Purpose
The author provides a clearly stated purpose for the research. The author states that the research intends to, “conceptualize a collective strategy to diversify library services to immigrants and to make library responses to changing populations more efficient.” It is necessary to provide a clear definition of what these terms constitute because this statement appears at the beginning of the research paper ad it may confuse the reader. For instance, what constitutes “changing populations” and in what manner is the population changing? In terms of age, preferences, race, technology? There is a need for further clarification. Secondly, this purpose is too general. The author does not speak about a specific intention that the research has or the detailed definition of such intentions. In addition, where the author mentions a division between library professionals but does not go into the details explaining the basis of this divide. Is it ethnic, or is it just random based on their personalities? Such a clarification is necessary for this study because it provides further insight into the challenges librarians face as they try to serve immigrant populations.
Research Question
The research question is also very general. It seeks to know the measures taken by public libraries to serve the immigrant population in the United States throughout the 20th century. This looks like a history lesson, which does not sound very beneficial to the 21st century. It is clear and the research can answer this question, but it lacks the appeal held by innovative research. The author can develop this question by introducing a contemporary or modern concept that will address the incorporation of this research’s findings into the 21st-century library environment. This question provides a very basic perspective of the study that does not appeal to an inquisitive reader yet, it is such that read research papers.
Hypothesis and Theoretical Framework
The author does not expressly state any hypothesis or even theoretic framework guiding his research. One can infer the theory that by knowing how a certain situation turned out in the past, those in the present can glean insight on what not to do so that they can have a better future. This theory holds water but the author does not bring it out clearly in his paper. This can translate into a lack of credibility if the author were to research its present form because ideally, one needs a theory and a hypothesis so that colleagues can peer review the research and explain or rebut the inferences or findings based on the theory. However, without a clear hypothesis and theoretical framework, the researcher is playing it safe, which does not say much for his / her credibility.
Literature review
The author simply states the materials he is planning to use. He also gives several disclaimers on these sources stating that they are probably very unreliable as are all history sources for various reasons including authors’ bias and subjectivity in writing. He also adds that the sources do not articulate the dynamic needs of these immigrant populations as occasioned by demand and varying social outlooks on multiculturalism in America. This shows the unreliability of the sources. This study requires a healthy bout of information on the needs that these immigrants have so that it can seek answers on whether the public libraries satisfy these needs. Moreover, the author simply lists the literature and does not explain to the reader his reasons for choosing that particular source. He should give a brief explanation to the reader on the contents of a particular book or journal and state what particular concept caught his attention relating to the current study.
Measurement
This research depends a lot on history and so it is more qualitative than quantitative (Norris 76). Nevertheless, the author needs to give more information about the sources he intends to borrow from including their findings in similar research. In its present form, the proposal does not indicate whether or not the author intends to collect samples and if so, from what population and in what amounts. The probability is that he will use other researchers’ findings to infer meaning and so he needs to indicate this. She mentions using secondary sources to access primary sources and this may work depending on the context of the application, but since this context is vague at best, the proposal needs more clarity and more information.
Sampling procedures
As noted above, the author does not clearly outline these. However, she mentions searching for trends, common views, and consistent concerns about serving immigrants specifically from public librarians. This means that among the samples the author intends to collect are the comments and trends of library professionals. However, the author does not give a clear procedure of how she will arrive at any conclusions based on this data, or the quantities she intends to collect for this research activity.
Data collection
The author states that she will deal with trends, including collection development strategies, library programming, and new techniques aimed at serving the immigrant population. All these she will glean from the comments and common concerns of library professionals. This will work and although she needs to state clearly how she will obtain the data, it is sufficient to carry out the research.
Validity
Unfortunately, the author’s sources of information lack credibility due to the numerous disclaimers given almost in self-defense. However, the author can correct this impression by providing sources that are more credible such as peer-reviewed journals and other professional materials.
Presentation of the information and ethical issues
The author has poignant points but they are not fully developed. This is a very basic proposal and the information can be more credible if the author engages in some more research on relevant sources. On the matter of ethics, simply stating that the author will not use human subjects is not enough (Norris 65). It is advisable to state what is wrong with using human subjects and outline another ethical issue as well. Besides, since the author is not using human subjects, what alternatives are available to her, and what is her criterion in choosing from the available options?
Overall evaluation
This research proposal is half-baked and vague at best. The author does not seem to have exhaustively thought about the realm of her study and so the reader feels like there is more that she is hiding or that she can do better. However, the outline is complete and commendable and once all the details are in place, it should be a very enlightening study worth sponsoring.
Work cited
Norris, Kirk,. Proposal Writing: Dissertations. Kansas: Springler, 2008.