WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

1
00:00:00.329 --> 00:00:05.640
JOHN HORRIGAN: We have a very enthusiastic
group to talk about research and practice.

2
00:00:05.640 --> 00:00:10.000
My name is John Horrigan. I'm with the Pew
Research Center, and it's my pleasure to be

3
00:00:10.000 --> 00:00:15.920
the moderator of this panel today. What I'm
going to do is just introduce our panelists.

4
00:00:15.920 --> 00:00:22.790
They will be speaking in the order in which
I will introduce them. So without further

5
00:00:22.790 --> 00:00:29.150
ado, let's get down to talking about research
and what we can learn from it, what research

6
00:00:29.150 --> 00:00:37.540
can do to improve practice.
We'll be led off with Jill Castek. She is

7
00:00:37.540 --> 00:00:50.330
is that the order? Were you first? Oh.
So we're going to start out with Dr. Mega

8
00:00:50.330 --> 00:00:58.381
Subramaniam, who is very shortly to be a fully
tenured associate professor at the University

9
00:00:58.381 --> 00:01:06.640
of Maryland. She's a recent grantee for IMLS,
and she will be leading us off, followed by

10
00:01:06.640 --> 00:01:12.710
Gail Dickinson, who is the associate dean
of the Darden College of Education at Old

11
00:01:12.710 --> 00:01:21.160
Dominion University. Gail is saying that she
and her colleagues have gotten her number

12
00:01:21.160 --> 00:01:27.080
over the years so she'll be talking about
some of that work. Next will be Alison Head.

13
00:01:27.080 --> 00:01:34.940
She is at the University of Washington, where
she is founder and director of project information

14
00:01:34.940 --> 00:01:38.550
literacy, so we will be hearing about some
of that work.

15
00:01:38.550 --> 00:01:44.900
And then finally, Jill Castek, director of
the literacy language and technology research

16
00:01:44.900 --> 00:01:51.370
group at portland State University in Oregon.
Her research explores library and community

17
00:01:51.370 --> 00:01:57.810
programs for economically vulnerable individuals,
socially excluded populations, and others

18
00:01:57.810 --> 00:02:09.500
lacking in digital literacy skills. So without
further ado, Mega is going to lead off.

19
00:02:09.500 --> 00:02:17.830
>> MEGA SUBRAMANIAM: Thanks, John, for the
introduction, and we've been hearing a lot

20
00:02:17.830 --> 00:02:24.950
about we need research, so I tweeted that
today. So my research work is primarily with

21
00:02:24.950 --> 00:02:33.380
young people, specifically how school libraries
and public libraries who fill the needs of

22
00:02:33.380 --> 00:02:38.110
digital youth. So I primarily work within
that area.

23
00:02:38.110 --> 00:02:43.440
Like John mentioned, I'm quite an odd ball
on this panel. My colleagues from this panel

24
00:02:43.440 --> 00:02:50.780
are very far more experienced and have received
multiple IMLS grant. I categorize myself as

25
00:02:50.780 --> 00:02:57.600
the new blood in the IMLS grantee group, so
hopefully I will be able to contribute something.

26
00:02:57.600 --> 00:03:02.380
But be mindful that what I'm highlighting
and proposing will be based on the challenges

27
00:03:02.380 --> 00:03:08.930
that I have experienced personally, and observations
that I have made in the recent past.

28
00:03:08.930 --> 00:03:15.250
So in alignment with the team of this panel,
elaborating research to inform practice, I'm

29
00:03:15.250 --> 00:03:21.680
going to share with you two immediate needs
that I believe will ensure highquality research

30
00:03:21.680 --> 00:03:31.300
proposals continue to be submitted and funded,
especially in the focus area of learning and

31
00:03:31.300 --> 00:03:34.620
libraries.
As I present, you will also hear me providing

32
00:03:34.620 --> 00:03:42.780
recommendations to IMLS, hopefully to fulfill
these needs. So a little bit of context. So

33
00:03:42.780 --> 00:03:48.670
I'm very, very excited to begin this shiny,
brand new IMLS continuing education project

34
00:03:48.670 --> 00:03:54.980
in the next two weeks. It's going to start
with my collaborator, Dr. Katie Davis, from

35
00:03:54.980 --> 00:03:59.930
the University of Washington. She's a learning
scientist, so I'm obviously the person who's

36
00:03:59.930 --> 00:04:06.629
coming from the library side of things, and
also we have three fabulous public library

37
00:04:06.629 --> 00:04:12.840
partners, Seattle Public Library, Providence
Public Library, and Kitsap Regional Library,

38
00:04:12.840 --> 00:04:18.350
so a library partner serving urban, suburb
and rural libraries.

39
00:04:18.350 --> 00:04:25.370
Together, and I really mean together, we will
develop a suite of professional development

40
00:04:25.370 --> 00:04:32.009
resources aimed at building teams librarians
capacity to collaborate digital media and

41
00:04:32.009 --> 00:04:37.499
connecting learning principles. I heard earlier
about connected learning so we are hoping

42
00:04:37.499 --> 00:04:43.849
to help teen librarians to learn all this
principle to promote 21st century skills among

43
00:04:43.849 --> 00:04:50.839
the young adults that they serve.
So now to the need. First need, I think it's

44
00:04:50.839 --> 00:04:58.879
really important to be able to include researchers
in practice, and simile, inclusion of practitioners

45
00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:05.229
in research. So while researchers like all
of us who are sitting here today, can develop

46
00:05:05.229 --> 00:05:11.039
professional development resources for librarian,
based on best practices, based on indepth

47
00:05:11.039 --> 00:05:19.250
literature review, surveys, interviews, but
having actual public librarians and also school

48
00:05:19.250 --> 00:05:25.779
librarians, and all types of librarians who
are, you know, really on the ground, be design

49
00:05:25.779 --> 00:05:32.400
partners with us in the development of this
resource is priceless, because it incorporates

50
00:05:32.400 --> 00:05:38.659
the dynamic nature of the profession, and
also we are able to include actual patrons

51
00:05:38.659 --> 00:05:46.250
in the development of such studies. And this
is exactly what Katie and I are doing in this

52
00:05:46.250 --> 00:05:50.960
new IMLS grant that we just got.
So really, I think practitioners or librarians

53
00:05:50.960 --> 00:05:57.539
in the field also face the same problem, finding
researchers who can work with them site by

54
00:05:57.539 --> 00:06:03.719
site in the pursuit of innovation in the libraries
is also really difficult so my recommendation,

55
00:06:03.719 --> 00:06:09.810
researchers and librarians cannot be developing
learning environments, innovations, continuing

56
00:06:09.810 --> 00:06:16.490
education programs in isolation, or separation
from each other. But should collaboratively

57
00:06:16.490 --> 00:06:22.139
develop proposal, and not just collaboratively
developing proposal, but I would like to propose

58
00:06:22.139 --> 00:06:28.439
a focus on participatory design methods to
encourage researchers and librarians to work

59
00:06:28.439 --> 00:06:36.210
together more closely. So I like to propose
to IMLS and also its the reviewers of IMLS,

60
00:06:36.210 --> 00:06:42.469
whoever that selects the reviewers, be open
to the use of research methods that allow

61
00:06:42.469 --> 00:06:48.210
researchers and librarians to work hand in
hand, such as the design base implementation

62
00:06:48.210 --> 00:06:57.869
research. So moving beyond sort of the traditional
ILS research methods that we use to get actual

63
00:06:57.869 --> 00:07:01.819
practitioners' input. So for those of you
who are not familiar with the design base

64
00:07:01.819 --> 00:07:09.639
implementation research, goes by another acronym,
DBIR, is often used in the learning sciences,

65
00:07:09.639 --> 00:07:16.349
so DBIR entails researchers and educators
such as librarians actively collaborating

66
00:07:16.349 --> 00:07:21.349
in designing and implementing learning programs
and relevant technologies. So it's actually

67
00:07:21.349 --> 00:07:28.689
termed design based because data collections
and the insight that are gained are continuously

68
00:07:28.689 --> 00:07:34.069
used to inform the subsequent design of the
learning program and technology. So the process

69
00:07:34.069 --> 00:07:40.669
is really iterated and the goal is continuously
to refine and develop the learning program

70
00:07:40.669 --> 00:07:44.610
or technology.
This is perfect because the researcher actually

71
00:07:44.610 --> 00:07:49.960
feeds their finding directly to the librarian
and then they make changes immediately to

72
00:07:49.960 --> 00:07:55.439
the learning environment, and then most importantly,
the young adults, the children, the patrons

73
00:07:55.439 --> 00:08:02.250
who are participating, get to see the effect
of the research almost instantaneously, and

74
00:08:02.250 --> 00:08:08.349
do not have to wait till the end of the intervention.
So it's sort of a winwin to every party that's

75
00:08:08.349 --> 00:08:15.050
involved. So then second thing that I want
to highlight is the inclusion of researchers

76
00:08:15.050 --> 00:08:21.419
from other vital areas of learning, and I
think we sort of heard that in the earlier

77
00:08:21.419 --> 00:08:28.759
panels, so with the evolving nature of libraries,
in communities, ILS researchers need to collaborate

78
00:08:28.759 --> 00:08:34.320
with researchers from other areas and not
to restrict themselves to collaborating with

79
00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:40.300
only other LIS faculty or researchers. So
the college of learning is actually massive.

80
00:08:40.300 --> 00:08:45.750
It is so many variables that come to place
to create successful learning environments

81
00:08:45.750 --> 00:08:51.740
in libraries, without the expertise of researchers
from areas that are critical for learning,

82
00:08:51.740 --> 00:08:57.350
such as public policy, learning sciences,
English as second language, digital media.

83
00:08:57.350 --> 00:09:03.680
We are merely touching the surface in investigating
learning that happens in libraries.

84
00:09:03.680 --> 00:09:08.740
So my recommendation is to encourage collaboration
with researchers from other areas, the areas

85
00:09:08.740 --> 00:09:14.250
that I just mentioned before, in the request
for proposal itself, with the potentially

86
00:09:14.250 --> 00:09:22.450
with the library and information science faculty,
or a practitioner being a lead in the proposal.

87
00:09:22.450 --> 00:09:28.250
Such collaboration not only benefit the library
community overall, but it also brings light

88
00:09:28.250 --> 00:09:34.130
to the work that libraries and librarians
are doing to scholars and practitioners in

89
00:09:34.130 --> 00:09:41.820
this other areas. What librarians do and the
learning that happens in libraries are actually

90
00:09:41.820 --> 00:09:45.710
the bestkept secret, right? We do it very
well, but we don't really tell anyone. There

91
00:09:45.710 --> 00:09:50.190
are researchers from other fields that can't
really comprehend that learning actually happens

92
00:09:50.190 --> 00:09:55.650
in libraries. We are really good in telling
our own people that we are really good and

93
00:09:55.650 --> 00:10:00.741
how awesome we are, but others outside our
clan don't really know, and this is the way

94
00:10:00.741 --> 00:10:10.350
that we can only do this is to involve researchers
from other areas. Thank you very much, everyone.

95
00:10:10.350 --> 00:10:16.940
[Applause]
>> GAIL DICKINSON: I'm Gayl Dickinson. I'm

96
00:10:16.940 --> 00:10:25.311
the associated dean for graduation studies
and research in the Darden College of education

97
00:10:25.311 --> 00:10:32.380
in Old Dominion University and I'm also a
professor in the program that's housed in

98
00:10:32.380 --> 00:10:38.370
the college of education, and I've changed
what I'm going to say as I've a better way

99
00:10:38.370 --> 00:10:45.030
to say this. I've been informed by the previous
panel presentations, and I think Mega called

100
00:10:45.030 --> 00:10:49.800
me old. Did
[Laughter]

101
00:10:49.800 --> 00:10:54.920
Because we've had we've been fortunate at
Old Dominion University to receive several

102
00:10:54.920 --> 00:11:02.370
IMLS grants over the years, and so I've also
seen the maturity of the IMLS funding program

103
00:11:02.370 --> 00:11:08.210
back in the days when basically it was it
was putting masters programs online and moving

104
00:11:08.210 --> 00:11:14.111
that world into the online learning environment
in a very strong way, to now with a focus

105
00:11:14.111 --> 00:11:20.970
on knowledge and learning in libraries, and
I think that's just an amazing way to do that.

106
00:11:20.970 --> 00:11:28.480
We have had several masters preparation grants,
including one now, where we've incorporated

107
00:11:28.480 --> 00:11:36.370
service learning in to school library preparation.
We have a next wave doctoral grant, which

108
00:11:36.370 --> 00:11:45.950
is an innovative program of forming a school
library cognate area for doctoral students

109
00:11:45.950 --> 00:11:53.300
interested in school librarianship because
we realize that there is no advanced preparation

110
00:11:53.300 --> 00:11:58.210
in school librarianship. Most librarians are
proposed at the master's level so because

111
00:11:58.210 --> 00:12:04.560
there's not enough school librarians to have
a cognate area, we now have librarian have

112
00:12:04.560 --> 00:12:11.080
people, students from three different four
different universities working in doctoral

113
00:12:11.080 --> 00:12:17.900
study with a consortium of professors, which
is really interesting, and focusing them on

114
00:12:17.900 --> 00:12:24.350
the school library research agenda and teaching
that class. It's really it forces a different

115
00:12:24.350 --> 00:12:30.800
look at our own research, and that's probably
made me cantankerous when I was asked this

116
00:12:30.800 --> 00:12:34.040
question.
I was also honored to be at the table with

117
00:12:34.040 --> 00:12:40.200
ASL when we developed a national leadership
forum grant, bringing together a community

118
00:12:40.200 --> 00:12:47.590
of scholars to investigate the launch in to
causality research impacting school libraries,

119
00:12:47.590 --> 00:12:52.710
which is moving us away from the previous
very strong correlational research, and in

120
00:12:52.710 --> 00:13:02.120
to causality, which is a new, unproven ground,
and a very one at best. And we've also had

121
00:13:02.120 --> 00:13:07.100
a research we've had a research grant on national
Board Certified teachers and a grant on multicultural

122
00:13:07.100 --> 00:13:11.280
resources with students.
But when I was first asked this question about

123
00:13:11.280 --> 00:13:18.620
it, could you please be on the panel talking
about how research leverages better practice,

124
00:13:18.620 --> 00:13:26.380
I think my first question was I'm not sure
that it does. I'm not sure that the reverse

125
00:13:26.380 --> 00:13:33.030
is true, that the research is coming from
better practice, that practice is what's driving

126
00:13:33.030 --> 00:13:41.840
the research question, that the research questions
asked and answered aren't informing the practice

127
00:13:41.840 --> 00:13:48.710
as much as we are looking at good practice
and forming research questions around that.

128
00:13:48.710 --> 00:13:53.610
And that is a chicken and egg I can't even
figure out what is the chicken and what is

129
00:13:53.610 --> 00:14:00.840
the egg. I don't know and I guess it doesn't
matter, but to me, it does. I think it refers

130
00:14:00.840 --> 00:14:06.960
back to the flat world that we heard earlier,
and I forget which presentation, because if,

131
00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:14.480
in fact, as Mega said, that research versus
practice world is becoming truly flat, then

132
00:14:14.480 --> 00:14:21.260
we are merging that in a very different way
as we develop both strong practice proposals

133
00:14:21.260 --> 00:14:28.670
and strong research proposals.
That also, though, has a negative, which worries

134
00:14:28.670 --> 00:14:34.260
me, and which we struggled when we prepared
and I'm looking at Marsha Martis as well,

135
00:14:34.260 --> 00:14:42.760
who is working on the causality proposal with
ASL. The institutional isomorphism, I guess,

136
00:14:42.760 --> 00:14:52.490
philosophy, theory, applies to research grants
as well. If we move too far away from what

137
00:14:52.490 --> 00:14:59.620
is commonly believed to be practice, then
are we moving outside the range of what can

138
00:14:59.620 --> 00:15:05.300
be funded? You know, bicycle seats, apparently,
are bicycle seats because the only model was

139
00:15:05.300 --> 00:15:13.029
the saddle on a horse.
Should the isomorphistic principle have been

140
00:15:13.029 --> 00:15:21.220
an easy chair, we would all be more comfortable
bike riders than what we currently are. So

141
00:15:21.220 --> 00:15:27.910
can we provide the research questions that
we truly need to to bring back to practice,

142
00:15:27.910 --> 00:15:33.089
and I'm going to talk about the early childhood
today really did that. If, with the early

143
00:15:33.089 --> 00:15:39.190
childhood, as they looked at the research
between the world of the twoyearold and how

144
00:15:39.190 --> 00:15:46.330
babies interact in the home environment with
their parents, that research informed what

145
00:15:46.330 --> 00:15:54.470
librarians were doing in public libraries.
That is truly, to me, a case of how good research

146
00:15:54.470 --> 00:16:01.100
was leveraging best practice in libraries,
and we rarely see that because that research

147
00:16:01.100 --> 00:16:08.110
has to come from such a far place outside
of practice to come back.

148
00:16:08.110 --> 00:16:14.160
The Nap School Library Project back in the
1960s occurred at the very cusp of audiovisual

149
00:16:14.160 --> 00:16:22.180
material in libraries and that established
six demonstration libraries so that at demonstration

150
00:16:22.180 --> 00:16:27.330
libraries for basically the world to come
and look at what a school library was supposed

151
00:16:27.330 --> 00:16:31.610
to be. But Peggy Sullivan in an article on
American libraries pointed out that when those

152
00:16:31.610 --> 00:16:36.550
were developed, they had a choice. It was
a fork in the road. Were they going to use

153
00:16:36.550 --> 00:16:43.350
this for research or were they going to make
them demonstration? And that they made the

154
00:16:43.350 --> 00:16:49.540
choice to be demonstration, not research,
would it have changed which impact would have

155
00:16:49.540 --> 00:16:54.770
been better? I don't know.
We talked we started out the day with about

156
00:16:54.770 --> 00:16:59.720
knowledge and learning in libraries. We did
not talk about knowledge and learning with

157
00:16:59.720 --> 00:17:05.139
librarians. And I think that does make a difference,
and I'm not sure if it's selfserving or survival.

158
00:17:05.139 --> 00:17:09.949
You know, if an operating room nurse sees
the carpal tunnel surgery being performed,

159
00:17:09.949 --> 00:17:16.100
you know, a hundred times a day, at some point
could that operating room nurse do the surgery

160
00:17:16.100 --> 00:17:21.869
without the person there? So is a library
without a librarian able to look at the best

161
00:17:21.869 --> 00:17:27.720
practice research and make spaces or a school
without a school librarian, and implement

162
00:17:27.720 --> 00:17:33.499
what we know about maker spaces, or would
it be subtly different? Because the librarian

163
00:17:33.499 --> 00:17:43.799
is not there. And how can the research get
us to that point where we have that best practice

164
00:17:43.799 --> 00:17:53.059
truly informed by research, but not off so
far divorced from it that we cannot neither

165
00:17:53.059 --> 00:18:01.750
improve the profession or get our research
funded. Thank you.

166
00:18:01.750 --> 00:18:12.980
[Applause]
>> ALISON HEAD: Hi. I'm Alison Head. I'm having

167
00:18:12.980 --> 00:18:24.240
a horribly hard time following all the different
discussions and all the different ideas occurring.

168
00:18:24.240 --> 00:18:30.830
[Inaudible]. I would have had to leave. So
usually I am really organized, and I always

169
00:18:30.830 --> 00:18:37.440
have PowerPoint, and I hold fort because I
taught for 25 years as a professor. But this

170
00:18:37.440 --> 00:18:43.799
today, the conversation that has gone on,
because that's really what it's been, instead

171
00:18:43.799 --> 00:18:53.049
of just panels and presenting, has been so
illuminating, and so interesting that you've

172
00:18:53.049 --> 00:19:01.110
turned me on my head, and so I thank you for
that. And what I want to talk about today,

173
00:19:01.110 --> 00:19:06.869
I've been thinking about it during the process,
and then luckily, Gail and I dovetailed in

174
00:19:06.869 --> 00:19:13.159
the phone conversation that we had in planning
this, as well as the other members, and I

175
00:19:13.159 --> 00:19:19.799
knew I had to follow Gail, because I'm really
on the kind of the tail end of what you're

176
00:19:19.799 --> 00:19:28.999
talking about, which is this whole question
of research informing practice and leveraging

177
00:19:28.999 --> 00:19:36.720
research for better practice, for what you
do every day in the trenches and how you change

178
00:19:36.720 --> 00:19:43.470
people's lives. It's a really important relationship.
And what I wanted to talk about is from my

179
00:19:43.470 --> 00:19:51.379
perspective what I see that role as, and I
think what's important is what research is

180
00:19:51.379 --> 00:19:58.450
trying to do, we're not just trying to get
funds and stay employed. We're always trying

181
00:19:58.450 --> 00:20:05.860
to work closely with practitioners and develop
ways to continue those discussions, and I

182
00:20:05.860 --> 00:20:10.429
think that's why today has been so meaningful
for me, because it's a whole bunch of practitioners,

183
00:20:10.429 --> 00:20:16.399
and there's so many public librarians in the
room, and often I work with academic librarians,

184
00:20:16.399 --> 00:20:24.119
not that there's anything wrong with them,
but it's great to hear the other side as well.

185
00:20:24.119 --> 00:20:31.369
But I think really the goal of what we're
trying to do through research is to recognize

186
00:20:31.369 --> 00:20:39.590
gaps as researchers so often like to sum up
research proposals and what they do, and what

187
00:20:39.590 --> 00:20:50.110
our job is to be able to come up with data
that helps identify the gaps, as well as close

188
00:20:50.110 --> 00:20:58.489
them in meaningful ways, and so we spent a
lot of time thinking and trying to recognize

189
00:20:58.489 --> 00:21:04.940
what different gaps exist through conversations.
But what I'll reflect back to you, and what

190
00:21:04.940 --> 00:21:11.149
I heard today was some gaps that I had recognized
as well as some new things through panels,

191
00:21:11.149 --> 00:21:17.220
every single one of them, really exceptional.
I think the first gap is no matter where you

192
00:21:17.220 --> 00:21:25.190
are in the country, somebody brought up Portland,
a very white city, but no matter where you

193
00:21:25.190 --> 00:21:33.001
are in the country, there is this gap with
libraries as somebody said, a middle class

194
00:21:33.001 --> 00:21:44.860
white institution, meeting the needs of an
incredibly demographically erupting society

195
00:21:44.860 --> 00:21:51.830
that's going on now. If you have any doubts,
many of you flew in, look around the airport

196
00:21:51.830 --> 00:21:57.320
and you'll realize this is a very different
place than, probably, it was five years ago.

197
00:21:57.320 --> 00:22:01.549
And those are your potential patrons. Think
of it that way.

198
00:22:01.549 --> 00:22:05.799
I think the other thing that's happening,
and this I am aware of, and something that

199
00:22:05.799 --> 00:22:12.690
really interests me because of my base in
academia, is the disruptive change that's

200
00:22:12.690 --> 00:22:22.440
occurring in education. Thank God. Of education
being turned on its head. And why is my time

201
00:22:22.440 --> 00:22:26.440
going so quickly? It took me forever to come
up with this so I'll move along.

202
00:22:26.440 --> 00:22:33.009
But I think once you get warmed up, you don't
want to leave. So the disruptive change in

203
00:22:33.009 --> 00:22:41.360
education that's going on, flipped classrooms,
ubiquitous technologies and such, but really,

204
00:22:41.360 --> 00:22:47.419
the change in power structure. I mean, when
I got my Ph.D, I was so proud that I was a

205
00:22:47.419 --> 00:22:53.830
good lecturer. That is not really a skill
that's in high demand, except for right now,

206
00:22:53.830 --> 00:22:59.100
and I won't abandon the stage here.
So I think these are some of the gaps that

207
00:22:59.100 --> 00:23:07.190
we're trying to do meaningful research and
to identify ways to study them, as well as

208
00:23:07.190 --> 00:23:13.929
to understand them, to view how practitioners
look at them, as well as to come up with recommendations

209
00:23:13.929 --> 00:23:21.220
to close them.
So on that note, I think I've changed even

210
00:23:21.220 --> 00:23:26.720
my ordering here. I think originally with
this panel, we were asked to comment on the

211
00:23:26.720 --> 00:23:31.749
current state of the field, and I think there
has been good research and it's interesting

212
00:23:31.749 --> 00:23:37.649
to hear a number of you talk about that, outcomes
research, and I think of the work of Megan

213
00:23:37.649 --> 00:23:43.929
Oakleaf that was funded by IMLS, actually,
and the value of libraries. We see this trickling

214
00:23:43.929 --> 00:23:52.190
down to public libraries, to school libraries.
It is something that's happening and changing

215
00:23:52.190 --> 00:23:56.989
the profession.
I think the other thing is ethnographic methods

216
00:23:56.989 --> 00:24:03.659
and seeing users as a culture and libraries
as a social phenomena. I think of the work

217
00:24:03.659 --> 00:24:11.309
out of Rochester and Nancy Fried Foster. What
I try to do in my research, I lead a national

218
00:24:11.309 --> 00:24:16.789
study, and I study college students, and in
one minute, I'll tell you. I study college

219
00:24:16.789 --> 00:24:23.400
students and how they find and use information.
Most recently, this will be something that

220
00:24:23.400 --> 00:24:31.169
will interest you. I'm doing a study on lifelong
learning. Once college students graduate and

221
00:24:31.169 --> 00:24:39.860
leave campus, what happens to them? How do
they stay smart once they graduate? And one

222
00:24:39.860 --> 00:24:45.480
of the things, I'll throw out a tease here,
that we've come up with in our analysis, and

223
00:24:45.480 --> 00:24:53.139
where data helps inform the process is we
found, like Pew, like University of Washington's

224
00:24:53.139 --> 00:25:03.389
Gates Project, that 92% of our sample of 1,651
students that had graduated in the last seven

225
00:25:03.389 --> 00:25:09.860
years were library users. They had used their
public library in the last year. And we wanted

226
00:25:09.860 --> 00:25:17.340
to go beyond sorry Pew and Gates and look
at the circumstances of why they're using

227
00:25:17.340 --> 00:25:22.559
libraries, and what we found my time's up,
you'll have to read the report. No. What we

228
00:25:22.559 --> 00:25:28.659
found was this is really interesting and I'll
end on this note, what we found, we did something

229
00:25:28.659 --> 00:25:34.570
called a logistic regression. Sounds kind
of like a car part, but it's not. And it allowed

230
00:25:34.570 --> 00:25:45.019
us to look at the likelihood of public library
use. And we found that those who used public

231
00:25:45.019 --> 00:25:53.499
libraries were actually five times more likely
to ask a librarian a question. That's a huge

232
00:25:53.499 --> 00:26:00.269
win for you. They were four times more likely
to use museums. They're museumgoers. They

233
00:26:00.269 --> 00:26:06.789
were three times more likely to use book stores.
Starting to get a real persona here. Educational,

234
00:26:06.789 --> 00:26:16.330
twice as likely to use educational sites like
YouTube, TED Talks came up a lot, and then

235
00:26:16.330 --> 00:26:22.369
what they weren't likely to be was somebody
who believed they could solve anything on

236
00:26:22.369 --> 00:26:30.750
their own. Self efficacy, which really brings
the first Jones great panel in the beginning,

237
00:26:30.750 --> 00:26:36.820
and the Maker Fares and why that's so important
because you're pulling in the people that

238
00:26:36.820 --> 00:26:42.850
tend not to think that libraries are for them.
Thank you.

239
00:26:42.850 --> 00:26:50.160
[Applause]
>> JOHN HORRIGAN: As Jill gets up there, I

240
00:26:50.160 --> 00:26:59.960
will say we do logistic regressions at Pew,
too.

241
00:26:59.960 --> 00:27:07.429
>> JILL CASTEK: Hi. Thanks so much for the
opportunity to be here today. I come at this

242
00:27:07.429 --> 00:27:12.320
discussion from the field of adult education.
I'm a researcher in a public University at

243
00:27:12.320 --> 00:27:19.879
Portland State University and as head of a
research team that resides not within an eye

244
00:27:19.879 --> 00:27:26.600
school but also within the applied linguistics
area. So this research team's mission is to

245
00:27:26.600 --> 00:27:32.070
provide literacy and language pathways to
social and economic justice for underserved

246
00:27:32.070 --> 00:27:37.629
and marginalized adult learners, a population
that is not often studied. So I'm outside

247
00:27:37.629 --> 00:27:42.210
the library world, but at the same time, I'm
really honored to be connected to it as a

248
00:27:42.210 --> 00:27:47.059
cocollaborator, and as my copanelist said,
part of this collaboration is really important

249
00:27:47.059 --> 00:27:52.960
to be able to stretch and expand the field.
When it comes to funding sources that are

250
00:27:52.960 --> 00:28:01.429
tied to adult education, we look at organizations
like the office of career and technical education,

251
00:28:01.429 --> 00:28:06.779
and other federal agencies that tend to fund
research that's directly tied to programs

252
00:28:06.779 --> 00:28:11.639
that they operate, which means there isn't
much funding out there for basic research

253
00:28:11.639 --> 00:28:17.049
and adult learning and development.
One thing is IMLS, I think, has been much

254
00:28:17.049 --> 00:28:22.360
more open in the kinds of research that they
fund, and they thus provide more avenues for

255
00:28:22.360 --> 00:28:28.679
examining adult learning in spaces like libraries,
but also within the outreach programs in the

256
00:28:28.679 --> 00:28:33.479
community, and I'm really honored to be among
the recipients to get grant funds to do that

257
00:28:33.479 --> 00:28:40.600
sort of work. The funding priorities that
I look at provide a detailed look at adult

258
00:28:40.600 --> 00:28:46.580
learning processes, programs, learning environments,
and allow for new partnerships to form between

259
00:28:46.580 --> 00:28:51.539
libraries and other institutions where adult
learning can take place.

260
00:28:51.539 --> 00:28:58.190
So let me offer an example of what this looks
like from currently funded IMLS national leadership

261
00:28:58.190 --> 00:29:04.960
grant funded looking at how vulnerable adult
learners acquire digital literacy.

262
00:29:04.960 --> 00:29:09.770
This particular grant project followed Portland
State's Broadband technologies opportunities

263
00:29:09.770 --> 00:29:16.820
program and its six national partners as they
provided digital literacy education programming,

264
00:29:16.820 --> 00:29:23.330
and as these organizations offered self paced
tutor facilitated digital literacy instruction

265
00:29:23.330 --> 00:29:30.310
in multiple community contexts. This research
project to me was very forwardthinking, not

266
00:29:30.310 --> 00:29:35.179
only because it looked closely at teaching
and learning practices and learning environments,

267
00:29:35.179 --> 00:29:40.379
but it also looked at the many different kinds
of emerging partnerships that can form between

268
00:29:40.379 --> 00:29:46.489
entities where digital teaching and learning
can take place. These spaces included libraries,

269
00:29:46.489 --> 00:29:52.509
as well as community organizations, Catholic
charities, workforce development in places

270
00:29:52.509 --> 00:29:57.590
like Goodwill Industries, noncredit bearing
adult ed classes offered through community

271
00:29:57.590 --> 00:30:05.139
colleges and K12 educational centers, as well
as onestop workforce centers. Low income housing

272
00:30:05.139 --> 00:30:12.519
complexes and reentry programs for incarcerated
individuals. As the anchor institution for

273
00:30:12.519 --> 00:30:18.320
this particular grant, we didn't tell all
of these collaborators, hey, we know what

274
00:30:18.320 --> 00:30:23.649
works best from research, implement digital
literacy learning in this way, instead we

275
00:30:23.649 --> 00:30:31.269
offered a set of suggested guidelines and
within that, collaborations grew and flourished

276
00:30:31.269 --> 00:30:39.960
that paved the way to look at innovative spaces
for teaching learning and partnership.

277
00:30:39.960 --> 00:30:45.470
All this is to say is that the funding work
that IMLS is putting forth is at the frontier

278
00:30:45.470 --> 00:30:50.700
of expanding library services and outreach
programs in the community, and it's up to

279
00:30:50.700 --> 00:30:57.549
us to use these funds to build these collaborative
partnerships that maximize resources and extend

280
00:30:57.549 --> 00:31:05.379
impact and sustainability. In thinking about
how research informs practice, IMLS has funded

281
00:31:05.379 --> 00:31:10.320
innovative work that doesn't simply follow
the normal pattern of conducting research

282
00:31:10.320 --> 00:31:17.080
in the form of designing and implementing
experimental data, and then using those findings

283
00:31:17.080 --> 00:31:21.820
to inform a set of best practices that get
implemented by librarians or other educational

284
00:31:21.820 --> 00:31:32.309
professionals. Like my copanelists have mentioned,
our IMLS project was given the space to research

285
00:31:32.309 --> 00:31:38.620
those practices, meaning looking at the teaching
practices, looking at learning practices,

286
00:31:38.620 --> 00:31:43.340
looking at literacy practices, as the means
of talking about how to better understand

287
00:31:43.340 --> 00:31:48.419
and lay the groundwork for implementation
of these practices in a variety of settings.

288
00:31:48.419 --> 00:31:55.149
And this sort of reflexivity is important
as practices change over time. So for example,

289
00:31:55.149 --> 00:31:59.979
if we think about the ubiquity of digital
devices and the internet as a means of accessing

290
00:31:59.979 --> 00:32:05.429
learning materials, there's a tremendous shift
in the field. Examining how learners can best

291
00:32:05.429 --> 00:32:12.139
access these materials and use them in flexible
ways, both inside and outside library contexts

292
00:32:12.139 --> 00:32:17.720
makes contributions to the field that really
have impact for libraries and many other contexts

293
00:32:17.720 --> 00:32:24.159
that seek to implement blending learning models.
In summary, the notion of researching practices

294
00:32:24.159 --> 00:32:30.470
is really quite profound. It involves flipping
the equation of research informing practice,

295
00:32:30.470 --> 00:32:36.309
to thinking about researching practice and
discussing the implementations and implications

296
00:32:36.309 --> 00:32:41.869
for scaleup as part of dissemination. It's
a reciprocal, iterate process of having research

297
00:32:41.869 --> 00:32:48.389
inform the field.
So how do we design research that impacts

298
00:32:48.389 --> 00:32:54.499
practice? I think one important point to make
comes from thinking about research designed

299
00:32:54.499 --> 00:33:00.299
strategically from the very beginning of designing
research studies, and that means thinking

300
00:33:00.299 --> 00:33:05.700
about dissemination at the outset of every
project design, not as an afterthought at

301
00:33:05.700 --> 00:33:12.950
the end of the project. So our particular
project included a research applications committee

302
00:33:12.950 --> 00:33:18.239
as an advisory group at the very outset of
the project, and the role of this research

303
00:33:18.239 --> 00:33:23.639
applications committee was to think about
findings and dissemination and to advise the

304
00:33:23.639 --> 00:33:30.710
researchers on how best to achieve uptake
in the field at the beginning of the project.

305
00:33:30.710 --> 00:33:36.779
So the one way that the rack, or research
advisory sorry, research applications committee

306
00:33:36.779 --> 00:33:44.019
advised our project is about and we sought
to prepare the audience for the research in

307
00:33:44.019 --> 00:33:51.820
advance of the findings coming out so that
it wasn't just, bam, here is a research article,

308
00:33:51.820 --> 00:33:58.390
please go out and implement this. Instead,
it was a context and a conversation which

309
00:33:58.390 --> 00:34:03.539
becomes responsive to how the field needs
to frame their understanding before the findings

310
00:34:03.539 --> 00:34:10.790
come out. And so the takeaway about this is
to think about design studies that build in

311
00:34:10.790 --> 00:34:18.659
to the design of research, tangible, realizable
goals of dissemination, including the participants

312
00:34:18.659 --> 00:34:25.350
of those to whom you are disseminating to
as a part of the process. So these touch points

313
00:34:25.350 --> 00:34:31.340
I hope will give us some food for thought
as we move forward into the question and answer

314
00:34:31.340 --> 00:34:35.260
period. Thank you.
[Applause]

315
00:34:35.260 --> 00:34:41.460
>> JOHN HORRIGAN: Well, that's a terrific
set of presentations, I know. I've learned

316
00:34:41.460 --> 00:34:48.460
a lot from my fellow panelists and everybody
else who has spoken today. So we have now

317
00:34:48.460 --> 00:34:56.490
time to turn to Q & A, and we have microphones
coming around. We have some hands being raised,

318
00:34:56.490 --> 00:35:03.630
so we will get underway.
>> May I I've got the mic, and I heard Alison

319
00:35:03.630 --> 00:35:08.820
had said to me today that she believes in
cutting to the chase, so may I ask a question.

320
00:35:08.820 --> 00:35:14.530
>> You know, thinking of the Laura Bush 21st
Century Librarian Program, the funding has

321
00:35:14.530 --> 00:35:21.320
been cut in the last few years, we got rid
of research category for a year and then brought

322
00:35:21.320 --> 00:35:30.140
it back. We've gotten rid of the preprofessional
programs category. We have doctoral, masters,

323
00:35:30.140 --> 00:35:36.810
continuing education, early career development,
building capacity. What are we calling it?

324
00:35:36.810 --> 00:35:43.270
Sorry. I've forgotten the name of it. But
are these appropriate categories right now?

325
00:35:43.270 --> 00:35:50.160
And I open this up to everybody, like should
we get rid of them all and start from scratch?

326
00:35:50.160 --> 00:35:59.050
>> JOHN HORRIGAN: We're going to let each
panelist have a crack at this before opening

327
00:35:59.050 --> 00:36:03.610
it up. Gail?
>> GAIL DICKINSON: I really think the early

328
00:36:03.610 --> 00:36:09.890
career development which really is probably
I mean, it's early career research grant really

329
00:36:09.890 --> 00:36:14.070
is what it is. It's not early career development,
is for that beginning researcher really having

330
00:36:14.070 --> 00:36:23.040
a chance, I think that is just really crucial
for institutions like mine that we require,

331
00:36:23.040 --> 00:36:28.520
we send our new professors a very scary letter
saying six figure grants within the first

332
00:36:28.520 --> 00:36:30.230
year or two, you must apply, you must have
a grant or you must be applying for one, and

333
00:36:30.230 --> 00:36:37.330
we'll see you at third year review, and we
hope that you have one in your pocket and

334
00:36:37.330 --> 00:36:42.460
that gives that person really a nice leg up
on that, so that early career of all of those,

335
00:36:42.460 --> 00:36:49.630
I just really think is crucial, but it's early
career research, really.

336
00:36:49.630 --> 00:36:55.380
>> I hope that I haven't looked recently but
I certainly hope that we haven't at IMLS done

337
00:36:55.380 --> 00:37:01.000
away with the spark innovation grants.
>> I'm just talking Laura Bush.

338
00:37:01.000 --> 00:37:04.270
>> Oh, okay.
>> Education and recruitment.

339
00:37:04.270 --> 00:37:13.630
>> Clarify the comment, Mary Alice. Are you
talking about all the research grants, or

340
00:37:13.630 --> 00:37:14.700
were you just talking about Laura Bush?
>> Just Laura Bush. Not National Leadership

341
00:37:14.700 --> 00:37:19.430
Grant Program or sparks.
>> Pass.

342
00:37:19.430 --> 00:37:30.100
>> MEGA SUBRAMANIAM: So I believe it depends
on what type of proposal, quality of proposals

343
00:37:30.100 --> 00:37:37.730
that you get in each category. Do you get
really good continuing education grants? Then

344
00:37:37.730 --> 00:37:43.500
it might be worth it to keep it. That's one
consideration. The second consideration is

345
00:37:43.500 --> 00:37:49.710
I think is to look at what the needs are,
because clearly I think from morning, I've

346
00:37:49.710 --> 00:37:56.020
been hearing that there is definitely a need
for research to support practice and similarly,

347
00:37:56.020 --> 00:38:02.400
practice supporting research so it might be
worthwhile to enhance the research categories

348
00:38:02.400 --> 00:38:09.900
in the Laura Bush call.
>> I do have a comment. I think it's important.

349
00:38:09.900 --> 00:38:15.330
Tim and I were talking about it at one of
the breaks, actually. I think what's useful

350
00:38:15.330 --> 00:38:22.970
for researchers, kind of on my heels of the
gap comment is to have access to program officers

351
00:38:22.970 --> 00:38:30.770
to be able to talk about needs, and to have
program officers know what those needs are,

352
00:38:30.770 --> 00:38:40.760
and not necessarily to tip you off to what
to apply for, but what IMLS's interests are,

353
00:38:40.760 --> 00:38:48.520
and what they're interested in finding more
out about, I find that's probably one of the

354
00:38:48.520 --> 00:38:55.260
most difficult parts in any of these categories.
You come up with a great idea. You talk to

355
00:38:55.260 --> 00:39:02.090
practitioners, you really feel like you have
a grounded need, and so that access to program

356
00:39:02.090 --> 00:39:08.740
officers is so, so important, as well as the
webinars that you do, because people ask really

357
00:39:08.740 --> 00:39:14.980
good questions in the webinars, other researchers,
so those are things that you do well. Just

358
00:39:14.980 --> 00:39:23.800
overall during the process.
>> This is Chrystie from OCLC, and the question

359
00:39:23.800 --> 00:39:32.270
about the idea of bringing practitioners into
the research prose up front, as I think about

360
00:39:32.270 --> 00:39:39.150
just for example the work that we've done
with the views 2 team to bring super charged

361
00:39:39.150 --> 00:39:44.791
story time up to scale, multistate program,
there's a little bit of a culture clash. And

362
00:39:44.791 --> 00:39:50.570
maybe that's overstatement, but we learned
we could say proof, evidence, research base,

363
00:39:50.570 --> 00:39:56.350
but don't ever say the word validated. Don't
and I'm like well, it's valid, right?

364
00:39:56.350 --> 00:40:03.220
So we have had this just, you know, funny
experience of trying to get research to practice

365
00:40:03.220 --> 00:40:09.000
very, very quickly, and I would imagine that
if you bring practitioners into that process

366
00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:14.270
very early on, when you haven't got things
kind of figured out yet, then it may create

367
00:40:14.270 --> 00:40:21.330
confusion and a disjointment, like that hinders
getting the research to practice quickly.

368
00:40:21.330 --> 00:40:25.720
So I'm curious if you could talk a little
bit about maybe some of your experiences along

369
00:40:25.720 --> 00:40:31.530
those lines, and how we can actually do that
so that the process is smoother, the process

370
00:40:31.530 --> 00:40:39.280
is faster, and it's more usable, more quickly.
>> JILL CASTEK: I think my response to that

371
00:40:39.280 --> 00:40:46.400
is engaging in a community of practice model
that I think we all as a profession really

372
00:40:46.400 --> 00:40:53.430
tend to gravitate towards. It's an apprenticeship
into an approach in which a shared set of

373
00:40:53.430 --> 00:41:01.140
languages and practices are codified among
a group of individuals who have common goals.

374
00:41:01.140 --> 00:41:06.690
And I'm not saying it's an easy process, and
that it's not one that doesn't have its rocky

375
00:41:06.690 --> 00:41:14.120
fits and starts, but that community of practice
will grow due to the multitude of voices that

376
00:41:14.120 --> 00:41:18.600
are involved in engaging and looking at the
practice together so it's one of those stick

377
00:41:18.600 --> 00:41:20.920
with it things that's worth the effort.
>> GAIL DICKINSON: I'll jump in here. Something

378
00:41:20.920 --> 00:41:25.470
that I am
>> ALISON HEAD: I'll jump in here. Something

379
00:41:25.470 --> 00:41:32.080
that I am increasingly doing on grants, and
it's something that IMLS suggested for my

380
00:41:32.080 --> 00:41:37.890
lifelong learning study, and at first I thought,
oh, I don't know, I'm not sure what will happen

381
00:41:37.890 --> 00:41:43.740
with it, but it's turned out to be a great
thing, and that is to use an advisory board

382
00:41:43.740 --> 00:41:48.550
in the beginning. Even at the point of writing.
In fact, I'm putting together an advisory

383
00:41:48.550 --> 00:41:56.860
board today for a different grant project
elsewhere. And for them to see the proposal

384
00:41:56.860 --> 00:42:02.760
and to have an idea and have input to have
an idea and contribute on some sort of level

385
00:42:02.760 --> 00:42:08.850
and perhaps something you've missed, or another
way to look at something, but to get the buyin

386
00:42:08.850 --> 00:42:15.460
early on through that kind of advisory board,
the lifelong learning advisory board, we have

387
00:42:15.460 --> 00:42:22.820
Mike Eisenberg, who really is retired, but
kind of, he'll never retire, is actually the

388
00:42:22.820 --> 00:42:28.930
head of our lifelong learning advisory board
and we put together this great team that people

389
00:42:28.930 --> 00:42:35.000
wanted to be on. We drew from public librarians,
academic librarians, some school librarians,

390
00:42:35.000 --> 00:42:41.100
but also beyond that, you don't think people
will do it, but we actually were able to get

391
00:42:41.100 --> 00:42:48.670
Ken Bayne, the educator, who's written a lot
about college education, and really about

392
00:42:48.670 --> 00:42:55.130
deeper learning, and is really associated
with that term. So, you know, to pull together

393
00:42:55.130 --> 00:43:02.590
those like minds in the beginning of the process
and carry it through, I think is one way,

394
00:43:02.590 --> 00:43:07.510
Chrystie, to begin that process with practitioners.
>> GAIL DICKINSON: I'm going to take a little

395
00:43:07.510 --> 00:43:16.560
bit of a different view of that and say that
we have to be careful that researchbased practice

396
00:43:16.560 --> 00:43:24.080
does not become practicebased research entirely,
that at times there is a need for strong research

397
00:43:24.080 --> 00:43:31.080
studies that in the strength of the research
studies, it's methodology, and evaluated by

398
00:43:31.080 --> 00:43:37.540
researchers who can interpret methodology,
and maybe it's something that is not linked

399
00:43:37.540 --> 00:43:50.380
to current practice. We all know X, so if
we propose that perhaps Y may be important,

400
00:43:50.380 --> 00:43:57.760
it will be we will spend time trying to understand
we love X, we're not saying that we're not

401
00:43:57.760 --> 00:44:01.810
moving away from here. We just want to look
at this for a little bit, and maybe sometimes

402
00:44:01.810 --> 00:44:07.280
you need a pure research study to work on
theory building for the library of sciences,

403
00:44:07.280 --> 00:44:12.890
and to move in that direction. And maybe that's
another category of IMLS grant that's simply

404
00:44:12.890 --> 00:44:19.390
pure research that really moves the field
light years away from where we are, and sets

405
00:44:19.390 --> 00:44:27.510
another puts us on another planet that will
eventually inform best practice, but is not

406
00:44:27.510 --> 00:44:32.970
I hate to say, it's not linked as directly
as other research studies.

407
00:44:32.970 --> 00:44:37.820
>> MEGA SUBRAMANIAM: So Chrystie, my experience
has been a little bit different than yours,

408
00:44:37.820 --> 00:44:44.210
I think, because I think primarily my research
has always been ethnographic in nature so

409
00:44:44.210 --> 00:44:50.390
I sit in libraries, I hang out with young
adults, and the librarian is there as well,

410
00:44:50.390 --> 00:44:56.550
and the patrons, the young adults, the librarian
know that we are doing research. They know

411
00:44:56.550 --> 00:45:03.830
that they are doing research, but they don't
really feel like they are being involved directly.

412
00:45:03.830 --> 00:45:08.860
It's not that they are collecting the data
or I'm asking them for data, so it's very

413
00:45:08.860 --> 00:45:15.940
seamless, which is why I suggested earlier
during my fiveminute spiel, that the method

414
00:45:15.940 --> 00:45:20.600
that I use is designbased implementation research
methods, where what they see is the results

415
00:45:20.600 --> 00:45:26.290
of my research being cycled back again in
to the implementation of programming almost

416
00:45:26.290 --> 00:45:33.230
immediately. We do a debriefing after each
afterschool sessions that I've run, after,

417
00:45:33.230 --> 00:45:40.150
you know, sessions that we have in the libraries,
and we talk about what can we do next better?

418
00:45:40.150 --> 00:45:47.040
What can we how can we improve some of their
hangingout activities that we are doing so

419
00:45:47.040 --> 00:45:52.620
that the young adults that are coming are
able to learn the new media literacy skills

420
00:45:52.620 --> 00:45:58.560
that we want, right? So they don't really
feel that they are in the research, but they

421
00:45:58.560 --> 00:46:01.840
are.
>> You know, just to maybe bridge what Gail

422
00:46:01.840 --> 00:46:08.310
is talking about and what Mega was just mentioning
is this notion that if you're going to do

423
00:46:08.310 --> 00:46:12.160
this sort of practicebased research, when
you're done with it, well, what are the new

424
00:46:12.160 --> 00:46:17.880
hypotheses that come from this that might
take you to that different planet, and if

425
00:46:17.880 --> 00:46:24.410
you have that kind of iterative process going
and if IMLS is willing to entertain funding

426
00:46:24.410 --> 00:46:30.710
those planetary change research based on the
hypotheses coming out of current practicebased

427
00:46:30.710 --> 00:46:38.280
research, then it might be really moving the
field forward. We had a question back here?

428
00:46:38.280 --> 00:46:42.120
>> Yeah. Mary Stansbury, University of Denver.
And two comments here. I've been onion how

429
00:46:42.120 --> 00:46:49.220
many IMLS on I don't know how many IMLS proposals,
since before Kevin Cherry was on the staff

430
00:46:49.220 --> 00:46:56.800
so that's how long ago I go back. And I've
noticed a common situation in the room when

431
00:46:56.800 --> 00:47:04.950
those proposals are being evaluated, and that
is this distance that many of the practitioners

432
00:47:04.950 --> 00:47:09.970
in the room put between themselves and back
and it goes the other way, too, researchers

433
00:47:09.970 --> 00:47:14.940
put between practice and their own expertise.
And so we have practitioners saying well,

434
00:47:14.940 --> 00:47:20.760
I don't understand correlations, so I'm going
to leave that up to the researchers in the

435
00:47:20.760 --> 00:47:25.270
room to tell me if this is a good proposal
or not. And likewise, researchers saying well,

436
00:47:25.270 --> 00:47:29.320
I guess that's an important question for practice
but it doesn't have correlation in it so I'm

437
00:47:29.320 --> 00:47:35.560
not interested in that kind of thing. And
that gap I think is a problem. But in part

438
00:47:35.560 --> 00:47:41.370
because our practice, our field doesn't expect
each one of us to continue to conduct research

439
00:47:41.370 --> 00:47:47.740
throughout our professional career other than
in academic libraries. So if somebody does

440
00:47:47.740 --> 00:47:53.440
happen to take a research methods course in
their masters program, that might be it. So

441
00:47:53.440 --> 00:47:58.470
I'm kind of also segueing to the panel at
the end of the day, setting that one up, so

442
00:47:58.470 --> 00:48:02.710
just that distancing between research and
practice I see actually manifest and the review

443
00:48:02.710 --> 00:48:07.050
of proposals themselves.
And then to address Mary Alice's question

444
00:48:07.050 --> 00:48:15.080
about should are these the right funding categories.
For whatever reasons, our field doesn't have

445
00:48:15.080 --> 00:48:21.980
a coordinated collaboratively generated research
agenda across all of the dimensions of the

446
00:48:21.980 --> 00:48:26.390
field. We have funding priorities, but we
don't have a research agenda, and in many

447
00:48:26.390 --> 00:48:32.330
professions that are based on research or
informed by research, there is a guiding force,

448
00:48:32.330 --> 00:48:36.980
maybe it would be in our case ALA, I don't
know, that's just an idea, that says these

449
00:48:36.980 --> 00:48:42.250
are the questions that the field needs to
be asking, whether IMLS funds that research

450
00:48:42.250 --> 00:48:48.910
or not. Or funds that investigation into practice
or not. And maybe we're too diverse a field.

451
00:48:48.910 --> 00:48:55.030
I don't think we are, though. The other piece,
I understand that NIH is embarking upon an

452
00:48:55.030 --> 00:49:00.760
approach to taking some time away, or some
funding away from new research and looking

453
00:49:00.760 --> 00:49:06.080
at what's the aggregation of research on different
topics, and that's something we don't do very

454
00:49:06.080 --> 00:49:11.560
well, which is interesting that we haven't
gone back. We might base our research on previous

455
00:49:11.560 --> 00:49:17.400
research, but what are the aggregated results
tell us? So those are just some ideas.

456
00:49:17.400 --> 00:49:26.450
>> ALISON HEAD: The review process, it came
up in the phone call that we had last week

457
00:49:26.450 --> 00:49:35.680
as well. As somebody that is a researcher,
a social science researcher, I am concerned

458
00:49:35.680 --> 00:49:42.780
by comments I get back, whether I'm funded
or not, you know, quite honestly. And so is

459
00:49:42.780 --> 00:49:49.740
my institution, University of Washington,
and the research services, the people that

460
00:49:49.740 --> 00:49:57.170
I work with that care deeply about what we
do and the way that proposals are submitted.

461
00:49:57.170 --> 00:50:03.550
So, you know, my concern about the reviewers'
comments are there's no recourse, there never

462
00:50:03.550 --> 00:50:10.220
is with any comments at any agency, which
is frustrating in itself, but so afternoon

463
00:50:10.220 --> 00:50:16.630
there is a mismatch, and somebody does bring
up something from a methods class that they

464
00:50:16.630 --> 00:50:25.120
had that has no bearing on your methodology.
And you get a 2. And then somebody gets it

465
00:50:25.120 --> 00:50:34.320
and says, oh, this is transformative, and
you get a 5. But you don't get funded. And

466
00:50:34.320 --> 00:50:43.490
this just happened to me. With a lot of discussion
at the I school, actually. So, you know, IMLS,

467
00:50:43.490 --> 00:50:51.930
from a research point of view, is, in a lot
of ways, the work is important, but those

468
00:50:51.930 --> 00:50:59.880
reviewers and what they say about your proposed
ideas, and it's not even what they say. Research

469
00:50:59.880 --> 00:51:07.230
is based in criticism, and you kind of welcome
it, and you certainly welcome the debate.

470
00:51:07.230 --> 00:51:16.930
It's more an understanding and a grasp of
what research is. It would be like the young

471
00:51:16.930 --> 00:51:23.190
the children's presentation. If I was on if
they said could you fill in, Alison, I would

472
00:51:23.190 --> 00:51:29.040
say pass, pass, pass. I have no expertise
in that area, and I feel the same way about

473
00:51:29.040 --> 00:51:34.780
research. I wish there was a better pairing.
That is something that I think I would say

474
00:51:34.780 --> 00:51:40.090
IMLS should work towards is a better pairing
of the people that are reviewing the applications

475
00:51:40.090 --> 00:51:48.610
that take you about four months to write.
And I just don't feel it's a fair shake.

476
00:51:48.610 --> 00:51:54.570
>> David, I just want to make a quick and
pragmatic statement which is if we want to

477
00:51:54.570 --> 00:52:00.350
have our profession marked by a master's degree,
that's going to involve having faculty that

478
00:52:00.350 --> 00:52:03.630
can teach them, which means that they should,
if they're going to be functioning at high

479
00:52:03.630 --> 00:52:09.950
level universities, need Ph.Ds, and if you
want to have Ph.Ds working in your field at

480
00:52:09.950 --> 00:52:15.630
high level universities, there must be research
funding available, period, enough said, or

481
00:52:15.630 --> 00:52:20.970
else, frankly, I know all the people in here,
we'll do fine over the National Science Foundation

482
00:52:20.970 --> 00:52:25.530
after a year of retooling and we'll spend
lots of time on usability studies. I think

483
00:52:25.530 --> 00:52:31.980
there's a passion here, but as a pragmatic
question to your cut through it. We've seen

484
00:52:31.980 --> 00:52:38.000
in school librarianship, looking at my wonderful
colleague, one of the issues with the continuation

485
00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:41.180
of school librarianship, we often talk about
are there enough positions, are there enough

486
00:52:41.180 --> 00:52:44.890
jobs, are there enough people doing research
in this field to prepare the next generation

487
00:52:44.890 --> 00:52:48.930
of school librarians who then become the next
generation of faculty? That is something that

488
00:52:48.930 --> 00:52:55.810
IMLS has done. I have a great, great passion
for what IMLS has done. To me, funding research

489
00:52:55.810 --> 00:52:59.520
in the field of school librarianship is an
activist move because we believe it is an

490
00:52:59.520 --> 00:53:05.310
important thing to do, not a marketdriven
move. And I think that so my answer to you

491
00:53:05.310 --> 00:53:08.720
is yes, we need research, and part of the
reason we need research is if we are going

492
00:53:08.720 --> 00:53:13.700
to believe that we have this continuing cycle,
from a profession to a student to education

493
00:53:13.700 --> 00:53:25.510
to professionals, that research is an essential
part of that wheel.

494
00:53:25.510 --> 00:53:29.380
>> Okay. Catherine. There are a couple of
things that I want to reflect back on that

495
00:53:29.380 --> 00:53:35.440
Mary brought up, and kind of interject into
this, which start and end, really, with two

496
00:53:35.440 --> 00:53:38.790
big points, and they were the exact same points
that you were making, Mary, and I just want

497
00:53:38.790 --> 00:53:42.810
to drive them home.
So on the one hand, we do have a lot of research

498
00:53:42.810 --> 00:53:47.290
right now. We have a whole lot of research
right now and it may not be at the Ph.D level,

499
00:53:47.290 --> 00:53:51.000
but we have a whole lot of research right
now and it is being funded in lots of different

500
00:53:51.000 --> 00:53:56.700
directions and none of us know what it is,
because it is so sprawling, and it is so mismatched,

501
00:53:56.700 --> 00:54:01.870
and it's so uneven, and until we cure that,
until we understand the state of the field

502
00:54:01.870 --> 00:54:06.100
that we're in and the state of the research
that we have, I don't know how we can move

503
00:54:06.100 --> 00:54:09.380
forward, and so one of the things that I've
gotten really concerned about, particularly

504
00:54:09.380 --> 00:54:13.260
over the last couple of years, is I'm finding
myself repeatedly, as I'm starting to think,

505
00:54:13.260 --> 00:54:18.121
okay, yeah, it would be great to do a project
on X, I go, nope, I don't know enough. Need

506
00:54:18.121 --> 00:54:22.240
to establish the state of the field first.
And I would just encourage, you know, coming

507
00:54:22.240 --> 00:54:27.750
back to Mary Alice's question, I would encourage
some attention to figuring out how to synthesize

508
00:54:27.750 --> 00:54:33.280
research and how to, you know, really channel
and move forward the good findings and the

509
00:54:33.280 --> 00:54:38.130
you know, the things that are meaningful,
and help to figure out how to push those out

510
00:54:38.130 --> 00:54:41.850
where they can be used in practice, so that
they can inform practice and vice versa. I

511
00:54:41.850 --> 00:54:46.050
think that reciprocal relationship that both
Gail and Jill pointed to is absolutely right

512
00:54:46.050 --> 00:54:49.670
on as well.
The second thing is one of the most effective

513
00:54:49.670 --> 00:54:54.350
mechanisms that I've seen, and it was within
a very small sub section of research, but

514
00:54:54.350 --> 00:55:00.060
the End It Program from the library of congress,
the national digital program, one of the things

515
00:55:00.060 --> 00:55:04.710
that it did right and did extremely right
is they made research cohorts, so you couldn't

516
00:55:04.710 --> 00:55:10.000
just get a huge grant on digital preservation
and then go your merry way and do your thing.

517
00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:14.010
You were forced to engage with the community
that was doing research alongside you. And

518
00:55:14.010 --> 00:55:19.300
I'd really encourage IMLS to think about what
role that kind of research cohort model could

519
00:55:19.300 --> 00:55:26.660
play and how that Mike used to help transform
some of the disjointed and illused, frankly,

520
00:55:26.660 --> 00:55:29.620
results that we're getting today, as well
as some of the things even Alison that you're

521
00:55:29.620 --> 00:55:35.200
pointing to. People don't know enough about
the field, about what's out here, about what's

522
00:55:35.200 --> 00:55:39.110
been done, and there's nowhere to go to get
that information right now because it's sprawling

523
00:55:39.110 --> 00:55:43.540
and it's messy. The other thing that I'll
mention there is that the center for the future

524
00:55:43.540 --> 00:55:51.390
of museums, which I know IMLS has seated,
may give us a couple of inspirations and some

525
00:55:51.390 --> 00:55:55.350
directions that at least start to push out
some of the findings that are relevant from

526
00:55:55.350 --> 00:55:58.940
other fields, which is the other place where
we fall down repeatedly. There is so much

527
00:55:58.940 --> 00:56:03.930
going on in nonprofit management, in sections
like in ten and all these other meetings that

528
00:56:03.930 --> 00:56:07.790
are right outside of our borders, and that
we're not taking those research findings and

529
00:56:07.790 --> 00:56:11.960
applying them in our own environments, and
that's problematic, too. So lots of comments.

530
00:56:11.960 --> 00:56:19.090
Not really a question. Apologize for that,
but I'll shut up now.

531
00:56:19.090 --> 00:56:23.300
>> I'll come back to another theme. I think
what we have here is a failure to communicate

532
00:56:23.300 --> 00:56:29.960
and it relates partly to what Chrystie said.
When we were talking about and we had our

533
00:56:29.960 --> 00:56:34.810
advisory board and we had the researchers
there and we were using the terms "Valid"

534
00:56:34.810 --> 00:56:40.170
and "Reliable." And people were like no, no,
no. You can't use that reliable. People have

535
00:56:40.170 --> 00:56:46.040
to be trained in reliability and so forth
and on, and Project Views has two aspects.

536
00:56:46.040 --> 00:56:52.400
It has the practitioner's piece of it, which
is the super charged story times, and he also

537
00:56:52.400 --> 00:56:58.460
wanted a portal for researchers, a protected
portal, where the research could be replicated,

538
00:56:58.460 --> 00:57:04.330
but the person who used that had to be trained
on reliability, so that's one aspect where

539
00:57:04.330 --> 00:57:09.680
I think we need to learn the lingo, where
if people are evaluated proposals, we all

540
00:57:09.680 --> 00:57:15.800
need to understand what the language means
and not judge it on some superficial basis.

541
00:57:15.800 --> 00:57:21.940
The other thing is if a project can generate
another byproduct, project views gave birth

542
00:57:21.940 --> 00:57:27.010
to so many wonderful things that, you know,
we barely mentioned them today. But one thing

543
00:57:27.010 --> 00:57:32.370
that happened is that Dr. Drewsing designed
a twoquarter course called researcher action,

544
00:57:32.370 --> 00:57:39.130
where the students were actually trained in
reliability, trained how to collect raw data,

545
00:57:39.130 --> 00:57:45.660
and yeah, it was this vast army of people
that if it weren't for them, we wouldn't have

546
00:57:45.660 --> 00:57:52.030
been able to do the study either. So having
librarians trained, and not the usual statistics

547
00:57:52.030 --> 00:57:56.490
course where you got your textbook, and it's
dry as dust, but where they get their hands

548
00:57:56.490 --> 00:58:02.670
dirty, they're out there, they're in the library,
they're observing, and understanding in their

549
00:58:02.670 --> 00:58:07.250
souls what research means. I think that could
change things, too.

550
00:58:07.250 --> 00:58:12.860
>> Hi. Marsha from Florida State. Well
[Laughter]

551
00:58:12.860 --> 00:58:33.300
>> So three things. But first I want to give
a shoutout to the IES and NSF Common Guidelines

552
00:58:33.300 --> 00:58:39.480
For Educational Research. I think it's a really
good place for us to us to start thinking

553
00:58:39.480 --> 00:58:45.310
about how to generate a theory that a research
base out of the emerging areas in our field,

554
00:58:45.310 --> 00:58:51.330
like maker spaces and how to, like, look at
that, and have the practice of that kind of

555
00:58:51.330 --> 00:58:56.260
evolve into a theory. So if you haven't seen
that document, it's definitely worth checking

556
00:58:56.260 --> 00:58:57.260
out. It's free.
So the other thing I wanted to say, and I'm

557
00:58:57.260 --> 00:59:01.550
definitely much more on the commenting end
of things, but I had made a whole bunch of

558
00:59:01.550 --> 00:59:11.020
a list of a whole bunch of comments as everybody
was speaking here and I was amazed at how

559
00:59:11.020 --> 00:59:14.991
many of them were actually already picked
up by other questioners and commenters, so

560
00:59:14.991 --> 00:59:21.190
that just shows me that you guys really were
very effective at sending a very unified message.

561
00:59:21.190 --> 00:59:26.460
But I want to also talk about the three unloved
pieces of a grant proposal. You know, those

562
00:59:26.460 --> 00:59:30.800
pieces that when you come to writing them,
you're just like oh, God, okay, this is just

563
00:59:30.800 --> 00:59:35.540
boiler plate, boiler plate, boiler plate.
I think that what we're experiencing now is

564
00:59:35.540 --> 00:59:40.940
the result of many years of boiler plate,
and some key areas of grant proposals. And

565
00:59:40.940 --> 00:59:46.330
maybe it's time to start thinking beyond those.
The first one being dissemination, which for

566
00:59:46.330 --> 00:59:52.060
some reason has become a very narrow oneway
street. And I would argue that dissemination

567
00:59:52.060 --> 00:59:56.930
needs to be more of a conversation, that it's
not just going to your conference, yeah, okay,

568
00:59:56.930 --> 01:00:01.100
I'll send you my slides and having that be
the end of the dialogue, but being ready for

569
01:00:01.100 --> 01:00:04.600
those dangerous discussions like you might
meet somebody who hates your study, and maybe

570
01:00:04.600 --> 01:00:14.040
you need to talk to that person about why
they feel so strongly and you can learn something

571
01:00:14.040 --> 01:00:20.800
from them. But also, I think that's a great
way to engage with ancillary groups, really

572
01:00:20.800 --> 01:00:23.490
kind of plug in to what's happening in related
fields.

573
01:00:23.490 --> 01:00:27.410
But more than that, I think that we need to
report negative results. I think that we need

574
01:00:27.410 --> 01:00:32.960
to pub more fail studies, and we need to educate
peer reviewers at journals, that it's okay

575
01:00:32.960 --> 01:00:38.980
if you design a beautiful study, and it produces
nothing. That doesn't mean that there's something

576
01:00:38.980 --> 01:00:44.740
wrong with you, that you're a bad researcher,
it just may mean that that phenomenon that

577
01:00:44.740 --> 01:00:49.750
we all think with our you know, the hair on
the back of our neck or our heart is fa no,

578
01:00:49.750 --> 01:00:54.510
ma'am no, ma'am really might not be a phenomenon,
and I would say that being a person who's

579
01:00:54.510 --> 01:01:04.250
not only, you know, encouraging more school
librarian faculty to exist, but also, you

580
01:01:04.250 --> 01:01:11.890
know, that's a really dangerous piece of the
LIS food chain to be on, too. So, you know,

581
01:01:11.890 --> 01:01:17.950
it is it's a subversive move, no matter how
you stack it, but also school librarianship

582
01:01:17.950 --> 01:01:24.250
suffers from the ability of not asking questions
it wants the answers to. And so I don't have

583
01:01:24.250 --> 01:01:28.090
expertise in other areas, but those of you
who do might be worth thinking about what

584
01:01:28.090 --> 01:01:32.210
those are, and maybe let's just see if a fail
study or two might start shedding some light

585
01:01:32.210 --> 01:01:38.140
on that. The next piece is sustainability.
Mary Alice asked about the grant areas, if

586
01:01:38.140 --> 01:01:44.310
there's one place that sustainability just
gets the text that has got some miles on it,

587
01:01:44.310 --> 01:01:49.231
it's probably one of the areas next to dissemination.
But I would say that sustainability for a

588
01:01:49.231 --> 01:01:56.060
research proposal is not optional, and it
needs to be well articulated in sustainability

589
01:01:56.060 --> 01:02:01.150
isn't about how you're going to get your next
grant. It's about either your broader impact

590
01:02:01.150 --> 01:02:06.070
or your intellectual merit. Do you understand
what that is as a researcher and do you understand

591
01:02:06.070 --> 01:02:10.790
how to communicate that and make that happen,
and so that's a piece that I think should

592
01:02:10.790 --> 01:02:16.410
be a requirement of every research proposal
because I had noticed it's become optional

593
01:02:16.410 --> 01:02:20.390
in some, and I always put it in there anyway,
and mine isn't boiler plate.

594
01:02:20.390 --> 01:02:25.510
The last piece, and this is something that
I think we are in a time now where all of

595
01:02:25.510 --> 01:02:30.550
this talk about sharing data, making data
sets articulate with one another, getting

596
01:02:30.550 --> 01:02:37.260
that epidemiological approach to a lot of
our problem solving, I think that we've gotten

597
01:02:37.260 --> 01:02:44.820
administration in power now that gets it.
And with data.gov and lots of other requirements

598
01:02:44.820 --> 01:02:50.660
for your data products, when it comes to that
piece of how you're going to share your data

599
01:02:50.660 --> 01:02:55.070
sets and make them publicly available, please
don't make it so that somebody that to figure

600
01:02:55.070 --> 01:03:02.340
out who you are, find you and beg your permission
to see your data set. Be more willing to share,

601
01:03:02.340 --> 01:03:08.230
and other people will do the same. And I think
in that way, we can, when we have those middle

602
01:03:08.230 --> 01:03:12.480
of the night inspirations for something we
want to research, something we want to track

603
01:03:12.480 --> 01:03:17.960
down, we don't have to have basically a full
scale mission to find out who that person

604
01:03:17.960 --> 01:03:21.020
is.
So when you prepare that piece for your IMLS

605
01:03:21.020 --> 01:03:26.910
proposal, just be thinking about that, too.
And so that was really, I just love all the

606
01:03:26.910 --> 01:03:32.190
pieces of your grant proposal, and then maybe
oh, and the last thing is I wonder if maybe,

607
01:03:32.190 --> 01:03:37.880
in a way to deal with the issue with, you
know, that Rand Doe you get on your panel

608
01:03:37.880 --> 01:03:44.100
every once in a while who may not have expertise
in your area yet feels as though they do,

609
01:03:44.100 --> 01:03:49.530
if there's some way of maybe averaging the
scores, how about dropping a high and low

610
01:03:49.530 --> 01:03:54.370
and maybe looking at what's in the middle.
>> Or looking at inconsistency.

611
01:03:54.370 --> 01:03:56.560
>> Yeah.
>> As a flag.

612
01:03:56.560 --> 01:04:00.780
>> As social scientists, we have many different
ways we can look at these things.

613
01:04:00.780 --> 01:04:04.910
>> Okay. I'm moving the mic over here.
>> Hi, I'm

614
01:04:04.910 --> 01:04:09.050
>> One second, please.
>> So I have a lot of comments to what Marsha

615
01:04:09.050 --> 01:04:13.590
said. But I'm just going to highlight one.
So I think it's really interesting, Marsha

616
01:04:13.590 --> 01:04:21.810
pointed out that we should be publishing research
that failed, right? So I would also, then,

617
01:04:21.810 --> 01:04:29.450
reach out to the editors of journals to see
if they would actually publish those research.

618
01:04:29.450 --> 01:04:31.770
So I want all of you to think about that,
though.

619
01:04:31.770 --> 01:04:40.360
>> Or a new journal. The Failed Study. .
>> JOHN HORRIGAN: We have a question over

620
01:04:40.360 --> 01:04:44.650
here.
>> Yes. Very interesting conversation here.

621
01:04:44.650 --> 01:04:50.830
Two points. First, we need to question the
power and the meanings associated with the

622
01:04:50.830 --> 01:04:56.681
research, and I think IMLS is doing that very
well, recognizing the positive what we understand

623
01:04:56.681 --> 01:05:03.350
as knowledge, research, what methods need
to be what are accepted as relevant and valid

624
01:05:03.350 --> 01:05:09.150
in telling a particular story, exploring the
phenomena to be explored, and how we do it.

625
01:05:09.150 --> 01:05:14.369
So the stepbrotherly treatment that qualitative
researchers have had, I think we sometimes

626
01:05:14.369 --> 01:05:22.320
internalize that further, and I think in some
ways, IMLS has done a great job in recognizing

627
01:05:22.320 --> 01:05:27.650
the quality of their approaches, but now,
if one needs to look forward in terms of action

628
01:05:27.650 --> 01:05:35.240
research, we might need to acknowledge a more
even more broader understanding of the research,

629
01:05:35.240 --> 01:05:40.890
who is the researcher and the participant.
As you all know, we have the concept of community

630
01:05:40.890 --> 01:05:46.090
action researchers, where the researcher and
the participant are bringing their own realities

631
01:05:46.090 --> 01:05:50.990
into the situation, and so they are bringing
their own expertise into that.

632
01:05:50.990 --> 01:05:55.150
So I think taking our understanding of research
and the meaning of research, that's where

633
01:05:55.150 --> 01:06:00.500
we find sort of this between the research
and practice because we got stuck in the traditional

634
01:06:00.500 --> 01:06:06.391
definitions of those terms, and what we understand
as a part of that process.

635
01:06:06.391 --> 01:06:15.540
The second aspect is looking at when one was
in telling our own stories, we internalize

636
01:06:15.540 --> 01:06:22.590
those preconceived historical notions about
research, and so we should be but of course

637
01:06:22.590 --> 01:06:27.330
it is important to be able to document what
we might have done and how we did it so that

638
01:06:27.330 --> 01:06:32.490
others realize what we are doing and how we
got there. And I sometimes feel that people

639
01:06:32.490 --> 01:06:39.411
have had a resistance in being able to indicate
it that way because they are controlling their

640
01:06:39.411 --> 01:06:43.980
own experiences and the stories in terms of
what the social constructs of traditional

641
01:06:43.980 --> 01:06:49.300
research has been. And so I think we need
to be able to then acknowledge that and move

642
01:06:49.300 --> 01:06:53.470
forward from there. Thanks.
>> But I would also just point out that I

643
01:06:53.470 --> 01:07:00.630
wonder and this is a question for IMLS to
ponder could an as soundly constructed action

644
01:07:00.630 --> 01:07:08.340
research project as you describe, and a theoretical
research theorybuilding research study be

645
01:07:08.340 --> 01:07:15.050
evaluated by these same panel reviewers, and
I think that is a really good question. Sorry.

646
01:07:15.050 --> 01:07:20.180
I think you should ponder that. I don't know
the answer.

647
01:07:20.180 --> 01:07:28.910
>> So I have a question. This is Cindy Gibbon.
I am pondering the concept of failed research.

648
01:07:28.910 --> 01:07:33.550
What in the heck is failed research? Is that
when you fail to prove your hypothesis, when

649
01:07:33.550 --> 01:07:38.160
what you thought was going to happen doesn't?
>> GAIL DICKINSON: It's when you try to prove

650
01:07:38.160 --> 01:07:43.920
that reading makes a difference in kids' lives
and you find out that with your group of kids,

651
01:07:43.920 --> 01:07:51.220
for some reason, their test scores went down.
>> That's not failed research. In my mind.

652
01:07:51.220 --> 01:07:57.900
At all. That is when what we thought doesn't
turn out to be true.

653
01:07:57.900 --> 01:08:04.050
>> GAIL DICKINSON: That's a failed research.
>> And truthfully, it would inform our field

654
01:08:04.050 --> 01:08:08.490
a whole lot more if we saw a whole lot more
of those results.

655
01:08:08.490 --> 01:08:12.150
>> I would agree. I would agree.
>> JOHN HORRIGAN: I'm going to take the chair's

656
01:08:12.150 --> 01:08:17.440
prerogative just to make an observation as
we draw down on time. We talked a good bit

657
01:08:17.440 --> 01:08:24.270
about dissemination, the phrase I hear, and
this was from the head of a major foundation,

658
01:08:24.270 --> 01:08:33.359
and I'll add that it's not the Pew Research
Center who said this, you know, the notion

659
01:08:33.359 --> 01:08:38.630
of here's my research proposal, here's what
my dissemination plan is kind of glazes over

660
01:08:38.630 --> 01:08:44.810
the eyes of a lot of people these days, and
the phrase they use instead is, "What's the

661
01:08:44.810 --> 01:08:49.739
pathway to influence in your research that
you propose from it" so that you are not just

662
01:08:49.739 --> 01:08:55.359
saying I'm going to publish here or go to
these conferences, it's a strategy for getting

663
01:08:55.359 --> 01:09:02.350
that research somewhere where it's going to
make a difference to a set of decision makers

664
01:09:02.350 --> 01:09:04.980
that you define. And maybe that's a way to
think about dissemination in a somewhat different

665
01:09:04.980 --> 01:09:15.290
way than often has been the case.
We have I think time for one more brief question,

666
01:09:15.290 --> 01:09:19.290
and then response, and if not, we are going
to thank this panel for a wonderful discussion

667
01:09:19.290 --> 01:09:20.750
and thank you all for the questions. So thank
you.

668
01:09:20.750 --> 01:09:20.900
[Applause]