Library Hi Tech Research in librarianship: issues to consider Denise Koufogiannakis Ellen Crumley

Transcription

1 Library Hi Tech Research in librarianship: issues to consider Denise Koufogiannakis Ellen Crumley Article information: To cite this document: Denise Koufogiannakis Ellen Crumley, (2006),"Research in librarianship: issues to consider", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp Permanent link to this document: Downloaded on: 12 June 2015, At: 10:37 (PT) References: this document contains references to 40 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2426 times since 2006* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Jonathan Eldredge, (2006),"Evidence-based librarianship: the EBL process", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp Andrew Booth, (2006),"Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp Lindsay Glynn, (2006),"A critical appraisal tool for library and information research", Library Hi Tech, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm: [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit for more information. About Emerald Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

2 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at Downloaded by University of Alberta at Edmonton At 10:37 12 June 2015 (PT) LHT 24,3 324 Received 22 November 2005 Accepted 5 March 2006 Library Hi Tech Vol. 24 No. 3, 2006 pp q Emerald Group Publishing Limited DOI / THEME ARTICLES Research in librarianship: issues to consider Denise Koufogiannakis John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, Walter C. Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and Ellen Crumley HealthInfo & Searching Practice Inc., Edmonton, Canada Abstract Purpose Attempting to incorporate research into decision making raises several questions about the research that currently exists in librarianship, areas that are most in need of research, obstacles to conducting research, and possible solutions for nurturing a professional environment in which conducting and using research becomes an accepted and expected part of our practice. This article attempts to answer some of those questions. Design/methodology/approach A general overview of the research base in librarianship is given. Compilation of content analyses and systematic reviews present an argument relating to the need of further research in librarianship. Further examination of potential research questions is conducted, and potential obstacles and solutions to research barriers are presented. Findings There is still a need to establish a solid evidence base within our profession. With support from all sectors of librarianship, progress can be made. Originality/value This paper points out gaps in our research knowledge, and areas that need to be explored via research in library and information studies. It is hoped that this paper will encourage librarians to think about how they can incorporate research into their daily practice. Keywords Evidence-based practice, Librarianship, Research Paper type General review Introduction Evidence-based librarianship (EBL), or evidence based information practice (EBIP), entails finding and using the best research possible to aid in our decision making as librarians. In principle, it joins the research of our field with local circumstances in order to improve our professional practice. Booth and Brice (2004) define EBL as an approach to information practice that promotes the collection, interpretation, and integration of valid, important and applicable user-reported, librarian-observed and research-derived evidence. The best available evidence moderated by user needs and preferences, is applied to improve the quality of professional judgements. EBL helps librarians use our own evidence to inform decision-making. Attempting to incorporate research into decision-making raises several questions:. How well developed is our research base in librarianship?. Is there sufficient research upon which library professionals can rely for decision-making?

3 . Which areas of librarianship are most in need of research?. What obstacles keep librarians from doing research and what can be done to overcome these obstacles?. Are there possible solutions for nurturing a professional environment in which conducting and using research becomes an accepted and expected part of our practice? This article explores these queries and examines the issues surrounding research that contributes to our professional decision making as librarians. Research in librarianship 325 Downloaded by University of Alberta at Edmonton At 10:37 12 June 2015 (PT) Do librarians lack a research base? When exploring an evidence-based approach to librarianship, it is first necessary to define research and then determine the strength of our research base. Peritz s (1980) definition of research is commonly used by librarians: an inquiry, which is carried out, at least to some degree, by a systematic method with the purpose of eliciting some new facts, concepts or ideas. The Special Libraries Association (2001) articulates how the word research can be interpreted in different ways: To some people, research is simply a carefully conducted investigation of a subject or a situation. To others it is the discovery of previously unknown facts. To still others it implies a highly specific approach to designing and conducting research studies in keeping with externally determined guidelines or methods. An evidence base, or body of evidence, can be difficult to define. It is commonly thought of as a collection of research that informs practice. Eldredge (2004) notes that: The evidence base for information practice is located within three main search domains: (1) the library and informatics literature; (2) the so-called grey literature for our field; and, (3) the literatures outside our field with functional relevance to the question such as the literatures of the social, behavioural, education or management sciences (p. 36). However, the quality and quantity of this research can vary according to the subject being studied and the discipline. Systematic reviews and content analyses are commonly used to determine the evidence base in a specific area. Unfortunately, many of these find that there is not enough information from which to draw conclusions. Plutchak (2005) detailed his concern about the lack of a body of evidence in medical librarianship, citing two systematic reviews on clinical librarianship as an example: Despite all of the effort that has been put into developing clinical librarian programs and writing articles about them, we are not much closer to demonstrating their value than we were over a quarter century ago. We have many articles; we do not have a body of evidence. Over the past 25 years, several content analyses of the library research literature have been conducted (Buttlar, 1991; Feehan et al., 1987; Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990; Kumpulainen, 1991; Nour, 1985; Peritz, 1980; Williams and Winston, 2003; Koufogiannakis et al., 2003). These studies, which all investigate different publication years, show the percentage of research in the published literature ranging from between 15 to 57 percent. The authors content analysis (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) examined the amount of research published in 2001 and found that 30.3 percent of articles could be classified as research. More than one-third (41 percent) of

4 LHT 24,3 326 these research articles identified were simply descriptive in nature and only 21 percent were comparative studies, cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, or systematic reviews. Thus, there is plenty of room for applying more rigorous methods and enhancing the quality of our research literature. Haddow (1997) takes a critical look at the publication of library and information science (LIS) research within our discipline s journals, and notes that questions have been raised regarding the extent and level of complexity of research in the field. She cites several critiques on the scholarliness of the articles published in the LIS literature, and points out that the amount of research, as communicated in journals of librarianship, is a frequent criticism of the literature produced for and by the profession. Haddow (1997) provokes us by noting that if librarians fail to build a body of knowledge (i.e. an evidence base), it will be difficult to develop our profession and that the status of [our] profession s intellectual base, the degree of scholarship, must be regarded with some suspicion. Librarians should actively seek to address these criticisms by adding their research to our growing body of evidence. Plutchak (2005) further highlights the problem with librarianship research literature by noting that most of our research is not rooted in the existing literature; generally, it neither builds upon nor refers to previously conducted research. In fact, conducting research in isolation contributes very little to the evidence-base librarians need to build. Plutchak (2005) also observes that different approaches to similar topics do not help strengthen our body of research. He asks, how often do [researchers] approach their project from the standpoint of gathering results that will be directly comparable to the work they are using as models?. He calls for us to strengthen our body of evidence by replicating studies and verifying research results. In addition, there are many areas of librarianship that do not have a lot of research to replicate, and original research is needed to fill these gaps. Determining the areas where research is needed is vital in our movement toward practising librarianship in an evidence-based manner. The current state of librarianship research Table I lays out the different research areas found by the previously mentioned content analyses. Because Kumpulainen (1991) used Jarvelin and Vakkari s (1990) classification categories, this information can be grouped together. Categories which have different definitions or are unique (e.g. Nour, 1985; Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) were kept separate. Clearly, there are several areas in librarianship which contain more research than others. Consistently, topics in information storage/access/retrieval have greater amounts of research being published, as do collections-related issues, and service activities. On the other hand, the areas of information seeking, LIS analysis, LIS education, LIS theory, history, methodology, the profession, publishing and scientific and professional communication all have less research being published. There are huge gaps in our evidence base in these latter areas and they all require further exploration to move our profession forward. In general, the amounts of research do mirror areas of greater importance to librarians, namely information retrieval, collections, and service activities such as teaching and reference. However, while such an overview provides us with insights to the amount of LIS research being published, it does not tell us anything about the quality of that research or whether that research builds upon past knowledge.

5 Research area Number of research studies Automation 47/343 (13.7 percent) (Nour, 1985) Collections 193/807 (23.9 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) Education 95/807 (11.8 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) Information seeking 11/142 (7.8 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 20/359 (5.6 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 27/449 (6 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 20/359 (Kumpulainen, 1991) Information access and retrieval 314/807 (38.9 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) Information science theory 9/343 (2.6 percent) (Nour, 1985) Information storage and retrieval 46/142 (32.4 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 94/359 (26.2 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 131/449 (29.2 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 94/359 (Kumpulainen, 1991) Library administration 71/343 (20.7 percent) (Nour, 1985 Library history 4/142 (2.8 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 8/359 (2.2 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 17/449 (3.8 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 45/807 (5.6 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) 8/359 (2.2 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) 23/343 (6.7 percent) (Nour, 1985) Library science 68/343 (19.8 percent) (Nour, 1985) LIS analysis 8/142 (5.6 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 12/359 (3.3 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 11/449 (2.4 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 12/359 (3.3 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) LIS education 3/142 (2.1 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 24/359 (6.7 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 21/449 (4.7 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 26/807 (3.2 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) 24/359 (6.7 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) LIS service activities 36/142 (25.4 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 91/359 (25.4 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 122/449 (27.2 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 91/359 (25.3 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) Management 135/807 (16.7 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) Materials 53/343 (15.4 percent) (Nour, 1985) Methodology 11/142 (7.8 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 10/359 (2.8 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 4/449 (0.9 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 10/359 (2.8 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) Professional issues 36/807 (4.5 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) The professions 7/142 (4.9 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 14/359 (3.9 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 25/449 (5.6 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 14/359 (Kumpulainen, 1991) Publishing and book history 8/142 (5.6 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 11/359 (3 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 14/449 (3.1 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 11/359 (3.1 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) Reference/enquiries 77/807 (9.5 percent) (Koufogiannakis et al., 2003) (continued) Research in librarianship 327 Table I. Type of research by topic from content analyses

6 LHT 24,3 328 Table I. Research area Scientific and professional communication Number of research studies 7/142 (4.9 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 23/359 (6.4 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 33/449 (7.3 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 23/359 (6.4 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) Technical processes 45/343 (13.1 percent) (Nour, 1985) Other/unclassifiable 1/142 (1 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 52/359 (14.5 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 46/449 (10.2 percent) (Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990) 52/359 (14.5 percent) (Kumpulainen, 1991) 7/343 (2 percent) (Nour, 1985) Downloaded by University of Alberta at Edmonton At 10:37 12 June 2015 (PT) Systematic reviews are one tool that can be used to assess the quality of research literature of our field and determine what is needed from future research on specific topics. A systematic review is: A review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies (Cochrane Collaboration, 2005). A key component of the systematic review methodology is reducing bias through explicit methods of review. Systematic reviews enable readers to gain an objective overview of the research available, and new insights from the conclusions drawn. The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI Centre) articulates how systematic reviews differ from traditional literature reviews: Most reviews of research evidence take the form of traditional literature reviews, which usually examine the results of only a small part of the research evidence, and take the claims of report authors at face value. By contrast, systematic reviews aim to find as much as possible of the research relevant to particular research questions, and use explicit methods to identify what can reliably be said on the basis of these studies. Such reviews then go on to synthesise research findings in a form which is easily accessible to those who have to make policy or practice decisions. In this way, systematic reviews reduce the bias which is potentially an element in other approaches to reviewing research evidence (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre, 2005). The Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration, respectively, conduct systematic reviews in health care and social sciences. Additionally, the EPPI Centre produces the Research Evidence in Education Library (REEL), dedicated to systematic reviews in the field of Education. Booth has long promoted the usefulness of systematic reviews in informing information practice (Booth, 2004; Booth and Haines, 1998). He illustrates the advantage of using systematic reviews by posing the following question to librarians: Imagine if, prior to deciding whether to deliver information skills training to a group of students in an intensive block or as a programme staggered over a whole term, you had access to the findings of all research studies that had compared these two methods in a single easily understandable document. Don t you feel that you would be able to make a more informed decision? (Booth and Haines, 1998).

7 Some systematic reviews will yield many research studies, and researchers will be able to do an inferential analysis in addition to a descriptive analysis of the studies. Weighing the research that has been done and determining what messages we can apply to our daily practice is a great advantage. Even when an attempted systematic review (Law, 2005) does not result in enough research studies to continue with an analysis, information on the lack of evidence alerts researchers to what is lacking and what is needed to further it. Table II provides examples of systematic reviews that have been conducted (or are currently in progress) and are directly relevant to librarianship. At this point, a large number of the topics being reviewed are in health sciences librarianship (e.g. clinical librarianship, information skills training, literature searching, preferred information sources, etc.). This is likely due to health sciences librarians collaboration with medical researchers in conducting biomedical systematic reviews. A natural extension of these librarians involvement in such research projects is that they began applying the same principles to their own profession. Other more general systematic reviews involve topics such as information skills training, cataloguing and classification, and information technology. Such a small list shows that much work is still needed if we are to come to a greater understanding of the research that should be driving our profession into the future. Questions in need of answers As Tables I and II demonstrate, further research is needed in many areas of librarianship. For areas that have had systematic reviews conducted (Table II), librarians know a bit about the research that has been done and what topics are lacking research. For the areas with a dearth of research, we can only use our best judgment and perhaps rely on experts to articulate the most prevalent gaps. The Research Section of the Medical Library Association (MLA) canvassed medical librarian groups to identify the most important research questions in health sciences librarianship (Eldredge, 2001). While the resulting large list of questions gives us insights into the issues that are important to medical librarians, it needs to be enhanced by determining what research has already been carried out to answer some of the questions. For instance, the evidence in Tables I and II could next be cross-referenced with the MLA questions to determine which ones may have been answered by systematic reviews and content analyses and which may be in need of further research. Several library organizations set research agendas for their members. Some, such as the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) have general research agendas with an aim to stimulate a diverse range of scholarship related to and supportive of the profession of law librarianship (American Association of Law Libraries, 2000). The AALL document lists various research questions that they feel are important and require research. Questions are arranged in broad categories covering the profession, patrons, services, legal research and bibliography, information resources, and facilities. Many research agendas are technology-driven, or pertain to digital initiatives in libraries. The National Science Foundation-European Union (NSF-EU) collaboration formed working groups to determine an international research agenda for digital libraries in the areas of interoperability between digital library systems, metadata, intellectual property rights and economic issues, resource indexing and discovery in a globally distributed digital library, and multilingual information access. Their report Research in librarianship 329

8 LHT 24,3 330 Table II. Sample of systematic reviews in librarianship Number of research studies included Conclusions Implications for research Author Review topic Further research is need in a number of areas including testing to determine whether there is an actual effect on patient care. Larger studies with longer follow-up using objective outcome measures is needed. Research could be undertaken to develop and validate measures for evaluation 24 There was limited evidence to show that training improves skills, insufficient evidence to determine the most effective methods of training and limited evidence to show that training improves patient care. Shows that users value training and believed their skills improved following training Brettle (2003) Effectiveness of information skills training in health care A carefully structured multi-program study including three to five of the best current programs is needed to define the true value of these services 35 Objective evidence for the positive impact of clinical medical librarian services is lacking. There is some evidence that these programs have been well accepted and liked by most of the targeted clinicians and students served, but the level of this evidence is low Effectiveness of clinical medical librarian programs Cimpl-Wagner and Byrd (2004) Replicate research in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL on different topics 64 There is not enough evidence to recommend a single resource for identifying RCT/CCTs Crumley et al. (2005) Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews Protocol with the Campbell Collaboration The effects of access to online information retrieval technology on the professional performance of students/trainees from all health care disciplines Hannes, K., Van Nuland, M., Goedhuys, J., McGowan, J., Staes, F., Pluye, P., Aertgeerts, B. Studies that did not use convenience sampling and more direct observations of information behavior are needed 12 Physicians preferred information resources are journals, books and colleagues (almost equally). Technological and educational innovations did not really alter their information-seeking behavior Haug (1997) Physicians preferences for information sources (continued)

9 Number of research studies included Conclusions Implications for research Author Review topic 122 Currently being analyzed Koufogiannakis, D. Effectiveness of information skills training methods for undergraduate students based upon cognitive outcomes 21 Currently being analyzed Koufogiannakis, D. Undergraduate students preferred teaching methods for obtaining information User satisfaction requires longitudinal studies that reflect changing attitudes over a period of use 45 Greater levels of user satisfaction will result from greater user involvement in system development, which in turn is likely to lead to the design of systems which are perceived to be useful and hence viewed more positively by users with enhanced experience. The focus of user training programs should be on building the levels of confidence of user experience literacy skills Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction Mahmood et al. (2000) Protocol in the Cochrane Library Search strategies to identify reports of randomized trials in MEDLINE McDonald et al. (2004) More research on systemic problems is warranted 93 Librarians self-reflect, which allows these critiques to appear in our literature. The standards for subject access have not yet completed the task of eliminating negative bias. The problems of subject access are reasonably well defined by this body of literature. Some commonalities, probably defined by the underlying presumptions of existing standards, do exist Subject access standards in LIS literature for marginalized groups and topics Olson and Schlegl (2001) (continued) Research in librarianship 331 Table II.

10 LHT 24,3 332 Table II. Number of research studies included Conclusions Implications for research Author Review topic Need consensus on definitions 3 (approximately) There is a lack of consistency in reporting findings and regarding which variables are being examined and how they are being measured. Investigators have not been using the same operational definitions to measure population characteristics Saxton (1997) Reference service evaluation An opportunity to compare results across different types of health library services would be enhanced if a core set of questions were agreed and validated at the national or even international level 28 There is evidence of impact from both traditional and clinical librarian services. The higher quality studies of traditional services measured impacts of 3,797 percent on general patient care, 1,031 percent on diagnosis, 2,051 percent on choice of tests, 2,745 percent on choice of therapy and 1,019 percent on reduced length of stay The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care Weightman and Williamson (2005) Further high-quality research is needed 50 CL programs appear to be well used and received by clinicians. There is insufficient evidence available on their effect on patient care, clinicians use of literature in practice and their cost-effectiveness Clinical librarianship: whether CL services are used by clinicians, have an effect on patient care, and/or clinicians use of literature in practice, and/or are cost-effective Winning and Beverley (2003)

11 defined critical research questions in this area (Schauble and Smeaton, 2005). In the area of digital reference, Lankes (2004) provided a summary of the results of a symposium held at Harvard University in 2002 that was sponsored by the National Library of Canada, ACRL, OCLC, the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and the Library of Congress. The group aimed to create a research agenda for digital reference. The outcome is a matrix of research questions covering areas of policy, systems, evaluation and behavior, within the context of what is already known on the topic and the relationships that need to be taken into account. The Association of College Research Libraries (ACRL) has also produced documents detailing research agendas in the areas of library instruction and information literacy (Association of College Research Libraries, 2005), and scholarly communication (Association of College Research Libraries, 2005). The librarian instruction and information literacy research agenda document states that the committee reviewed published research articles and gathered input from national conferences in order to identify important research areas relevant to this field. They found that many of the research questions from an earlier version of the document still lacked substantial research and that there were new areas that now required research. The questions are divided into four main sections: learners, teaching, organization context, and assessment. They note: It is hoped that this Research Agenda will encourage researchers to experiment with a range of research methods, to revisit issues and focus on different variables, and to collaborate among institutions so that results are meaningful for wider audiences (Association of College Research Libraries, 2005). The questions posed as potential research agendas by library organizations contribute to the facilitation of research within our profession. However, it is not clear what happens to these agendas at either the institutional or individual level. Since some of the work of determining important research questions has been done, it would seem appropriate for institutions to determine how their librarians or LIS faculty members may do research in some of these areas and assist in providing answers to these questions. Lankes (2004) notes: If the research community ignores the trends and resource allocation of practice (both in libraries as well as in the digital library communities), it will find itself marginalized. Such a split between practice and research hurts both. As has been demonstrated throughout this article, the research that librarians have done, in addition to the detailed research agendas that have been produced, are widely scattered and inconsistently monitored, making it difficult to track progress in the various areas of librarianship. Research in librarianship 333 Obstacles to conducting research If librarians know there are gaps in the research base and some of the questions that need answering are being presented to us via research agendas, why are we not all simply choosing a question and conducting research? What is stopping the average librarian from helping to build up this necessary body of research? Practising librarians face numerous obstacles to conducting research including funding, time, experience, support and access to research. Some are easier to overcome than others, but all must be considered in order to move EBL forward.

12 LHT 24,3 334 Funding Inadequate funding is one of the major obstacles preventing librarians from conducting research. As Genoni et al. (2004) point out, research publications are limited by the lack of funding support available. While, as previously noted, there are associations which have created research agendas, Genoni et al. (2004) also note that professional associations and other agencies involved in librarianship have been criticized for their lack of support for research. The lack of funding opportunities often means an inability to obtain funding from a granting agency (e.g. Special Libraries Association, Medical Library Association, local associations). Even if funding is obtained, these grants are often small and do not fully cover the actual costs of the research. In addition, the researcher s time is usually not covered as it is assumed their organization will pay this cost, but in many cases, librarians do not have such support or funding from their institution. When that is the case, a researcher may choose to undertake projects on their own time for free and not be reimbursed for this time. Other funding obstacles can also entail not having in-kind funding from your workplace to cover costs such as photocopying, staff time, software purchases, and assistance with statistical analysis. Experience Unfortunately, many practising librarians are not comfortable with conducting research. As Hinchliffe (2003) points out, Librarians are often heard to say that they were not trained to do research and do not know what research projects are worth doing. Librarians may not have received research training in graduate school and some may not have had the opportunity to gain practical research experience in their work environment. Many librarians work in solo library environments where they are not able to learn such research skills from more senior librarians. Even if they have taken courses, the skills taught to library students vary, and difficulties exist with providing research methods education (Genoni et al., 2004). Without a keen interest and motivation, research is easily left on the bottom of the priority list, and without adequate knowledge of research methods and a lack of experience, it can be difficult to even know where to start. Time and support Many librarians do not have the time in their work day to conduct research, and some even do research on their own time, outside of work. However, many librarians cannot afford this luxury. There is also the issue of finding the time to write up and publish research you have conducted. Publishing can be a long process and includes a lot of effort and rewriting. Many librarians are satisfied with presenting their research at a conference as a poster or a discussion that is not later published in a research journal. This is a major barrier for those who want to access research, and for editors hoping to publish quality research (Levett, 2002). This also means that much of the research in librarianship remains grey literature and difficult to locate. Along with a lack of time in the workplace, librarians may not have the support of their employer to undertake research projects during work time. Employers may not see the need for their librarian(s) to conduct research and instead want librarians to focus their role on supporting the information and research needs of other employees. Without a supportive employer who allows work time to be devoted to professional

13 development, including research, it is challenging to incorporate research into daily practice. Librarians need to educate their employers about the benefits of in-house research and how it can improve the work they do for others, allowing the organization to be more efficient. By undertaking practical research projects which directly benefit their employers, some librarians may be able to integrate research into their work life. Access to research Although it may not seem related, having little or no access to librarianship research can affect a librarian s ability to conduct research. While some academic librarians will have access to library and information science peer-reviewed journals and databases, those in public, special and school libraries are less likely to have such access. If librarians are not regularly reading and exposed to research, they will not have a familiarity with how research is conducted and the different types of research that can be done. They also will not have a good starting point upon which to base their research (i.e. typically, when a research project is started, the first step is a literature review for ideas and to see what has already been done). If librarians lack this access to evidence, then they are already at a disadvantage when thinking about starting a research project. Building a more solid evidence-base What then, are some possible solutions to foster an environment where research flourishes and an evidence-base begins to form? Support needs to come from all sectors that influence librarianship, including the library schools, professional associations, research publications, administration and management in libraries, and individual librarians themselves. Each of these groups has a role to play in the promotion of research within our profession, and can work together to build a body of evidence upon which decision-making can be assisted. Graduate library and information science programs For many library schools, a course in research methods is now mandatory. However, if students are not seeing the practical applicability of the course, the meaning of it may be lost in their practice as a librarian. As early as the late 1970s, Houser and Schrader (1978) called on library graduate schools to abandon their historical reliance for the graduate curriculum on personal experience, authority, tradition, rules and skills training, and to ground their teaching more strongly in scientific, that is, social scientific, knowledge and social science methodologies appropriate to the study of social problems. In addition to separate courses, research can also be integrated throughout the graduate curriculum, so that it touches all facets of what students do during their time of study. Library schools can foster a culture where research is not only accepted but embraced. By detailing the importance of research by faculty, and via guest lectures by practising librarians who do research, the acceptance of research as a part of library practice will become commonplace. Such value can also be highlighted on promotional items for attracting new students to the school, ensuring that potential students know that research is part of a career in librarianship. Research in librarianship 335

14 LHT 24,3 336 Professional associations Library associations have been fairly proactive in fostering a research environment. As previously noted, the generation of research agendas by professional associations is an important first step in determining the research that needs to be conducted. As well, large-scale projects such as LIBQUAL, an Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) initiative, allow for large-scale and standardized investigation across institutions, generating a huge amount of data for evaluation. LIBQUAL is an example of a current success story, especially since it allows academic institutions to evaluate their own results within the greater data store of all institutions. Another thing that associations can do to foster a culture of research within librarianship is to facilitate easier access to the research literature. Providing access to full-text databases that focus on librarianship research would be a huge benefit of membership. As well, research agendas could be taken a step further with the creation of a database of citations to research that addresses the questions posed. Those doing current research in the area could also be noted so that connections among researchers could be made much more easily. Highlighting research at conferences is also an important role of library associations. Allowing delegates to see the importance of research alongside the how I did it good descriptive narratives that usually occur shows librarians what is possible, and provides continuing education in research skills. Another possible role for research associations could be the creation of best practice guidelines in various areas, integrating research evidence with success stories. If these are adopted by the workplace and librarians see that basing decisions upon research evidence is important, they may be more likely to adopt a research mentality and contribute in that way themselves. Administration and management Some workplaces do support librarians who want to conduct research. These tend to be in academic institutions where research is a more accepted part of the culture and may be expected for tenure. Library managers can foster an environment of research and learning by requesting that decisions be based in part on research evidence, that librarians attend continuing education courses to update their research skills, and that librarians are given time within their expected duties to carry out research. Watson (2003) spoke about the responsibility of administrators with regards to EBL. She advocated recruiting individuals with innate curiosity, creating an environment of inquiry and expectation for reflective practice, presentations and publications, providing resources (including time) for learning and practising research skills, seeking out opportunities within the institution for research partnerships, and setting an example. In addition, management can allocate time for librarians to do research and, where possible, ask librarians about the research they consulted when making decisions. Another initiative administrators can take is partnering newer librarians with research mentors within the organization. This would be a person who has knowledge of research, has conducted research themselves, and is using research within their current position. Support for such a mentoring partnership would stress the importance of research within the organization, and would be a valuable learning experience for the newer librarian.

15 Individual librarians Every librarian takes on different responsibilities and areas of specialization over the course of their career. Most librarians would recognize professional development as an important professional responsibility in order to stay current and learn new skills. Research is another aspect that can be thought of in terms of professional development and in giving back to one s profession. By conducting research, we are adding to the knowledge of our field, which in turn will help improve many of our services and resources. When we conduct research we need to remember to ground that research in past work that has already been done. We need to take local research one step further and publish it so that other librarians can read and learn from our successes and failures. And when we publish research we need to be explicit about our methods, state the limitations of what we have done, and recommend steps for further exploration. By doing this, others reading their article might be inspired to conduct this research or gather ideas about research that still needs to be done. Librarians who are already established in their careers can encourage new colleagues to pursue research projects, to look to the research literature when making decisions, and not to ignore what has already been done. Research publications Librarians have a wealth of journals in which they can choose to publish articles. However, as Haddow (1997) notes, this can be problematic as editors have problems attracting articles, the quality of articles published is lower (i.e. everything is accepted to fill the journal) and low subscription rates mean the information is not circulated widely. Many journals are not even indexed, making it very difficult to find our research. Editors need to try to make the research content of their journals accessible by exploring indexing options and open access publication. Within the journal itself, guidelines for articles should be in place so that research articles can easily be identified by readers. The incorporation of structured abstracts, keywords (including research methodology), and the inclusion of detailed research results would assist readers in locating and building upon current research in the field. Although it is debated whether peer review is useful, it does provide a tool for feedback from external experts about research to be published in a journal or accepted at a conference (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2003; Godlee and Jefferson, 1999). It offers a different perspective about whether research is accepted or not based upon its merits and how it fares within the scholarly community whose members are appraising it. Having stringent guidelines for authors about the research and types of articles that can be published in a journal is also useful for potential authors and can guide them while conducting their research. Finally, as mentioned previously, Plutchak (2005) and Haddow (1997) have both called for research that builds upon previous foundations in order to move our profession forward. Conclusion As demonstrated throughout this article, there is still a need to establish a solid evidence base within our profession. Certain areas may have a good amount of research evidence and individual academics have a depth of knowledge in specific areas. But, for practitioners looking to base decisions on evidence, more work needs to be done. Obstacles that keep practitioners from conducting research need to be Research in librarianship 337

16 LHT 24,3 338 overcome. An environment in which research is considered part of what we do needs to be fostered and incorporated into our everyday practice as librarians. Some of us may have more time to devote to research than others, but every librarian has a part to play in building up an evidence base that is directly relevant to our decision-making needs. It may be that you read and incorporate a relevant study into your practice, or perhaps let someone know about existing research that may impact their own area of study. At some point you may want to consider looking at the work you do and the research questions you have. If no answers to these exist, you may be able to find out what is known and then bring that area of knowledge to a new level by conducting your own well-planned and well-designed research. Librarians need to start filling the gaps and mending the seams of our professional body of knowledge in order for our profession to advance. References American Association of Law Libraries (2000), AALL research agenda, available at: ww.aallnet.org/committee/research/agenda.asp (accessed June 24, 2005). Association of College Research Libraries (2005), Research agenda for library instruction and information literacy, available at: research/researchagendalibrary.htm (accessed June 24, 2005; also published in College and Research Libraries News, Vol. 64 No. 2, 2003, pp ; Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 25 No. 4, 2003, pp ; and Research Strategies, Vol. 19 No. 2, 2003, pp ). Booth, A. (2004), Using research in practice. Rave reviews?, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp Booth, A. and Brice, A. (2004), Evidence Based Practice for Information Professionals: A Handbook, Facet Publishing, London. Booth, A. and Haines, M. (1998), Room for a review?, Library Association Record, Vol. 100 No. 8, pp Brettle, A. (2003), Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature, Health Information and Libraries Journal, Vol. 20, Supplement 1, pp Buttlar, L.J. (1991), Analyzing the library periodical literature: content and authorship, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 52, pp Cimpl-Wagner, K.C. and Byrd, G.D. (2004), Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical medical librarian programs: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp Cochrane Collaboration (2005), Glossary of terms in The Cochrane Collaboration, available at: (accessed June 6, 2005). Crumley, E.T., Wiebe, N., Cramer, K., Klassen, T.P. and Hartling, L. (2005), Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review, BMC Medical Research Methodology, forthcoming. Eldredge, J. (2001), The most relevant and answerable research questions facing the practice of health sciences librarianship, Hypothesis, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 9-14, 17. Eldredge, J. (2004), How good is the evidence base?, in Booth, A. and Brice, A. (Eds), Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals, Facet Publishing, London, pp Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (2005), About the EPPI website, available at: (accessed June 23, 2005).

17 Feehan, P.E., Gragg, W.L., Havener, W.M. and Kestner, D.D. (1987), Library and information science research: an analysis of the 1984 journal literature, Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 9, pp Genoni, P., Haddow, G. and Ritchie, A. (2004), Why don t librarians use research?, in Booth, A. and Brice, A. (Eds), Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals, Facet Publishing, London, pp Godlee, F. and Jefferson, T. (1999), Peer Review in Health Sciences, BMJ Books, London. Haddow, G. (1997), The nature of journals of librarianship: a review, LIBRES, Vol. 7 No. 1. Haug, J.D. (1997), Physicians preferences for information sources: a meta-analytic study, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp Hinchliffe, L.J. (2003), The gift of a research agenda, Research Strategies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp Houser, L. and Schrader, A.M. (1978), The Search for a Scientific Profession: Library Science Education in the US and Canada, Scarecrow Press, Meutchen. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2003), II.C. Peer review, available at: www. icmje.org/ (accessed July 28, 2005). Jarvelin, K. and Vakkari, P. (1990), Content analysis of research articles in library and information science, Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L. and Crumley, E. (2003), A content analysis of librarianship research, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp Kumpulainen, S. (1991), Library and information science research in 1975: content analysis of the journal articles, Libri, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp Lankes, R.D. (2004), The digital reference research agenda, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp Law, M. (2005), The systematic review: a potential tool for research-grounded library management, Proceedings of the Canadian Association for Information Science/L association canadienne des sciences d l information (CAIS/ACSI) 2005 Annual Conference, London, Ontario, June 2-4, available at: law_2005.pdf (accessed July 5, 2005). Levett, J. (2002), The nature, utility and essential unknowability of research in our disciplines: an editor s view, Australian Library Journal, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp McDonald, S., Crumley, E., Eisinga, A. and Villaneuva, E. (2004), Search strategies to identify randomized and controlled clinical trials in MEDLINE (protocol), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2. Mahmood, M.A., Burn, J.M., Gemoets, L.A. and Jacquez, C. (2000), Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp Nour, M.M. (1985), A quantitative analysis of the research articles published in core library journals of 1980, Library and Information Science Research, Vol. 7, pp Olson, H.A. and Schlegl, R. (2001), Standardization, objectivity, and user focus: a meta-analysis of subject access critiques, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp Peritz, B.C. (1980), The methods of library science research: some results from a bibliometric survey, Library Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp Plutchak, T.S. (2005), Building a body of evidence, Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp Saxton, M.L. (1997), Reference service evaluation and meta-analysis: findings and methodological issues, Library Quarterly, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp Research in librarianship 339