Search

The expansion of research methods in library and information studies (LIS) has not been followed by an expedited development of rigorous standards for innovative research evaluation. This article focuses on the lack of clear guidance for evaluating hermeneutic phenomenological studies and proposes to address the situation by introducing the 12 principles of evaluation. These principles can help authors implement quality control in the design and writing of hermeneutic phenomenological reports and help peer reviewers, trained in quantitative and mixed methods, evaluate qualitative studies on their own merit, with a set of unique and appropriate criteria, rather than with the standards suited for quantitative inquiry. The 12 principles are advocated as a means of fostering scientific empathy toward phenomenologists and toward the methodology itself. Scientific empathy is positioned as a way of bridging gaps in knowledge and understanding and nurturing a more collaborative spirit that supports the diversity of research methodologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article continues the discussion of the experiences of disabled and neurodiverse Ph.D. students in Library and Information Science programs in American and Canadian universities, following up on the previous report that addressed their struggles during and in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. This article directs attention to their experiences in Ph.D. programs irrespective of the pandemic and focuses on both existing barriers and support mechanisms. Based on the results of a qualitative, online, self-administered survey, guided by hermeneutic phenomenology, the study identifies barriers rooted in attitudes and perceptions; policies and procedures; information and communication; physical spaces; virtual spaces and technology; and access to support services and networks. At the same time, an only mitigating factor and an only sustainable and consistently mentioned support mechanism was the good will, compassion, and supportive actions of individual faculty members. The article places the analysis and interpretation of empirical data in the context of academic ableism, conceptualizing the situation of Ph.D. students as a lingering state that was not improved even through the lessons and experiences of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amid the growing body of research on disability and neurodiversity, disabled and neurodiverse Ph.D. students are not often in the focus, despite the fact that Ph.D. students occupy a unique position of a learner-scholar-teacher in academia. A particular gap is felt in the field of Library & Information Science (LIS). This study stands to address this gap by focusing on the experiences of disabled and neurodiverse Ph.D. students in American and Canadian LIS Programs during the COVID-19 pandemic and in its immediate aftermath. Guided by the Holistic Empowering Methodological Approach (HEMA) that puts participants in the driver's seat and allows them to determine the nature and extent of participation, the study spotlights participants' experiences during the remote learning and returning to campus phases of the lingering public health crisis. The findings show that while there was a fair balance of positive and negative experiences during the earlier stage of the pandemic, the stage of returning to campus was associated with additional challenges and an overwhelming number of negative experiences. The article addresses personal, program-related, and environmental factors in both positive and negative experiences, using the findings as a basis for conclusions and recommendations to Ph.D. program administrators and faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the Holistic Empowering Methodological Approach (HEMA), which is philosophically informed by the concept of diversity by design; epistemologically and methodologically guided by hermeneutic phenomenology; and supported by the method of qualitative survey combined with the Single Question Aimed at Inducing Narrative (SQUIN) technique. This is a methodological conceptual article whereby the development and application of the HEMA is illustrated through the study that examined the learning and professional development experiences of disabled and neurodiverse PhD students in library and information science (LIS) programs amid the lingering COVID-19 pandemic and explored their academic lifeworlds. The article critically assesses the merits and shortcomings of the HEMA and provides other researchers with a roadmap for replicating the HEMA in every phase of research: from brainstorming to the selection of methods, to data collection, analysis, interpretation, and reporting. In so doing, the article also strives to reaffirm the vitality of rigorous qualitative methodology in studying underresearched, minoritized, and marginalized communities. From the scholarly worldview to specific methodological choices, this framework advocates for the type of research that puts participants in the "driver's seat," giving them agency and providing the opportunity for self-definition and self-determination. The nuanced presentation of a holistic methodological approach, with particular attention paid to the issues of methodological rigor and quality control, will be of benefit to both beginner and seasoned researchers and can serve as an educational aid in research methods courses and dissertation supervision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]