I came across an interesting study that is along the same lines and similar in scope to the research I'd like to propose. The study, called "How do adult new readers locate high-interest, easy-to-read books?" (Scates, Public Libraries, 1999), compares five public libraries in Texas, examining the literacy efforts of each. Specifically, the author/researcher looks at the number of adult new reader books held by the library, the existence of a literacy program, and the knowledge of the staff about whatever program may exist.
It struck me upon reading this paper how similar part of Scates' methodology was to that in the study I have been forming in my head over the past few weeks. At first my reaction was, "Oh no, someone has already done the research I want to do," but after a careful examination, it turns out there are many differences between what I would like to do and what Scates has done. Seeing this paper published in Public Libraries made me feel like my ideas are legitimate ones and worthy of putting into action.
Scates searched each library's OPAC for the existence of books from a list of recommended titles for Adult New Readers from the Public Library Association (PLA) for 1993-1997. She also compared the location of each title on the shelf. She produced tables showing the number of titles each branch collected and the number of titles located in Juvenile, Young Adult, Adult, New Adult Reader, and Easy sections. The libraries differed greatly on the number and location of titles. Only one of the five libraries had a section specifically set aside as "New Adult Reader".
This process is something I would like to implement in my own study, although I may use a different list for the comparison. I also wish to look at the collection of non-literary materials instead of just books.
The most interesting part of Scates' study was her method of finding out how knowledgeable the staff at each branch was about their literacy collection. She worked on the assumption that a new reader or illiterate adult would call the library only once for information on their literacy collection, and would not make a second attempt if they did not receive the information or assistance they were searching for. Based on this idea, she made one informal phone call to each library branch and asked the same general questions to the person who answered the phone: "Does the library system have a literacy program?"; "Do you know of any materials in your collection for adult new readers?"; etc. Surprisingly, four of the five libraries surveyed were unhelpful and could offer no literacy program or book recommendations.
Scates refers to this part of her study as the "survey". I would contend that this part of her methodology was not a true survey and would certainly not be scientific enough to please Robson. By only surveying one staff member from each library, the results are perhaps more unfavorable than they would have been had the researcher surveyed all staff members. However, for Scates' non-scientific purposes, I think the survey she conducted was valuable and enlightening. If she had conducted a full, formal survey of all staff members, they would probably have caught on to what was being asked and been better prepared to respond with answers that make themselves look informed. My own study will likely be more formal and scientific than hers, but it does make for an interesting comparison piece.