Through the Students’ Lens: Photographic Methods for Research in Library Spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective – As librarians and researchers, we are deeply curious about how our library users navigate and experience our library spaces. Although we have some data about users’ experiences and wayfinding strategies at our libraries, including anecdotal evidence, statistics, surveys, and focus group discussions, we lacked more in-depth information that reflected students’ real-time experiences as they move through our library spaces. Our objective is to address that gap by using photographic methods for studying library spaces. Methods – We present two studies conducted in two academic libraries that used participant-driven photo-elicitation (PDPE) methods. Described simply, photo-elicitation methods involve the use of photographs as discussion prompts in interviews. In both studies presented here, we asked participants to take photographs that reflected their experiences using and navigating our library spaces. We then met with participants for an interview using their photos as prompts to discuss their experiences. Results – Our analysis of students’ photos and interviews provided rich descriptions of student experiences in library spaces. This analysis resulted in new insights into the ways that students navigate the library as well as the ways that signage, furniture, technology, and artwork in the library can shape student experiences in library spaces. The results have proven productive in generating answers to our research questions and supporting practical improvements to our libraries. Additionally, when comparing the results from our two studies we identified the importance of detailed spatial references for understanding student experiences in library spaces, which has implications beyond our institutions. Conclusion – We found that photographic methods were very productive in helping us to understand library users’ experiences and supporting decision-making related to library spaces. In addition, engaging with students and hearing their interpretations and stories about the photographs they created enhanced our research understandings of student experiences and needs in new and unique ways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".