Table of Contents
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 4
Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Conducting our in-person Focus Groups .............................................................................................. 9
Online Asynchronous Focus Group ...................................................................................................... 12
Ethics Concerns ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Purpose
In recent years there has been a tremendous growth in the use of mobile device technology, a
trend mirrored by the widescale adoption of smartphones (cellular phones with internet
capability) within our undergraduate population. Other factors in the growth of this type of
product include a rapid increase in the availability of smartphones (price and device
competition) as well as an increase in the speed at which people can connect to the web using
these devices (Madden, 2009) therefore making them a legitimate access point to the internet.
The University of British Columbia (UBC) Library has recently begun to adapt their services for
mobile users by providing a mobile device specific website (www.library.ubc.ca/m). This UBC
m-library interface was rapidly thrown together in 2009, as UBC was co-hosting the Second
International m-Libraries Conference (http://m-libraries2009.ubc.ca/). The research carried out
in its development consisted of examining other academic libraries in Canada and the United
States that currently had m-libraries, and listing what features were being offered to those
patrons.(Joseph, 2009) The UBC m-library website was then developed by simply including the
features from this list that could also be quickly and easily put in place. No survey was done of
what features UBC library patrons might want to have access to, or which features they felt
they might use if available.
The purpose of our proposed research is to investigate the actual and potential uses of mobile
web devices as an additional interface mechanism in the delivery of library services to the
general undergraduate population of UBC. We are attempting to better understand how UBC
m-library services can be enhanced to serve patrons who might wish to better utilize their
mobile devices to access library resources. We are undertaking this research design to aid UBC
Systems Librarians in designing and implementing m-library services for mobile users. The
principle aim of our research design is to determine which online library services patrons would
like to have access to via their mobile devices.
We are proposing a few different mechanisms to gather data on this topic. Our methods will
include an online questionnaire, followed by focus groups of individuals (selected for their
willingness to participate and their ownership of a mobile internet device) to obtain views of
potential and currently available UBC m-library services.
Research Questions
Our principal research question is broadly - "What library services do UBC library patrons most
want to be able to access through their web enabled mobile device". In addition, research
studies (see Literature Review Appendix I) have shown that there may be a need for services
such as text-message (SMS) reference service. Such interactions would require only a device
with SMS capability so includes devices that are may not be internet ready. So a minor focus is
also on researching the needs of m-device users who do not have internet access.
As there has been little research done that focuses on the needs of students at Canadian
university libraries, and because technological advances have made most previous studies
obsolete, we are devising a research methodology that can be used to examine current mdevice library patron needs at UBC. The results of this research will allow the UBC Library to
modify their m-library site to more effectively serve their m-patrons. Web technology changes,
and as an institution UBC needs to be prepared to manage the changes in technology that are
taking place. To allow these changing needs to be tracked, our research methodology has been
designed to allow repetition annually or biennially, as appropriate.
Methodology
In deciding which research tools were applicable to our research, a number of different
approaches were considered and ruled out:



Direct unobtrusive observation is not possible due to the small size of handheld
devices, and also the fact that users would be scattered around the city, rather than
just being at UBC library branches.
Written questionnaires sent by post or telephone interviews would not be possible
without having contact information for UBC students and staff. They would also by
costly.
In-person structured interviews would require far too much time to complete.
After considering various research methods, it was decided that a mixed methods approach will
be employed in this study in order to provide a more detailed understanding of the information
needs of our users. It will consist of two main stages, involving two different research methods:


A self-completion questionnaire available online
Subsequent focus groups
Questionnaire
A review of the literature found results of a few research studies on what academic m-library
services users would like to have available for them (Karim, Darus & Hussin, 2006; Caruso &
Salaway, 2008; Mills, 2009; Ryerson University Library, 2008). The library cell phone/mobile
device services that students felt would be most useful were:








being able to book study rooms
being able to check library branch open hours, locations, and contact information
being able to renew library items
getting alerts of overdue books
getting information on outstanding fees
getting alerts when library items were approaching their due dates
reference inquiry services
getting information from the library OPAC/databases
These services were included in our relevant survey questions. The research results of the
Ryerson University Library 2008 study were both recent and applied to the patrons of a
Canadian academic library. As a result of their research, they have updated their m-library
interface (available at http://www.ryerson.ca/library/mobile/). In the design of our survey, the
services available via their m-library, as well as those available via the UBC and other academic
m-libraries, were carefully examined. Our self-directed study questionnaire was built to
address the research questions outlined above. Its design was influenced by the designs of the
Ryerson University Library's 2008 and 2009 mobile device surveys. (Add references for these)
A self-directed questionnaire was viewed as the most suitable research method as it data can
be collected rapidly, and at little cost. Advantages of such questionnaires over individual
interviews include: (Bryman, p. 218)



Absence of interviewer effects
No interviewer variability
Convenience for respondents
A few of the disadvantages include being unable to probe for further information, problems
with asking open questions, limits to the number of questions it is feasible to ask, and the fact
that respondents can read the entire questionnaire before beginning to answer questions
(Bryman, p. 218). To get around these problems, we chose to also include Focus groups as a
part of our research design.
The draft questionnaire contained herein has not yet undergone pilot testing. Before making
the survey widely available, such a study needs to be carried out. For this, researchers will
recruit roughly 20 students, with the enticement of free refreshments (e.g. coffee, pizza), to
complete the survey. They will be asked to provide feedback on any problems they
encountered with it; any questions that were not clear, questions or answer options that they
thought should be added, removed or re-worded, etc. This will likely take about 15 minutes per
student. The results of this pilot study will allow the survey questionnaire to be ‘tweaked’ as
necessary prior to the public release of the final version.
The final survey will be made available to the public by two methods:


An online version, which may be via an HTML form or a survey device
such as SurveyMonkey.
A paper copy, available at UBC library branch circulation desks.
The survey will be available for a three week period, tentatively February 1-22, 2010, although
these dates may need to be moved if the pilot study results indicate that considerable
modifications need to be made. In 2008, the Ryerson University Library posted a similar survey
for a three week period and 811 surveys were completed and submitted (Ryerson 2008 Survey
Results). Given the larger size of the UBC student population, a three week time period should
allow the collection of over a thousand surveys. To entice patrons to complete the
questionnaire, there will be a draw for an iPod Touch. All submitted questionnaires that have a
valid email address included at the end will be entered. This email address will not be used for
anything other than the draw, and will not be entered in the research results (coding schedule).
In addition, one survey question asks if respondents would be willing to participate in a focus
group to discuss their use of mobile devices. If they are interested, they are asked to enter an
email address that can be used to contact them for the second stage of the research.
The cover letter for the paper copy of the questionnaire, the questionnaire itself, a completed
copy of the questionnaire, the coding manual, and the coding schedules are all attached
(Appendices B, C, D, E, & F respectively).
Focus Groups
After we have completed the initial Survey Questionnaire, we will randomly choose, from
among our respondents who indicated their interest, a sampling of individuals who will be
invited to participate in our Focus Group sessions. Because the time commitment for these
Focus Groups will be higher than for our Survey questionnaires we will offer $10 to all the
individuals who attend the Focus Group sessions.
One reason we are choosing Focus Groups is because they involve more than one interviewee
and, as distinct from traditional interview methods, can emphasize a specific theme/topic to be
explored in depth whereas an interview may span a variety of topics (Bryman 473). Focus
Group research also examines how people respond to each other's views. One can gain unique
insights from studying the interactions that take place within the group.
Our secondary Focus Group will be conducted using an online asynchronous mechanism.
Bryman explains that although online Focus Groups "tend to be shorter than comparable faceto-face focus groups, they can generate a considerable amount of relevant data for the
researcher" (Reid and Reid 2005 via Bryman 474). We also chose this method as it may result in
cost savings principally by reducing travel expenses (researchers and participants).
Conducting our in-person Focus Groups

Recording and Transcribing
We have chosen to record and transcribe our focus group interviews for the following reasons
(Bryman 476):
o The difficulty of taking notes when several people engage in conversation
o To allow researchers to focus on participant behaviors (discussion leaders,
followers etc)
o To allow an observation of not just what participants say, but how they express
themselves (tonality, sub-vocal, body language, etc).
In order to avoid any "theoretical saturation" (being able to predict the responses of the next
focus group - Bryman 477) we have chosen to restrict our focus groups to approximately three
in total. We felt that since we are focusing mainly on the needs of undergraduate students, the
level of diversity among the participants does not necessitate a larger number of Focus Groups,
and we wish to reduce unnecessary expenses. We also wanted to keep the level and
complexity of our analysis to a reasonable amount so as to facilitate the annual or biennial
repetition as is necessary.

Size of Group
We suggest over-recruiting as the incidence of no-shows may be slightly higher among our
participants due to work/study demands oftentimes creating unanticipated demands on our
participant’s time. Due to the nature of the topic of our Focus Groups, we don't anticipate
heavily emotional responses from the participants, nor is the topic particularly controversial or
complex. Therefore a smaller more intimate group is not necessary. In order to avoid the 'Wall
of Silence' that Bryman (480) warns about if a group is too large and the topic too unfamiliar we
will ensure that the Moderator is sufficiently prepared with conversational starting questions.
In terms of raw numbers the aim is for approximately 10 participants per study (recruit 12).

Selecting Participants
A notice on the M-libraries online survey questionnaire asking for Focus Group volunteers will
be the main selection method [see Survey Question 13]. Participants will be drawn from the
undergraduate population with no checks on ethnicity, social class, religion or other such
categories. Focus groups will be gender balanced as much as possible. Participants will receive
an email requesting their presence at a Focus Group and an explanation of confidentiality and
remuneration. [See email sample Appendix G]

Level of Moderator involvement
Because our aim is to "get at the perspectives of those being studied (Bryman 480)" we
recommend that the Moderator's approach to Focus Group facilitation be neither intrusive nor
overly structured. The Moderator is expected to allow some free flow of expression or opinions
from the audience but to also ensure that the overall thrust of the Focus Group conversation
remains on the pertinent topic. We also advise (since this will involve judgment) that the
Moderator err on the side of minimal intervention unless the group is very off topic or
otherwise having difficulties (Bryman 480).

Asking Questions
Each session is to begin with an introduction (Moderator thanks participants, introductions,
statement of research goals, format , time considerations, statement of anonymity, and a
request for one person to speak at a time.) Consent forms will be handed out and retrieved.
[Appendix H]
We are going to give the Moderator three questions to guide the discussion with the
understanding that our purpose is to gather information on expectations for m-library services
and needs of users and as such we want to ensure that a climate of participation is
maintained.
The three questions that we recommend guide the focus group are:
1. What m-library services do you currently use and why/why not?
2. What types of services would you like to be able to receive through m-libraries?
3. Are there any features of the UBC library's regular website that you would or would not
want available through a mobile interface?
We designed these early questions in order to (Bryman 484) "generate initial reactions in a
relatively open-ended way.... [for the purpose of being able to] navigate the channel between,
on the one side, addressing the research questions and ensuring comparability between
session, and on the other side, allowing participant to raise issues they see as significant and in
their own terms." We fear a more structured approach would inhibit the spontaneity (Bryman
484) that we are anticipating from the participants.
Each session will end with the Moderator thanking the participants and offering an explanation
of what will happen to the data collected and assurances of anonymity.

Focus Group Limitations
We recognize the following limitations of Focus Groups including (Bryman 488)
o
o
o
o
o
o
Less control than in an individual interview
Data more difficult to analyze (coding, transcribing)
Difficult to organize (people having very different schedules)
Multiple speakers
Reticent speakers/ enthusiasts
Emerging group views (inclination to agree)
Online Asynchronous Focus Group
This Focus Group will not exchange information in real time. The online asynchronous Focus
Group will be conducted via email (no attachments - all information in the body). This is to
avoid possible problems of incompatible conference software among participants, and of calls
being dropped unexpectedly. The Moderator will send out a welcome message introducing the
research and laying out some of the ground rules for the ongoing discussion (Bryman 638). The
Moderator will then ask a series of questions (the same ones as used in the in-person Focus
Groups) one at a time. People can reply to the Moderator by a specific deadline. The
Moderator will then send anonymous copies of the answers received to the rest of the
participants (a summary document), thus injecting a form of 'respondent validation' (Bryman
638). Selection criteria will be the same as in-person Focus Groups [Survey question #13,
Appendix B]. Ideally the group will not too large as to present research management issues (we
recommend around 10).
Ethics Concerns
Both co-researchers have completed the 'Introductory Tutorial for the Tri-Council Policy
Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS)', and copies of our
certificates are attached [Appendix A]
Our main ethical concern was maintaining participant anonymity. Below is a bullet point
assessment of our ethical considerations.








Phone calls were ruled out due to intimidation and persuasion factors.
Our research proposal has not received any independent methodological peer review.
We are not enrolling 'control subjects' in any portion of our research.
Recruitment for the Survey questionnaire portion will be those who voluntarily choose
be complete the survey questionnaire electronically through a link on the main Library
page.
Recruitment for the Focus Group portion will be done primarily through the selfselection of those who complete the survey questionnaire. Those who indicate an
interest in participation will be contacted via email only once (if randomly chosen as
possible participants). Non-response will be determined as a lack of interest or
availability.
The location of the Focus Groups will be the Koerner Library and are scheduled to be
completed within one hour.
Potential risks may involve slight discomfort of participants who have difficulty speaking
in groups; otherwise there is no risk to participants involved in any aspect of this
research project.
There is no direct benefit to participants completing the Survey questionnaire portion of
this Research, other than to the winner of the iPod Touch. However, due to the time
commitment we are requesting, there will be financial remuneration involved with the
Focus Groups. Remuneration will be approximately $10 cash at the beginning of the
Focus Group session. We anticipate there may be a few who choose to ‘dine and dash’
but we don't feel that those individuals will be numerically high enough to have an
untoward impact on the Focus Group results.




All participants of the online survey questionnaire will be entered into a draw for an
iPod Touch. The information from the Surveys they complete will be separated from the
participants' email addresses. All valid email addresses submitted will the entered into
the prize draw and a winner will be chosen at random. The winner will be contacted via
email and suitable arrangements for gift delivery will be made (pick up in person or
mailed to the winner's address).
All paper documentation generated with the Survey questionnaire and audio tapes of
Focus Groups will be identified only by code numbers and will be kept in a locked filing
cabinet. Computer files will be password protected. All data will be kept for a period of
time as deemed appropriate to the researchers.
Only the researchers and the research supervisors will have access to the raw data.
There are no foreseen personal benefits for the researchers, other than course credit
towards completion of their MLIS degrees.