From Default to Design: Design-Based Assessment for Libraries and Librarianship

R. Clarke
{"title":"From Default to Design: Design-Based Assessment for Libraries and Librarianship","authors":"R. Clarke","doi":"10.29242/lac.2018.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction There can be no doubt about the recent rise of interest in assessment in librarianship. Popular assessment methods range from quantitative approaches (such as user surveys, usability heuristics, and data and search logs) to qualitative techniques (user interviews, photo elicitation, immersive ethnographies, and more). Many discussions ensue about which of these scientific-based methods is best applicable to the library work at hand, but few have questioned the assumption that scientific methods are the most relevant and applicable assessment methods for librarianship overall.","PeriodicalId":193553,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","volume":"119 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2018 Library Assessment Conference: Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: December 5–7, 2018, Houston, TX","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29242/lac.2018.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction There can be no doubt about the recent rise of interest in assessment in librarianship. Popular assessment methods range from quantitative approaches (such as user surveys, usability heuristics, and data and search logs) to qualitative techniques (user interviews, photo elicitation, immersive ethnographies, and more). Many discussions ensue about which of these scientific-based methods is best applicable to the library work at hand, but few have questioned the assumption that scientific methods are the most relevant and applicable assessment methods for librarianship overall.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从默认到设计:图书馆和图书馆关系的基于设计的评估
毫无疑问,近年来对图书馆评估的兴趣日益浓厚。流行的评估方法包括从定量方法(如用户调查、可用性启发式、数据和搜索日志)到定性技术(用户访谈、照片提取、沉浸式民族志等)。关于这些基于科学的方法中哪一种最适用于手头的图书馆工作,随之而来的是许多讨论,但很少有人质疑科学方法是对图书馆事业整体最相关和最适用的评估方法的假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Library Design: How Many Seats Do We Need? Engaging Graduate Students in Research and Scholarly Life Cycle Practices: Localized Modeling of Scholarly Communication for Alignment with Strategic Initiatives Reflections on Creating a Multi-Site, Mixed Methods, and Interpretive Assessment Project Choose Your Adventure: A Library Reorganization Case Study Collecting Globally, Connecting Locally: 21st Century Libraries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1