3:1 Research and theory

Selection of journal and paper

This journal "Information technology and libraries" contains sub topics especially relevant to media management such as usability, identity management, intellectual property rights, emerging technologies, technical standards and digital humanities.

Although the journal is American, I chose it partly on basis of the information being applicable and/or relevant globally. Partly, because I have a particular expertise within SEO, social networking and mobile services which are also included in the scope. From the same journal, I chose to analyze the paper “Digital collections are a sprint, not a marathon: Adapting Scrum project management techniques to library digital initiatives”.

Critical examination of study

This exploratory, qualitative, predictive case study uses applied research to explore how digital collections of data can benefit from using Scrum. Scrum, known as an agile project management tool, is here used in context of updating digital collections.

The aim with the study was for librarians to publish large collections quicker and to more effectively multitask production of multiple high priority collections. One team member identified the opportunity to enhance how large projects were handled by using Scrum at a conference.

In the paper, Scrum is first described. Main emphasis is placed on its focus on communication over documentation, offering a potentially new perspective for librarians. Other important concepts within Scrum are sprints; focused team work on one project at the time, Scrum master (facilitator) and Scrum product owner (team lead).

Second, Scrum as chosen project management tool is motivated by describing the team and their current setup. The study supports the fact that Scrum is successfully used as a project management tool within programming (200+ studies).

Three members were involved in the case study to avoid disruption to organisational structures; digital initiatives librarian, metadata librarian and digitization manager. The team only adopted aspects of Scrum deemed most likely to improve outcomes at the pilot stage. Daily meetings were excluded. Sprint periods were shortened to two weeks.

Applying Scrum resulted in increased team spirit and individual accountability, ability to publish large collections incrementally and flexibility with planning/managing large or small projects.

Although Scrum supports the team size (3-9), it could be argued that the study is potentially biased. It is mentioned that one member motivated Scrum, but not whether or not other team members had a say. The fact that one team member may have written the research or influenced it is not addressed.

It could be criticised that the study is weaker proof of Scrum being successful in other fields than programming, because the team did not apply basic Scrum techniques. The role of the Scrum master is to ensure that the Scrum rules are followed; it seems like no Scrum master (nor product owner) was appointed. The hybrid they created of Scrum planning and review seemed like a result of not being supplied with proper resources and avoiding hindrances to complete sprints. This would also be the responsibility of the Scrum master.

Further, the paper could have benefited of more supportive sources. Especially arguing for removal of certain Scrum rules; the reason given was "too many other distractions" rather than "source A suggests that a hybrid solution is more effective, because...". There was in other words no valid argument to cut out the techniques.

Despite weaknesses in the study, the results points to the increased communication and flexibility which is at the core of what Scrum is about. It has an indication of Scrum being applicable to other fields than programming, but this study has too many pitfalls to support that in itself.

If I would design the study differently, a crucial point for validity would be to plan for and adhere to basic Scrum roles such as Scrum master and product owner as well as using daily meetings.

Questions

1. Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

References, data, variables, diagrams and hypothesis are not theory. They do not, on their own, argue, explain or describe why this information leads to a new or unanswered theoretical question. Although there is no consensus on what theory is, in contrast to the above it is commonly said that theory answers the question "why".


2. Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as? Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The predictive theory in the paper is limited as the author already had a mindset from the start, expecting the outcome. This could miss out on learning from other potential outcomes. An advantage with the setup is that it is possible to highly target it, which may not be as easy for applied research where ROI needs to be motivated for.

3:2 Reflection: Research and theory

What is theory? As described in my first post about research and theory, some conclusions could be drawn about what theory is not. It is harder to define what theory is as there is no absolute answer to this. In the lecture, this understanding was confirmed, but we also learned some more.

New information to me was that "theory" is different from "a theory" in that theory is, according to my understanding, a system of ideas that provides, explore, explain, or prescribes something you do not have prior knowledge about. New understanding. Theory is supported by institutions and offers argumentation about certain phenomenon. "A theory" is referring to a more narrow and existing understanding about a topic and can sometimes also be similar to the concept of “hypothesis”; in the sentence “I have  theory...” one is more inclined to mean “I have a hypothesis” than “I have a system of ideas”. We also discussed facts. "Facts can only be referred to a priori knowledge and nothing else.", the teacher said. This was interesting as hearing “it is a fact” could be questioned more often. We were recommended to read further literature on the topic; "Structure of scientific revolutions" and "An anarchist theory of knowledge".

In discussion groups, we were to describe the major theories used in our papers and potential pros and cons. The group found it tricky to pinpoint some papers; whether they purely analysed or also described or forecasted theory. It was an interesting dilemma, but in the end we concluded that some of our papers were of analysis type and others of design.

Benefits and limitations of papers were discussed where analysis cons were many questions to still explore, no causal relationships and impractical. Analysis pros were good basis for another researcher to continue, on a new topic it is valid information and ability to focus in depth on a particular subject; eliminate unnecessary information.

Design con was potentially scattered information. Design pros were practical application, prediction and relevant to businesses.

It was interesting to learn about how research methods were used in different ways in our papers, but also how there was some overlap in problems found with for example balancing resources and applying research in a professional setting. One paper was about how screens are scanned differently by human eyes depending on screen size. This was particularly interesting in the era of user experience that is becoming more relevant. The book “Information architecture for the world wide web” came to mind, warmly recommended for anyone interested to learn more about User experience design (UX).

This lesson made me connect back to the concept “knowledge” and how it is natural for human beings to organize information and knowledge to make sense of the world. Research papers organize data, hypotheses and theory. Information architecture organizes information. Carl von Linné (you know, the guy on Swedish 100 SEK bills) organized plants and when it went further, also human beings, introducing race biology way before Hitler. In this sense, theory becomes a tool for us to make sense of the world, but it is also merely one of many and not a necessary evil.