1999-2009年我國圖書資訊學碩士論文調查研究

Abstract

本研究針對民國88年至98年發表之臺灣圖書資訊學碩士論文為研究主體，利用內容分析法，一探十年來圖書資訊學碩士論文在碩士論文數量、研究主題、研究方法、圖書館類型及關鍵詞之使用情形。研究發現：碩士論文總計發表725篇，平均每年有72.5篇，可見圖書資訊學碩士論文的產出呈現逐年增加的面貌。就各校碩士論文產出情形而言，以臺大156篇最多；其次為淡江150篇；其餘依次為輔大136篇、政大135篇、臺師大91篇和中興58篇。\n\n近十年來所採用之研究方法主要為：訪談調查法230篇(32%)、問卷調查法196篇(28.2%)、書目計量63篇(9.1%)，這三種研究方法的數量合計約佔68%之多。2000年後，台灣圖書資訊學碩士論文研究方法的使用以問卷調查法和訪談調查法使用的最為廣泛，跟過去研究結果比較，書目計量學的使用有明顯增加的趨勢。\n\n就研究主題而言，以讀者服務最高235篇(32%)、其次是圖書資訊理論與基礎124篇(17%)、圖書資訊技術91篇(13%)、技術服務88篇(12%)、行政與管理79篇(11%)、圖書與文獻77篇(11%)、圖書館與圖書館事業24篇(3%)，其他(學科類別)6篇(1%)。\n\n有關圖書館類型之研究約308篇，佔全部論文的42%；其中以大專院校圖書館133篇(44%)最多、其次是公共圖書館89篇(29%)、專門圖書館29篇(10%)、中小學圖書館32篇(9%)，最少的是國家圖書館4篇(1%) ；此外博物館有12篇(4%)，檔案館為8篇(3%)\n\n十年來臺灣地區圖書資訊學碩士論文，由全國博碩士論文資訊網可查檢到關鍵詞者共有719篇，統計後關鍵詞共有2,999個，其中最少的關鍵詞是一個，最多的是20個，平均每篇約有4.2個。超過36次者的高頻詞彙，分別為公共圖書館(58個)、大學圖書館(54個)、資訊需求(42個)和資訊尋求行為(41個)。將關鍵詞以熱門研究議題相近詞組做群組進行整理後，則發現以資訊行為相關的研究最多，共有134篇 ，其次是書目計量(57篇) 、檔案(45篇)、閱讀(21篇)、資訊素養(19篇)、數位典藏(17篇)、Web2.0(17篇) 、數位學習(10篇)和知識管理(9篇)。可見圖書資訊學論文之主題研究和圖書館事業近年來的發展遙相呼應。\n\n根據研究發現提出以下建議：一整合圖書資訊學學術文獻主題分析體系、二鼓勵各校堅實各自專長後合作研究、三加強碩士論文研究品質、四強化碩士論文典藏資料庫之建置、五鼓勵學術研究成果之開放取用。

This study focuses on MLIS (Masters` in Library & Information Science) theses in Taiwan from the years 1999 to 2009. It use content analysis to explore the situation for MLIS theses in research topics, research methods, types of libraries, keywords and their use. \n\n725 MLIS theses were published by 6 LIS (Library & Information Science) related institutes. The National Taiwan University published the most papers (156 theses), followed by Tamkang University (150 theses), Fu-Jen Catholic University (136 theses), National Cheng-Chi University (135 theses), National Taiwan Normal University (91 theses) and National Chung-Hsing University (58 theses). \n\n Theses over the last decade mostly used the following research methods: interview surveys (230 theses), questionnaire (196 theses), on bibliometrics (63 theses). Most MLIS research methods used by Taiwan`s LIS departments after the year 2000 focused on questionnaires and interview surveys. Compared with earlier studies, bibliometrics has increased significantly. \n\nAs for the research topics: service to the readers is highest with 235 Thesis (33%), followed by library & information theory and basics with 124 theses (17%),library information technica at 91 theses (13%), technical services at 88 theses (12%), administion management with 79 theses (11%), books and literature with 77 theses (11%), libraries & the profession with 25 theses (3%) and others 6 theses (1%). \n\nResearch relating to libraries type totaled over 308, accounting for over 42% of research Thesis. Academic library possessed the most papers with 133 theses (44%), followed by public libraries with 89 theses (29%). Specialized libraries with 29 Thesis (10%), and primary & secondary school libraries with 32 (9%). The National Library had at least 4 (1%). Museums with 12 articles (4%) and archives with 8 articles (3%).\n\nThere are 2,999 Keywords among 719 Taiwanese LIS Master`s theses. Thesis with the least keywords contained a minimum of 1 keyword. On the other hand, Thesis with the largest number of keywords contained over 20. Their average stands at about 4.2 keywords each. Each high-frequency word appeared more than 36 times. These are: public libraries (58), university libraries (54), information needs (42) and information finding (41). \n\nOnce keywords and popular research topics are grouped together and integrated, it was found that the majority of research focused on information behavior (totaling 134 theses). This is followed by bibliometrics (57theses), archives(45 theses), reading(21 theses) , information literacy(19 theses), digital archives(17 theses) , web 2.0(17 theses) ,e-learning(10 theses)and knowledge management(9 theses). The popularity of these research topics echo the constant development of libraries in recent years.\n\nBased on these findings, the following recommendations: \n1. Integration of the Framework of Subject Classification in LIS\n2. Encourage library schools to participate in collaborative research using their individual strengths.\n3. Enhance the quality of theses research.\n4. Strengthen the collection of the masters` thesis database.\n5. Encourage the open-access of academic research.