Since this study’s use of methods was as “exploratory” as the research questions themselves, I will reconsider some of these methods and the challenges they presented during data collection and analysis and make recommendations concerning their use in future case studies of libraries.
Anonymity of the Case Libraries
It is arguable that had I not granted anonymity to staff interviewees, I may not have collected as rich a data set from the semi-structured interviews. This is an important consideration since the interviews comprised the bulk of data in this study. However, because I granted limited anonymity to the case libraries, I was restricted from using detailed information about their unique contexts in my analysis of their building designs. This, in turn, affected my use of the organizational documents that I collected. Although I collected and learned much about their respective histories and about the communities they serve, referring to such information in the written findings, even without footnotes or citations, would have been a breach of the confidentiality agreement. Consequently this study’s written findings, while
180
compelling, lack the depth that might have been possible had I been able to identify the case libraries more explicitly.
Nevertheless, with the “cloak” of anonymity granted to them, I did receive a great deal of what I perceived to be honest testimony from staff and administration about the challenges of working in a public library, particularly one with dynamic internal politics. This led to some of the findings outlined in Chapter 5 about the organizational divisions between administration and unionized library staff. It is quite possible that I might never have learned what I did had interviewees not been granted anonymity.
In conclusion, a researcher should pause before making any final decisions about identifying libraries when recruiting them for case studies. If the kinds of research questions he or she is exploring are such that granting anonymity seems needless, consider leaving that condition out of the research design. That way, more information can be divulged about the case library or libraries being examined, and the researcher can factor unique, contextual information about case libraries into their written analysis.
Interviews
It occurred to me during data analysis that some of my semi-structured interview questions were leading. They made assumptions that preordained or prompted my interviewees to see or think of library buildings in a specific way. For example: the question “Do you feel this library looks like a library?” assumes, first, that the term “library” necessarily must refer to a building and, second, that libraries as buildings must necessarily “look” like something. Another example is my use of the concepts of “library user” and “library staff”. These terms imposed a view on interviewees; they suggested that there were only two ways of classifying the people inside of a library building. Had I not used those terms in my questions, interviewees might have felt more freedom to use their own terms. Differences of terms might have varied among interviewees, which then may have yielded further insights about how the people inside of a library building perceive themselves as well as others.
181
I formulated my interview questions as guides (see Appendix E), and indeed many interviewees were able to side-step those questions’ assumptions and express their own views in response. Interviews must be structured and efficient; it is impossible to begin an interview with complete silence and it is nearly impossible to conduct a semi-structured interview without guiding its path. Perhaps a better way to conduct such an interview, particularly one about library use, is to formulate a set of topics for discussion or exercises based on open themes, rather than a list of questions, in order to get interviewees to speak openly about their use of the library. Perhaps critical incident techniques would be useful.
Cognitive Mapping
The cognitive mapping exercises were valuable in that they stimulated the interviewees’ awareness of the libraries, and provided cues for discussions about specific features or aspects of these libraries that might have otherwise not been discussed. Beyond this, the cognitive maps as data collection tools were quite limited. Consequently, none of this study’s major arguments hinge solely on the map data.
I based my original approach (i.e., to have them draw their maps at the end of the interview) on the premise that they would better recall the library after an interview. (I did not want to get blank maps.) I now suspect that this might have made a difference in the data I collected. That is, providing a memory-jogging interview before the mapping exercise may have skewed the data. Using the mapping exercises as an engagement strategy—i.e., have interviewees complete the mapping exercise at the very beginning of the interview—might provide a more accurate depiction of how they actually conceptualize the library in their minds, even if this means drawing a less accurate map.
It was also difficult, when analysing the maps, to trust that the interviewees’ final map was as they had drawn it during the graphic task. During the discussion period some interviewees felt compelled to add or make changes to their maps based on new thoughts about the library’s space. I politely requested that they not, but many interviewees did so anyway, almost automatically. If I use this tool in the future, a better approach might be to have
182
interviewees draw their maps in regular pencil and then have them make any additions or changes afterward in a coloured pencil.