1. International Reseach Journal,November,2010 ISSN-0975-3486 RNI: RAJBIL 2009/300097 VOL-I *ISSUE 14
20 RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Research Paper—Library
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
123456789012345678901234567890121234567890123456789012345678901212345678901234567890123456789012123456789012345678901234567
November, 2010
Introduction
Content analysis is as old as reading,
viewingorlistening.Thecontentanalysisisdefinitely
acaseofinformationanalysis.Suchprocessisapplied
to single coherent source of information and largely
it is only the “elements of general framework” that
guidesworkofrearrangingsystematicallyofselected
portions for the purpose of condensation. It is a
particularpurposeoftherecordsofhumanexperience
of knowledge, content the central position in the
communication process and is that body of meaning
throughsymbols.(Varbal,musical,pictorial,gesture)
thatmakeupcommunication.1
Contentanalysiswas
first used by student of journalism and later by
sociologist to study the content of some American
Newspaper. 2
ObjectivesoftheStudy:
Thepurposeofthisresearchistoevaluatethecontent
ofDissertationssubmittedinDepartmentofLibrary
andInformationScienceS.G.B.AmravatiUniversity,
Amravati.Keepinginviewthefollowingobjectives.
1) To find out subject wise distribution of
dissertations. 2) To prepare a list of dissertations
submitted during a study period. Data presented in
table – 2 indicates the subjectwise distribution of
dissertations submitted by students in LIS
department. The researcher has grouped these
dissertation in 28 subjects and 29th
category is
reservedforothersubjectswhichincludes25subjects
on which one dissertation submitted during study
period.During study period 322 dissertations
submittedindepartment.Fromthedatapresentedin
above table it is observed that the most popular
subject among students of LIS is Bibliomatric
Analysis.Onthissubject,36(11.18%)dissertations
were submitted the subject Bibliometric analysis
includes the branches of Bibliometric analysis such
as citation analysis, scientrometric analysis,
CONTENT ANALYSIS OF DISSERTATIONS
SUBMITTED IN LIBRARY & INFORMATION
SCIENCE DURING 1993 – 2009
* Dr. Sanjay N.Wagh
* Librarian , Sant Gadge Maharaj, Mahavidyalaya,Walgaon,Amravati (M.S.)
A B S T R A C T
Content analysis of 322 dissertations submitted by LIS students at Department of LIS, S.G.B. Amravati
University, Amravati during 1993 to 2009 have been carried out. Study shows that bibliometric study
is the most popular area of research among students.
authorship pattern etc. The next popular subject
among students is evaluative study from the point of
view of cost effectiveness & cost benefit on this
subject 24 (7.45%) dissertation were submitted.
From the study it is also observed that the students
selected and faculty member assigned a variety of
differentandkeyareasofLISsuchasExpertsystem.
Thesaurus Construction, Bibliographic Control,
Personnel Management etc. Hence from the study it
can be conclude, that students carried out research
an number of prominent areas of LIS, out of these
areas / subjects. Bibliometric analysis, Evaluation,
GrowthandDevelopmentoflibrariesarethepopular
subjects among students. Table-3 shows guidewise
distribution of dissertations from the above table it
is observed that the highest number of dissertation
i.e.58(18.01%)areguidedbyProf.R.B.Jatkarfollowed
by Prof. M. R. Kherde who guided 52 (16.15%)
students.Furtherleastnumberofdissertationsi.e.02
(0.62%) are guided by S. J. Deshmukh.
Table -1
Yearwise Distribution of Dissertations
Sr. No. Year No. of dissertations %
1 1993-94 11 3.42
2 1994-95 22 6.83
3 1995-96 20 6.21
4 1996-97 15 4.66
5 1997-98 19 5.90
6 1998-99 23 7.14
7 1999-2000 21 6.52
8 2000-2001 22 6.83
9 2001-2002 20 6.21
10 2002-2003 20 6.21
11 2003-2004 22 6.83
12 2004-2005 28 8.70
13 2005-2006 19 5.90
14 2006-2007 21 6.52
15 2007-2008 17 5.28
16 2008-2009 22 6.83
322 100

2. International Reseach Journal,November,2010 ISSN-0975-3486 RNI: RAJBIL 2009/300097 VOL-I *ISSUE 14
21RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
1) BERELSON (B). Content Analysis in communication research. 1952, Free Press; New York. p. 74.2) BUDD (RICHARD).
Content Analysis of communications. 1967, Macmillan Company; New York. 3) JULIEN (H.). A content analysis of the
recent information needs and uses literature. Library and Information Science – Research. 18, 1, 96; p.53-65. 4) KUMAR
Conclusions:
1] From the collected data it
is revealed that in these 16
years322dissertationswere
submittedwithanaverageof
20.12dissertations.Itimplies
that due to the various
reasonsonanaveragealmost
02 students every year did
not submit their
dissertations. 2] From the
yearwise analysis of
dissertations submitted it is
found that in academic year
2004-05highestnumberofi.e.
28 (8.6%) dissertations
submitted. 3] From the
subjectwise analysis of
dissertation it is found that
the students select variety
of subjects / topic for
research. However it is also
found that the bibliometric
studies are the most popular
subject among students,
reason behind this may be
that these studies are more
objective and once the data
collectedthefurtherresearch
is based on statistical
R E F E R E N C E
Table – 2
Subject wise Distribution of Dissertations
Sr. No. Subjects No. of Dissertations Percentage
1 Bibliometric (Including citation
analysis, scientrometric analysis
& authoriship pottern) 36 11.18
2 Evaluation (cost benifit / cost
effectiveness analysis) 24 7.45
3 Growth and development of libraries 22 6.83
4 Library Services 18 5.59
5 Union Catalog 15 4.66
6 Reading hadit 12 3.73
7 Library classification 12 3.73
8 Library computerization 12 3.73
9 Resources sharing 12 3.73
10 Library Management 11 3.42
11 Content Analysis 11 3.42
12 Information seeking behaviour 10 3.11
13 Collection development 10 3.11
14 LIS education 09 2.80
15 Library Network 09 2.80
16 Personnel Management 09 2.80
17 Information technology 09 2.80
18 Library use 08 2.48
19 Libratory Survey 05 1.55
20 Computer Literary 05 1.55
21 Library Legislation 03 0.93
22 Weeding of book 03 0.93
23 Information Literature 02 0.62
24 Digital library 02 0.62
25 Team Management 02 0.62
26 Time & Motion study 02 0.62
27 Library Circulation 02 0.62
28 Bibliographic Control 02 0.62
29 Other subject (Including expert
system, thesurers construction etc) 25 7.76
322 100
analysis. 4] From the guidewise analysis of
dissertations it is revealed that Prof. R. B. Jatkar,
Prof. M. R. Kherde guided 58 (18.01%) and 52
(16.154%) dissertations respectively. Prof. R. B.
Jatkar,Prof.M.R.Kherdeareteachingindepartment
from the inception of MLISc course hence they
produce maximum dissertations. 5] From the
referencewise analysis it is found that the students
give references, they followed standards for
citations. This indicates that students followes the
researchmethodology.Fromthestudyitisrevealed
that out of 322 dissertations majority of i.e. 194
(60.25%) dissertations gave up to 50 references.
Table – 3
Guide wise Distribution of Dissertations
Sr. No. Guide No. of Dissertations %
1 R. B. Jatkar 58 18.01
2 M. R. Kherde 52 16.15
3 B. K. Bhosale 37 11.49
4 A. B. Bhosale 30 09.31
5 S. P. Patdar 29 09.01
6 A. W. Vinchurkar 21 06.52
7 R. T. Patil 21 05.59
8 S. N. Wagh 18 03.73
9 V. G. Choukhande 12 03.73
10 R. R. Khokale 12 02.18
11 N. A. Kene 08 01.85
12 D. K. Dongare 05 01.55
13 R. H. Wankhade 05 01.55
14 R. V. Palil 05 01.55
15 A. S. Tankar 04 01.24
16 R. D. Sarade 03 0.93
17 S. J. Deshmukh 02 0.62
322 100