. Likewise, observationintroduces the human element, but it does so in a limited way when carriedout in the traditional fashion, which centers on defining the behaviors onwhich observers will focus their attention.1 Doing this, however, means thatany number of other behaviors, knowledge of which could prove usefulto improving services, will be ignored. Though admittedly more challeng-ing and time consuming, adopting an ethnographic approach to evaluatinglibrary services results in a more complete and accurate picture than ispossible with traditional library evaluation methods.

Rooted in the field of anthropology, ethnography is a holistic researchapproach that places emphasis on allowing the studied population to speakfor itself. This is most often accomplished through participant observation—an observation method that involves having the observer become, to a lesseror greater extent, part of the studied demographic group. Typically, thatgroup’s voice is heard as a result of participant observers beginning witha blank sheet or screen and recording what they see, and later collatingthose observations into common categories (i.e., allowing research topicsand findings to emerge from the data rather than aiming to prove or disprovea preconceived notion). In order for the results to truly reflect the studiedpopulation’s voice, participant observers must balance participation in thatpopulation’s activities with the detachment necessary to make meaningfulobservations. There are obvious difficulties with achieving this balance, andthese difficulties have led ethnographers to holistically combine qualitativeand quantitative methods of data collection and analysis in order to verifythe findings that present themselves. In the United States, the ethnographicapproach is most often used to study subcultures, of which library patronsare an example. This article presents the findings of the first publishedethnographic study of music library patron activities as implemented at EastCarolina University (ECU).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Although the study being reported in this article is the first publishedethnographic study conducted in a music library, there have been a numberof such studies done in the broader arena of library and information science.Some of the articles reporting on these studies are peripheral with regard toeither their subject matter or the fact that, while they initially appear to bereporting on a study, they are simply theoretical pieces espousing the useof ethnographic methodologies to investigate specific library topics. The for-mer is represented by a study of the settlement experiences and information

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4

86 David W. Hursh and Christine B. Avenarius

practices of Afghan youth new to the Toronto, Canada, area.2 Only half ofthat study is information-related, and that portion deals with perhaps a lowerlevel of information—the type absorbed by an individual in order to becomepart of a new society—somewhat outside the realm of traditional informationscience.

The second group of peripheral articles theorizes about the use ofethnographic methodologies to (1) study the information-seeking behav-iors of “small world lives”;3 (2) culturally map populations to assist withstudy sampling, survey design, and focus group selection in assessing digitallibrary services;4 and (3) study librarian-supported collaborative learning.5 Inthe latter article, Epperson references two other articles, one a rebuttal to theother. The first, by Sandstrom and Sandstrom, makes strong claims regardingthe use and misuse of ethnographic methods by library and information sci-ence researchers, which are challenged by Thomas and Nyce in their rebuttalarticle.6 This important debate aside, the Sandstrom article is valuable in thatit discusses a number of ethnographic studies in library and information sci-ence. These discussions of specific studies indicate that prior to 1995 mostethnographic information science studies were centered on human informa-tion needs, information-seeking practices, success of reference transactions,and patron satisfaction with reference services.

The literature review for this article both supports the Sandstrom article’sfindings with regard to study topics prior to 1995 and reveals a smattering ofsimilar studies after. These deal with topics such as the information needs ofuniversity psychology professors7 and life scientists,8 and the research paperwriting processes of undergraduate students at the University of Rochester.9

Another study, a library science doctoral dissertation, deals with patron use ofcollaborative spaces in academic libraries.10 Although Silver claims his studyis ethnographic, it is not. Initial data for the study were gathered utilizing apredetermined checklist of patron activities for observation purposes ratherthan remaining open to the entire range of activities and later categorizingthem. Though not truly ethnographic, this study is representative of a groupof studies that have bearing on the research being reported in this article.

SWEEPING THE LIBRARY

Silver’s study is part of a growing interest in studying the ways in whichpatrons utilize library spaces, and the observation method he utilized, knownas “sweeps,” is a major component of such studies. The sweeps methodemploys unobtrusive scheduled visual sweeps of predetermined zoneswithin a building complex for the purpose of recording the personal charac-teristics, behaviors, and activities of individuals in that complex at a specificpoint in time. As conceived, this technique is not inherently ethnographic.The developers utilized a predetermined checklist of activities to record

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


what they saw, and all subsequent replications in the published literaturedo the same. The technique is, however, important to this study becauseinvestigators used an ethnographic adaptation of the sweeps concept togather initial data and then verified those data with the traditional sweepsconcept.

The sweeps method was first applied in the fields of urban planningand architecture to study the ways in which people make use of largepublic spaces, specifically an office complex and a shopping mall inMontreal, Quebec.11 Drawing on this model, a doctoral candidate in geog-raphy later employed the technique in his indoor landscape study of ashopping mall in Edmonton, Alberta.12 In 1999, Hopkins joined with infor-mation science professor Gloria Leckie to study the social roles that thelarge central public libraries in Toronto, Ontario, and Vancouver, BritishColumbia, play in the lives of the citizens that use them.13 In this case,the sweeps concept was part of a triangulated methodology that alsoincluded face-to-face interviews and patron surveys. This first library appli-cation of the sweeps concept has become the model for a number ofsubsequent library studies. It was first replicated in 2006 to study patronactivities in six libraries (three in urban environments and three in smalltowns) in Halifax, Nova Scotia.14 In 2007, an adapted version of thesweeps portion of Leckie and Hopkins’s triangulated method was uti-lized to study patron activities in a combination public/academic libraryin Drammen, Norway.15 Two doctoral dissertation studies—the one byHoward Silver (2007), discussed earlier, and another by Linda Most16—also utilized the sweeps method. Most’s dissertation centered on patronactivities in a rural north Florida public library. Her study replicatedthe exact methodology of the Toronto/Vancouver and Nova Scotia stud-ies, but Silver’s study utilized only two prongs—sweeps and face-to-faceinterviews.

METHODOLOGY

Like Silver’s study, the current inquiry involved only two of the data-gathering methods used in previous sweeps-related patron activity studies.Unlike Silver’s study, the two methods utilized were observations andpatron surveys rather than observations and face-to-face interviews. Thestudy design was double-pronged, with the second prong having two sub-parts. The first prong was exploratory in nature and featured an originalethnographic adaptation of the sweeps method, dubbed “flip books” by thestudy’s investigators. In true ethnographic fashion, this method allowed ECUmusic library patrons’ actions to speak for themselves. The second prongwas explanatory in nature and served to both verify and acquire additionalviews of the findings and topics that rose to the top during the first prong.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


This was accomplished through the use of (1) the classic sweeps methodand (2) surveys called “cards.”

Part I: The Exploratory Phase

Study investigators borrowed the term “flip books” from the world ofanimation in which books composed of a series of images on individualpages are flipped in rapid succession to create the illusion of movement.As a data-gathering method, flip books are essentially an intensified versionof the sweeps method in that they employ multiple close-succession sweeps.The close-succession aspect of the flip book method separates it from thetraditional sweeps method by providing a moving picture–like view of activ-ities over a shorter period of time. Each flip book consisted of five sweepsmade at five-minute intervals. In order to compare activity in the variousareas of the library, the 3,500 square foot, 36-seat facility was divided intofour zones: (1) technology lab, (2) stacks, (3) reference area, and (4) studycarrels (see map included in Figure 3). A single sweep, which took about fiveminutes, involved viewing and making observations about each of the fourzones. For a period of twenty minutes, observers no sooner completed onesweep than they had to begin all over again. Forty flip book observationswere conducted over a four-week period from November 1 to December4, 2010. During that time, observers created at least one twenty-minute flipbook for each two-hour time period the library was open (e.g., 8 to 10 a.m.,10 to 12 a.m., etc.) and recorded the activities of 309 patrons.

In order to make these flip book observations ethnographically sound,an additional adaptation was necessary. Observers had to set aside predeter-mined definitions and checklists of personal characteristics, behaviors, andactivities. Instead, they were given a form listing the four library zones andproviding space under each to describe patrons and their activities (Figure 1).In order to gather demographic information, observers were asked to indi-cate the apparent gender, ethnicity, and age of each subject in the descriptionarea. They were given the freedom to choose just a few patrons in an areato follow for the duration of the flip book if the number of people in thatarea was so great that making accurate observations was difficult or impos-sible. The absence of a checklist meant that participant observers had to beinstructed to (1) not ignore some things they might normally ignore (i.e.,remain open to the full range of possible characteristics, behaviors, andactivities) and (2) clearly and consistently record what they saw.

The flip book portion of the study involved the use of a specific typeof participant observer, the complete participant. Complete participants arethose who make their observations without revealing what they are doing.17

In this study, the complete participants were librarians, library assistants,and selected student assistants. This being the case, they were easily ableto record their observations unnoticed while staffing the reference desk,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4

FIG

UR

E1

Firs

ttw

opag

esofflip

book

dat

a-ga

ther

ing

tool.

89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


investigating a missing journal issue, or between check-outs at the circu-lation desk. Of course, there are ethical concerns when observing andrecording information about people’s activities without their knowledge. Thisstudy, however, falls squarely into Bernard’s definition of passive deceptionbecause no information was recorded that could later be used to identifyspecific individuals, and there was no manipulation of the subjects to getthem to act in certain ways.18

Part II: The Explanatory Phase

Once the flip book data were entered into the Statistical Product andService Solutions (SPSS) software,19 investigators collated and analyzed thedata using both qualitative and quantitative methods. They first used thegrounded theory approach, a qualitative method of identifying recurringthemes in the descriptive text produced by observers,20 to separate the mean-ingful data from the chaff. For example, a definition for multitasking emergedafter grounded theory analysis of observers’ comments indicated that a sub-stantial number of patrons were described in ways that suggested they weresimultaneously engaging in more than one activity. Combinations of activ-ities were included in this definition, whether the presence of multitaskingwas unequivocal (e.g., typing on a laptop while listening to an iPod) orimplied (e.g., texting on her cell phone with an open laptop in front ofher). Once definitions were assigned to all observed activities, the SPSS soft-ware was used to quantitatively verify the validity of this data, predominantlythrough the use of the chi-squared test. This test compares the observed val-ues with the expected values, which are based on the distribution patternwithin the data. As a result of this mixed-methods approach to analysis, fiveareas worthy of further study rose to the top:

1. Mode of activity (solo activity versus ensemble activity)2. Mode of conversation (social chatting versus study discussion)3. Electronic technology and its correlation to multitasking4. Amount of time spent in the library5. Volume and types of activities in the various zones of the library

Sweeps

After considering these findings, investigators decided to conduct a classicsweeps project (complete with a checklist of specific activity categories) toinvestigate and explain the first three items in the list of areas deemed worthyof closer inspection. As with the flip books, the sweeps data gathering toolcontained sections for each of the four library zones. However, the open

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


spaces under each zone (where flip book observers recorded their obser-vations in their own words) were replaced by gridded checklists in whichobservers could indicate by gender the occurrence of the specific activitiesbeing investigated. Information about ethnicity and age was not collectedbecause analysis of part-one data found no trends with regard to thosedemographic parameters. The checklists were divided into three sections.The first dealt with mode of activity, the second with mode of conversation,and the third with the correlation between electronic technology and multi-tasking. The third section was the most challenging because it needed to dothe following: (1) make data collection and analysis as efficient and accurateas possible, (2) further explore the various ways in which patrons combinedtasks, and (3) further explore the effect that electronic-based tasks had onthe frequency with which patrons combined tasks.

Investigators addressed the first requirement by combining and labelingthe most frequently observed tasks from part one of the study into the small-est number of groups that would still provide sufficient detail when analyzed.To this end, they began with the four most-observed activities from the flipbook portion of the study (i.e., reading, writing, computer use, and portabledevice use). Investigators reasoned that reading and writing would combinenicely given the fact they both involve paper and text. The words “using printmaterials” seemed to best describe these activities. Investigators chose to notcombine the two electronic technology-related activities, because these activ-ities were those that had an effect on multitasking and determining the effectof each was important.

Discussions about combining reading and writing in this way resultedin concerns about the association that readers of this article would makewith the traditional library definition of “print materials”—a definition thatexcludes writing. This led investigators to thoroughly consider what thewritten word and printed text truly are—types of technology. The writtenword involves writing technology, whether feather pen and parchment ormechanical pencil and acid-free paper; and printed text involves printingtechnology, whether Gutenberg’s printing press or the modern-day laserprinter. Investigators further reasoned that although the “using print mate-rials” activity category involved technologies, those technologies should belabeled as “non-electronic technologies” because neither electricity nor bat-teries were necessary on the part of end-users. While other types of activitiesobserved during the exploratory phase fell into the non-electronic technolo-gies category (e.g., use of paper cutters and hole punches), use of printmaterials was the most frequently observed, and therefore worthy of furtherinvestigation. On the other hand, investigators considered technologies thatrequired electricity or batteries at the time of use to be “electronic technolo-gies.” Additional definitions—for concepts such as “chatting casually” and“using a portable device”—were necessary to ensure consistent and accuratefindings. To this end, investigators included a list of such definitions at the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


end of the data-gathering tool for easy reference on the part of observers(Figure 2).

A definition for multitasking is missing from this list because none wasneeded. In order to fulfill the last two requirements for the third section of thegridded checklist (i.e., exploring the ways in which patrons combined tasks,as well as the effect that electronic-based tasks had on the frequency withwhich patrons combined tasks), investigators created a checklist in whichthe three activity categories (i.e., using print materials, using a computer,and using a portable device) were combined in every possible way. Thisresulted in observers not having to make any decisions about exactly whatconstituted multitasking, thereby making a definition unnecessary.

The classic sweeps project was conducted for one week fromMarch 28 to April 3, 2011—a time during the spring semester comparable tothe first week of the flip book observations the previous semester. Sweepswere conducted by music librarians, library assistants, and selected studentassistants every hour on the half hour (i.e., 8:30, 9:30, etc.) in order to avoidclass changes that could affect the validity of the data, or at the very leastcomplicate the sweeping process. Observers completed a total of 79 sweepsand observed 503 patrons in the process.

Cards

As stated earlier, the second part of the explanatory phase used cards tocollect data aimed at gaining a better understanding of the last two areasdetermined to be worthy of further study (i.e., amount of time spent in thelibrary, and volume and types of activities in the various zones of the library).The term cards is actually short for time cards, and refers to the fact that oneof the main purposes of this data-gathering instrument was to record theentry and exit times of each patron in the same way a time card does whenan employee punches in and out on the job. Student assistants stationed atthe library entrance recorded the times in the designated spaces on the cardswhen distributing and collecting them.

The remainder of the instrument was a simple five-question structuredinterview in the form of a multiple-choice questionnaire intended to allowpatrons to self-identify the activities in which they engaged during a partic-ular visit. The first four questions collected data about (1) gender; (2) typesof electronic technologies used; (3) whether they spent their time in thelibrary alone, in a group, or both; and (4) whether they engaged in schoolwork/research, personal/leisure activities, or both. The final question pre-sented a map of the library and asked respondents to circle each libraryzone they entered during their visit (Figure 3). This portion of the study wasconducted during the week after the traditional sweeps portion, April 4 to 10,2011, a time comparable to the second week of the flip book observations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 2 First and last pages of traditional sweeps data-gathering tool.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 3 Time card data-collection tool.

the previous semester. The cards were distributed during all library hours,and 801 valid cards were collected.

FINDINGS

The study population was typical of that found in most academic musiclibraries at medium to large state universities: (1) music students and faculty,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


(2) other university students and faculty, (3) regional music professionals(e.g., school and college music educators, church musicians, and freelancemusicians), and (4) regional music lovers. The population was predominantlystudents, and for this reason the typical member was 18–25 years of age. Withregard to the gender distribution recorded during the three parts of the study,women on average outnumbered men 56 percent to 44 percent, reflectingcontemporaneous ECU student demographics. Ethnicity data were gatheredonly during the flip book portion of the study, during which 80 percent of thedescribed individuals were judged to be white, 16 percent black, 3 percentAsian, and 1 percent Latino. See Table 1 for a cross-tabulation of gender andethnicity.

Modes of Activity and Conversation

Of the five areas that rose to the top during the initial exploratory part ofthe study, two (i.e., solo activity versus ensemble activity and social chattingversus study discussion) were deemed by investigators to be related in thatthe interaction taking place during group activity was the equivalent of studydiscussion. This being the case, the results for these two areas clearly indi-cated a solo activity preference on the part of ECU music library patrons, inthat observers used language that indicated 239 of the 309 observed patrons(77 percent) were alone. Only eight patrons (3 percent) were considered byobservers to be interacting as part of a group (i.e., studying together), andtherefore also engaged in study discussion. The remaining 20 percent werejudged to be chatting casually.

Distribution of solo activity across days and times of the day waspervasive, because it was overwhelmingly the predominant mode of activity.In addition, this activity mode’s distribution was even—patrons neitherfavored any day or days over others, nor did they favor certain times of theday over others with regard to when they chose to engage in solitary activity.Because only eight patrons were judged to be studying together, insufficientdata existed to draw any conclusions about day-of-the-week and time-of-day patterns as they pertained to both group study and study discussion.The opposite was true for casual chatting. Casual chatters were statistically

TABLE 1 Flip Book Distribution of Gender by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Male Female Total

White 95 (32%) 148 (49%) 243 (81%)Black 33 (11%) 14 (5%) 47 (16%)Asian 6 (2%) 2 (0.6%) 8 (2.6%)Hispanic 0 3 (1%) 3 (1%)Sum 134 (44%) 167 (56%) 301 (100%)∗

∗Missing data on ethnicity and gender for eight patrons (N = 309).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


more likely than expected to chat on Mondays than on any other day ofthe week, perhaps because they desired to catch up after the weekend. Thiscorrelation was highly significant at .00.21 As far as the time of day is con-cerned, patrons were more likely to chat between the 8:00 and 10:00 a.m.and noon and 2:00 p.m. time slots, regardless of the day. This correlationwas, however, only slightly significant at .048.

Data dealing with solo versus ensemble activity gathered during theexplanatory portion of the study resulted in contours similar to those of thedata gathered during the exploratory portion. The first part of the explana-tory portion (i.e., the traditional sweeps) indicated that 85 percent of patronswere identified by observers as being engaged in solitary activity (versus77 percent in the exploratory portion), and 10 percent were identified asbeing engaged in group activity (versus 3 percent). The second part of theexplanatory portion (i.e., the cards) resulted in 81 percent of patrons identi-fying themselves as engaging in solitary activity and 19 percent as engagingwith others during their visit.

With regard to social versus study talking, 16 percent were identi-fied during the traditional sweeps as chatting casually in comparison to20 percent during the flip book sweeps. On the other hand, 10 percentof traditional-sweeps patrons were identified as engaging in study discus-sion in comparison to 3 percent of flip-book sweeps patrons. The activitiesin which a patron engages during their visit are closely aligned to the typeof talk in which they engage. For this reason, the card portion of the studyasked patrons to indicate whether they studied, engaged in leisure activity,or both. The majority of patrons (54 percent) studied, 27 percent played, and19 percent engaged in both activities. Similar proportions existed, regardlessof whether patrons occupied their time in the library alone or with others.Of those patrons who indicated they were alone, 55 percent studied, 25 per-cent played, and 20 percent did both. Of those who indicated they werewith others, 52 percent studied, 32 percent played, and 16 percent did both.

The main conclusion about activity and conversation modes is that ECUmusic library patrons overwhelmingly preferred solitary engagement. In eachof the three parts of the study, at least three-quarters of the patrons preferredthat activity mode. This finding matches that of the first triangulated, sweeps-based library study mentioned in the literature review.22 As with the currentstudy, this 1999 inquiry found that at least three-quarters of the patrons atthe large central public libraries in Toronto and Vancouver preferred solitaryengagement (78 percent and 76 percent, respectively). The 2006 replicationof this study told a story of mixed preferences tied to the type of library.23 Thepatrons of two of the three large urban Canadian libraries examined in thisstudy preferred solitary activity, but only one of the two even approached thethree-quarters level with 74 percent. On the other hand, the patrons of twoof the three small, suburban Canadian libraries examined in the same studypreferred group engagement, and overwhelmingly so with one reporting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


92 percent of its patrons preferring this activity mode. The 2007 replicationfound that only 45 percent of the student portion of a combination publicand academic library in Norway preferred to occupy their time alone.24 Thepreference for group engagement among the student patrons of this libraryis in line with the current popularity of collaborative learning centers inAmerican academic libraries, but is in direct opposition to the preferenceobserved in ECU’s arts-specific library. Perhaps the overwhelming preferencefor solo engagement in this type of library is an extension of the solitarynature of the creative process. This is understandable, given the fact thatcreative expression is personal and each personality seeks to express itsindividuality.

Although the three data collection methods arrived at the same con-clusion with regard to the preferred activity mode, each contributed to thatconclusion in a unique way. Though similar, the flip book method and thetraditional sweeps method contributed differently by virtue of the way datacollectors recorded their observations. Although more time consuming, thefact the flip book method required observers to record what they saw in theirown words no doubt resulted in observers evaluating more carefully whatpeople seated together were doing before they judged them to be a group(i.e., they were less likely to indicate group activity unless they saw interac-tion of some sort between two or more individuals seated at the same table).On the other hand, the traditional sweeps with their quick-and-dirty check-lists no doubt resulted in observers recording more group activity becausethe checklists enabled them to make less-discerning visual sweeps. The obvi-ous conclusion is that flip books are more accurate. On the other hand, thesweeps allowed for the collection of more data than would have been fea-sible with the flip-book method. In the end, even though the percentageof group activity recorded with the sweeps was three times that of the flipbook method, both were, relatively speaking, low percentages. As such, theyverify the fact that group activity was very low during the time of the study.

The cards contributed another dimension to the inquiry by asking thepatrons themselves to serve as observers. This approach revealed that whilepatrons preferred to spend their time in the library alone, they were notexclusively engaged in study activities when alone. To the contrary, theyspent nearly the same amount of time in solitary leisure activity.

Technology and Multitasking

Part one data indicated that observers saw 8 percent of observed patronsusing no technology (e.g., sleeping) and 17 percent using print technolo-gies. Sixty-four percent used one of the following electronic technologies:library desktop computers (42 percent), private laptops (17 percent), andportable devices (5 percent). Among library computer users, there was apreference for PCs over Macs, though this was certainly affected by the fact

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


the library had four times more PCs than Macs at the time of the study.Investigators considered the remaining 11 percent of activities—though theyinvolved various types of non-electronic and electronic technologies (e.g.,paper cutters and copy machines)—to be so diverse and under-representedthat they could only be grouped together as miscellaneous activities.

When considering the trio of triangulated, sweeps-based studies men-tioned earlier as part of the activity modes discussion, the strong patronpreference for electronic technology use in this study appears to be the con-tinuation of a trend. The earliest of the three studies found that patrons ofthe central public libraries in Toronto and Vancouver used print technolo-gies more than electronic ones.25 Understandably, older patrons were lesslikely to use electronic technologies, but even among patrons less than thirtyyears of age, reading and writing far outranked computer use (64 percent vs.17 percent). The next study found that the patrons at all six of the urban andsuburban Canadian public libraries studied used computers at least twice asmuch as they read, and sometimes several times more.26 The last of the threestudies found that the student portion of a combination public/academiclibrary in Norway used print media 32 percent of the time and personalcomputers 43 percent of the time.27 Not surprisingly, in the decade betweenthe earliest of these studies and the current one, the print to electronic ratiodid an about-face.

Returning to the current study, the distribution of technology use byday of the week was mostly even. There were, however, some interestingoccurrences: (1) copy machine use peaked on Fridays; (2) private laptopswere used most often on Mondays and Thursdays; and (3) library computerssaw the most use on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. The increasedlikelihood of library computer use on Fridays is perhaps the most noteworthyobservation because the library is only open for nine hours on Fridays, but isopen for fourteen hours on the other weekdays. This likelihood and the otherlate-week heavy distributions are not surprising, given the human tendencyto procrastinate and, therefore, find it necessary to work more near the endof the week in order to be free on the weekend.

While there was no ethnicity effect with regard to equipment use, therewas a high effect (.001) in the distribution by gender. Although women wereless likely than men to use technology in general, they were more likely touse one specific type of technology—the smartphone.

With regard to flip-book multitasking data, ECU music library patronspreferred single-tasking to multitasking: 56 percent were observed engagingin the former and 44 percent the latter. Patrons were more likely to single-task on Wednesdays and to multitask on Thursdays and Sundays. Theselikelihoods were, however, only tendencies with their probability indicatorof .06 falling just beyond the significance threshold. Likewise, there was noindication of significance in the multitasking frequency distribution by timeof day, with the number of multitaskers correlating evenly with the number

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


of patrons present in the library during each time slot. Simply put, whenthere were more people, there was more multitasking. Finally, no significantdifferences in the distribution of multitasking by gender or ethnicity existed;no matter their sex or race, patrons multitasked at an equal rate.

As stated earlier, analysis of the data gathered during the exploratoryportion of the study revealed a correlation between technology and multi-tasking. While multitasking was practiced not only by those using electronictechnology, users of two forms of electronic technology (private laptopsand iPods) were more likely to multitask than were those who includednon-electronic technologies in their multitasking activities. This correlationexisted regardless of gender, but female patrons had the greatest effect onthe skew because they were even more likely than male patrons to multitaskat their private laptops. This observation is significant at the .03 level.

This statistically significant correlation between two forms of electronictechnology and multitasking, combined with the fact that the majority ofpart-one patrons (64%) used at least one of three electronic technologies,led investigators to focus on electronic technology use in the second part ofthe study. During the part-two traditional sweeps, observers indicated that76 percent of patrons used either a computer (whether desktop or laptop)or a portable device. During the card survey, 85 percent of patrons indi-cated they used at least one of the three electronic technologies used mostduring the first part of the study—78 percent indicated using one, 5 per-cent indicated two, and 2 percent indicated three. While the card surveyallowed patrons to indicate whether they used more than one type of elec-tronic technology during the course of their visit, it did not (for the sake ofuser-friendliness) ask them to indicate whether they used those technologiessimultaneously, or in combination with other activities. Nonetheless, investi-gators felt that simply measuring multiple electronic technology use duringa single visit could possibly provide verification of the correlation betweenelectronic technologies and the increased likelihood of multitasking that pre-sented itself during the first phase of the study. With regard to the othersecond-phase measure of multitasking activity (i.e., the traditional sweeps),observers judged 33 percent of patrons to be multitasking in comparison tothe 44 percent judged to be doing so during the flip book sweeps.

The overriding conclusion regarding technology use and multitaskingamong ECU music library patrons is that electronic technology use has aneffect on multitasking. While multitasking is not the preferred method foraccomplishing tasks, it is still a prevalent one, and one that is more preva-lent when electronic technology is included in the multitasking mix. Whileall three data collection methods employed in this study proved to be usefulin reaching conclusions about modes of activity and conversation, only twoof them proved to be useful with regard to technology and multitasking. Theself-reporting card questionnaire was ineffective for gathering data on multi-tasking behavior. Questionnaires aimed at gathering such data would not be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


user-friendly, and even if they were, it would be difficult for patrons to accu-rately remember activities in which they so easily engage that they becomesecond nature. On the other hand, the two forms of unobtrusive observation(i.e., flip books and traditional sweeps) complemented each other nicely. Theflip book observations served to both introduce the practice of multitaskingand the context in which it occurred, and the traditional sweeps served tobetter record its frequency. Together the two methods revealed multitaskingto be not simply an occasional practice, but rather a pervasive and persis-tent one that is likely to increase as electronic technologies become moreprevalent.

Amount of Time Spent in the Library

Part I data were gathered at five-minute intervals over twenty-minute peri-ods. This meant that patrons could be present in any number of the fourfive-minute intervals. Interestingly, patrons were more likely to be presentfor just one (24 percent) or all four (35 percent) of the five-minute intervals.Although not significant, there were many more women than men who usedthe library for less than five minutes (63 percent vs. 37 percent). Because thelargest percentage of patrons was present for the entire twenty-minute obser-vation period, investigators questioned how long beyond that period theywere in the library. Unfortunately, the traditional sweeps method plannedfor part two of the study provided no way to gather this data. This resultedin the need for an additional data-collection tool during the explanatoryphase—the time cards.

The card tool provided the following data:

1. The majority of patrons (58 percent) spent twenty minutes or less in thelibrary.

2. Twenty-nine percent spent between twenty-one and sixty minutes in thelibrary.

3. Thirteen percent spent more than an hour, including 1 percent that spentmore than three hours.

4. Female patrons were more likely than men to stay in the library betweenone and three hours (significant at the .01 level).

With regard to how patrons parceled their time among the four libraryzones, the technology lab was far and away the most popular short-stayzone, with 68 percent of card patrons visiting that zone for 20 minutes or less.The next most-visited short-stay zone was the stacks, with 17 percent. Notsurprisingly, the reference area was favored during long-term visits. In fact,patrons who were in the library for twenty-one minutes to three hours weremore likely than expected to use this zone. This finding was highly significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


at the .001 level. Similarly, patrons who were in the library for one to threehours were more likely than expected to use the carrels, and in this case thesignificance was even higher at .000.

As reported earlier, patrons engaged in leisure and study activities atnearly the same rate. They were, however, more likely than expected toengage in leisure pursuits when they were in the library for twenty minutesor less. On the other hand, the longer patrons were in the library, the lesslikely they were to engage exclusively in leisure activity and the more likelythey were to engage in both. These findings were significant at the .003 level(Table 2).

The two data-collection methods that provided information about theduration of library use (i.e., flip books and cards) provided evidence thata large number of ECU music library patrons use the technology lab as ashort-term stopover between classes. In addition, the fact that patrons self-indicated that they more often engaged in leisure pursuits during these shortstops suggests they at times used the music library as a “pit stop” to refreshthemselves before heading to the next class. The placement of the musiclibrary in the school of music building certainly encourages such a use.Considering the core patron population of three hundred music students, thelarge number of short-term users also suggests the same patrons were visitingmultiple times in a single day. To know this for certain, oral interviews wouldbe an excellent study addition, as none of the data-gathering tools in thisstudy attempted to gather such data.

Volume of Activity in Individual Library Zones

A comparison of the volume of activity in each zone during each phase of thestudy makes clear the benefit of employing the ethnographic mixed-methodsapproach to research (Figure 4). Numbers that at first glance appeared to beincongruent made sense after investigators considered the different aims ofthe various data collection methods. The high percentages of technologylab use across all methods clearly indicate it was the most popular zone.However, while the flip book method’s 47 percent technology lab usagelevel was twice that of the next most-used flip book method zone (i.e., thestudy carrels with 24 percent), it was roughly one-third less than that of the

TABLE 2 Time Card Distribution of Study and Leisure Activity by Length of Time

Length of Time Spent in the Library Study Leisure Both

1 to 20 minutes 50 34 1621 to 60 minutes 55 23 2261 to 180 minutes 69 5 26More than 180 minutes 83 0 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 4 Volume of activity by zone.

average traditional sweeps and cards usage levels, which were recorded at75 percent and 65 percent, respectively. This difference resulted because flipbook observers tracked specific individuals over a period of twenty minutes.Even if an individual remained in the same zone for each of the five obser-vations in a twenty-minute period, they were recorded as being there onlyonce, and patrons who entered that same zone later in the twenty-minuteperiod were not necessarily recorded because observers were already busyfollowing patrons they chose earlier. In addition, the flip book sweeps onlyoccurred every two hours, whereas the traditional sweeps occurred everyhour and the cards recorded virtually all activity during all operating hours.

Similarly, the card data varied notably from that of the traditional sweepsmethod with regard to stacks use because the cards recorded all instances ofsuch use, but the traditional sweeps recorded it only when it happened tooccur as observers were making their hourly sweeps. The close-successionflip book observations increased the chances of seeing patrons in the stacks,and for this reason their usage percentage is more closely aligned with thatof the cards. The study carrel numbers presented a puzzle, and perhaps canonly be explained by an unusually high rate of change among study carrelpatrons during the flip book observation period. A percentage three timesthat recorded by the other two methods could occur if observers regularlyhad to choose new study carrel patrons to follow during their twenty-minuteflip book observations because the ones they were tracking left and newpatrons took their places.

Nonetheless, this comparison of the volume of activity by zone doesprovide two solid conclusions:

1. As already stated, the technology lab was the most popular zone.2. The reference area was the next most popular zone.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


Types of Activities in Individual Library Zones

The part-one correlation between the use of technology and the increasedlikelihood of multitasking discussed earlier also presented itself with regardto patron activity in individual library zones. In this case, however, the corre-lation extended to the zones in the music library that multitaskers were morelikely to occupy. Flip book observers judged study carrel and reference areapatrons to be engaged in multitasking more often than expected (40 percentand 25 percent more, respectively). Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of all flipbook carrel users engaged in multitasking, as did more than half (55 percent)of all reference area users. In the technology lab, however, only 37 percentof patrons juggled multiple tasks, and in the stacks just 12 percent did. Thesefindings were highly significant at the .00 level.

Three factors could have had an effect on this part-one phenomenon:

1. The absence of library computers in the carrels and the reference areameant patrons had to use their own devices in order to use technologywhile in those areas.

2. The carrels and reference area provided more space in which patronscould use multiple types of their own technology in combination withother activities.

3. Visits to the open stacks usually have only one motivation—to find a bookor score.

Despite the existence of these plausible explanations, it seems strangethat the desire to listen to a new opera aria on an iPod while using theWord software on a library computer and referencing a hardcopy book towrite a paper was not strong enough to motivate patrons to find ways tomultitask while in the technology lab. One possible explanation for thisfinding is the fact that, unlike the other zones, which can all be viewedwhile seated at the circulation and reference desks, data collectors had tophysically walk into the technology lab to monitor the patrons they weretracking. In order to make their activity less noticeable, they may have donethis too quickly to notice some types of multitasking activity. In the otherzones, they could sit and make more thorough assessments and still appearto be doing something else. Whatever the reason, these part-one findingscalled for further investigation during the explanatory phase of the study.

While the explanatory phase’s time card tool did not gather informa-tion about multitasking beyond the number of technological devices patronsused during a single visit, the traditional sweeps tool did gather comparabledata (Figure 5). The traditional sweeps found that carrel users were the mostlikely to multitask, with 40 percent of them doing so. This finding matchedthat of the flip books, in which carrel users were also the most likely to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


FIGURE 5 Comparison of multitasking by zone.

engage in multitasking activity, though at a considerably higher rate (62 per-cent). This agreement did not, however, extend to the second most-usedmultitasking zone. In the exploratory phase, 55 percent of reference areapatrons multitasked, but in the explanatory phase it dropped to just 20 per-cent. The technology lab, however, was consistent between both parts of thestudy (37 percent in the exploratory phase and 36 percent in the explana-tory phase). Understandably, stacks multitasking activity took last place inboth parts of the study, with virtually the same percentage occurring in each(12 percent and 10 percent, respectively).

This comparison supports the earlier finding regarding the preferenceof ECU music library patrons for solitary activity, in that the preferred placefor multitasking was the study carrel area—a space designed specifically forsolo engagement. This comparison also shifts the emphasis of the statisti-cally significant finding regarding the lack of interest in multitasking in thetechnology lab to the reference area. The identical low-end percentages ofmultitasking activity in the technology lab verified that zone as a less desir-able one for juggling multiple tasks, while the considerable difference inreference area multitasking between the two phases suggests a vacillationof patron preference. Considering the established preferences for (1) use ofthe technology lab as a short-term social pit-stop, (2) use of the carrel andreference areas for long-term activities, and (3) solitary engagement, perhapsthe group study tables in the reference area were a last resort when it cameto finding a place for long-term solitary activity—when the carrels were full,use of the reference area increased. This conclusion is in line with anecdo-tal evidence from ECU music library staff members who, upon hearing it,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


agreed that they do indeed regularly see widely spaced seating of patrons atthe reference area tables.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In review, this study resulted in seven meaningful conclusions, the majorityof which were in some way inter-related:

1. Solo activity is the preferred activity mode.2. Patrons spend nearly the same amount of time engaged in leisure activities

as in study regardless of activity mode.3. Single-tasking is preferred over multitasking.4. Multitasking increases when electronic technology is included in the

multitasking mix.5. The technology lab is favored for short-term visits involving less multi-

tasking.6. The carrels are favored for long-term visits involving considerable

multitasking.7. The reference area tables serve as overflow for carrel area solo activity.

While knowledge for the sake of knowledge is good, putting that knowl-edge to use is even better. In this case, ECU’s library administration is in thefinal stages of engaging a consultant to develop plans for expanding themusic library. The knowledge gained by allowing the native music librarypatrons’ voices to be heard resulted in four recommendations that will go along way toward informing the consultant’s designs:

1. Locate the technology lab near the entrance of the library to enable quickand easy access for patron pit-stops without disturbing long-term visitors.

2. Increase the number of carrels to allow for more solo engagement in anenvironment more conducive to that type of engagement.

3. Locate the carrels further into the library away from the technology laband in the lowest activity area to provide an environment more conduciveto long-term solo engagement.

4. Equip the carrels and reference area tables with electrical outlets tosupport electronic technology-centered multitasking.

In addition to these service-improvement recommendations, the musiclibrarian member of the team that made this inquiry recommends theethnographic mixed-methods approach to other librarians. However, thosecontemplating such a study should keep in mind that it is time-consuming

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


and cannot be done properly without the assistance of a trained ethno-grapher. The multiple layers of ethnographic research design make thepresence of an ethnographer necessary, but the assurance of more detailedand accurate results makes seeking out such an individual worthwhile.

Two unanticipated benefits resulted from this study. The first was thedevelopment of an esprit de corps among music library employees. The fac-ulty, staff, and advanced students who conducted the many observationsbonded as a result of sharing some of their observation experiences alongthe way. All student employees participated in the time card portion of thestudy by clocking patrons in when they entered the library and clockingthem out when they left. These card punchers were provided with a scriptto give them an idea of what to say to each patron when they handed thema survey. Thanks to the creativity of a few of these student assistants, theback side of one copy of the script was transformed into a comic strip dur-ing the week-long data-gathering period. The comic follows the adventuresof Monsieur Dinosaur as he foils the plans of evil space cats in their attemptto take over the world (Figure 6). The second benefit has yet to be realized,

FIGURE 6 Time cards script comic strip (color figure available online).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


but it entails outreach to our patron body in the form of a display case pre-senting the results of the study. In this way, those patrons who rememberthe time card portion of the study will know their input was put to good use,and those who have no knowledge of the study will know that ECU musiclibrary staff members are always working to improve library services—afterall, that’s what librarians are all about.

NOTES

1. Douglas Zweizig, Debra Wilcox Johnson, Jane Robbins, and Michele Besant, The Tell It! Manual:The Complete Program for Evaluating Library Performance (Chicago: American Library Association, 1996):118.

2. Lisa Quirke, “Exploring the Settlement Experiences and Information Practices of AfghanNewcomer Youth in Toronto,” Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 35, no. 4 (2011):345–353.

3. Victoria E. Pendleton and Elfreda A. Chatman, “Small World Lives: Implications for the PublicLibrary,” Library Trends 46, no. 4 (1998), http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=502794644&site=ehost-live.

4. Michael Seadle, “Project Ethnography: An Anthropological Approach to Assessing Digital LibraryServices,” Library Trends 49, no. 2 (2000): 370–385.

5. Terrence W. Epperson, “Toward a Critical Ethnography of Librarian-SupportedCollaborative Learning,” Library Philosophy and Practice 9, no. 1 (2006), http://jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=llf&AN=502894293&site=ehost-live.

6. Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom. “The Use and Misuse of AnthropologicalMethods in Library and Information Science Research,” Library Quarterly 65, no. 2 (1995): 161–199;Nancy P. Thomas and James M. Nyce, “Qualitative Research in LIS—Redux: A Response to a [Re]Turn toPositivistic Ethnography,” Library Quarterly 68, no. 1 (1998): 108–113.

7. Carolyn Eager and Charles Oppenheim, “An Observational Method for Undertaking User NeedsStudies,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 28, no. 1 (1996): 15–23.

8. Diana E. Forsythe, “Using Ethnography to Investigate Life Scientists’ Information Needs,” Bulletinof the Medical Library Association 86, no. 3 (1998): 402–409.

9. Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons, eds., Studying Students: The Undergraduate ResearchProject at the University of Rochester (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2007).

10. Howard Silver, “Use of Collaborative Spaces in an Academic Library,” Doctor of Arts thesis,Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science, 2007.

11. David Brown, Pieter Sijpkes, and Michael Maclean, “The Community Role of Public IndoorSpace,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 3 (1986): 161–172.

12. Jeffrey Hopkins, “Landscape of Myths and Elsewhereness: West Edmonton Mall,” PhD thesis,McGill University, 1992.

13. Gloria J. Leckie and Jeffrey Hopkins, “The Public Place of Central Libraries: Findings fromToronto and Vancouver,” Library Quarterly 72, no. 3 (2002): 326–372.

14. Francine May and Fiona Black, “The Life of the Space: Evidence from Nova Scotia PublicLibraries,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 5, no. 2 (2010), http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/6497.

15. Tord Hoivik, “Count the Traffic,” Presented at the World Library and Information Congress:74th IFLA General Conference and Council, Quebec, Canada, August 10-14, 2008, http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla74/papers/107-Hoivik-en.pdf.

16. Linda R. Most, “The Rural Public Library as Place in North Florida: A Case Study,” PhD thesis,Florida State University, 2009.

17. H. Russell Bernard, Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and QuantitativeApproaches, 4th ed. (Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2006): 347.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4


18. Ibid., 367–371. This study was also granted exempt status by the Institutional Review Board ofEast Carolina University because it posed no more than minimal risk to participants, and no informationwas recorded in such a manner that human participants could be identified in any way.

19. Of the dozens of statistical analysis programs, the SPSS software is one of the most respectedfor social science research, and for this reason was chosen by study investigators.

20. Barney G. Glaser, Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press, 1992):38–48.

21. Statistical significance is the probability, or likelihood, that the outcome of a statistical test toestablish the relationship between two or more variables (in this case, casual chatting and days of theweek) is not a chance occurrence. A level of statistical probability below .05 indicates that the likelihoodof the findings occurring by chance is less than five times out of one hundred, or one out of twenty.

22. Leckie and Hopkins, “Public Place of Central Libraries.”23. May and Black, “Life of the Space.”24. Hoivik, “Count the Traffic.”25. Leckie and Hopkins, “Public Place of Central Libraries.”26. May and Black, “Life of the Space.”27. Hoivik, “Count the Traffic.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:56

17

Oct

ober

201

4

what do patrons really do in music libraries? an ethnographic approach...

Documents