Here is a general outline for your effort:

1. Select an article in which your particular methodology is used. Use Busha and Harter for guidance, but it may take some good old-fashioned hunting to find the method you have been assigned. Feel free to get suggestions from the instructor, but provide a copy as soon as possible so that your choice can be placed in the IP lab for the rest of the class to read before your group presentation.

2. Use Busha and Harter (on reserve) and read the explanation of your particular methodology. Again, feel free to look at other sources if you find Busha and Harter to be unclear or too abbreviated, or ask the instructor for guidance to materials which will outline the "do"s and "don't"s of various methodologies.

3. For the presentation to the class:

   a. Briefly describe the methodology you are illustrating with the article you
   have chosen. This could be done by one of the group.

   b. Next, provide some explanation of the problem statement or rationale for the research effort. What were the goals, objectives, or aims of the researchers. What questions were they trying to answer?

   c. How was the methodology applied to the problem or question? Feel free to comment on oversights by the researchers, but don't feel at this early point you are expected to find all fatal flaws.

   (1) If the method was historical, for example, how did the research effort's
   report fit with the description you found in Harter and Busha about how
   historical research is done?

   (2) If the method was experimental, what kind of randomization occurred.
   What size was the sample and how did the researcher exert a maximum
   level of control to assure that only the examined effect could have caused
   the result?

   (3) If the method was a case study, does the description of the types of
   data selected seem diverse enough to have provided some illuminating
   patterns in the event?

   (4) If the method was a survey, describe some of the questions asked of the subjects. Do the questions asked seem to be an effective way of getting at the purpose for which the study was designed.

   (5) If the method was qualitative, it probably won't fit the "sherbet model"
   well at all. Instead provide a description of what was done. Did the
   research use one of the interviewing techniques discussed: in-depth or
   participant/observer?

   (6) If the method was content analysis, what types of categories were the
   researchers trying to code the content into? Did they get others (outsiders)
   to double check the accuracy of their coding scheme (this is called an "intercoder reliability check")?

   d. What were the findings? Briefly describe the outcome of the research
   effort. It might be helpful to the class to provide a handout or an overhead
   to describe any data analysis. Feel free to discuss only those statistical
   items with which you are comfortable. If you were a practitioner reading
   this article, would the results be clear to you?

   e. What does the author think the significance of the results might be? Do
   you agree? Does the author mention any flaws that might need attention
   before someone else tries to replicate this research effort? (Some do, but
   others feel that if they are too honest then the effort will not be published!)

   f. How might this article be useful to someone in practice as an information
   professional?

   g. Any summarizing comments? Did the "sherbet dish" help you to sort out
   the parts of the article?

Essentially, the aim is to illustrate a method to the class and provide them with a good understanding of the way that type of method is conducted. If the parts of the "sherbet dish" model are present, that may help students understand the structure of a research article. Some journals are more rigorous in requiring authors to cover the basic areas similarly than are others so failure to do so may not always be the authors' fault.