22 results in Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
13 - Special libraries
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Bill Fisher, professor with the School of Information at San Jose State University.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 151-164
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Evidence-based library and information practice; who could argue or take issue with an idea like that? If asked, almost all of us would say that we make rational decisions based on current practice as described in the professional literature, conference presentations/proceedings, or from our conversations with colleagues from our own organization as well as other organizations. After all, who is going to admit to making irrational decisions, employing conjecture-based practice or flying by the seat of their pants in order to get by in the workplace? From the other chapters in this book, one can assess the extent to which EBLIP has had an impact on the recognized LIS subfields: academic libraries, public libraries, school libraries and health sciences libraries (where things began). This chapter will put EBLIP into context for the remaining subfield of special, or non-traditional libraries.
As with any endeavour of this nature, a few definitions are in order so as to establish the scope of what follows. For the purposes of this chapter, a special library may be part of a larger, parent organization; typically has a collection that is focused on one or more topic areas; and has a defined population of customers, so that it may not be available to the general public. Indeed, in a very large organization the special library may be funded by certain segments of the larger organization, so that the library may be available only to those affiliated with those segments of the organization that actively support/fund the library. There are also a couple of generalizations that we can make about special libraries. First, no two special libraries are alike. While most public libraries will offer very similar services and have very similar collections, if this happens with special libraries it is more by chance than by design. Second, special libraries don't have to exist; there are rarely things like accreditation standards or mandates that compel an organization to maintain a special library. Special libraries exist to provide specific services and develop/maintain a specific collection. If the library fails to do this or those services/collections are no longer needed by the organization, that special library will cease to exist.
3 - Articulate
- from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
-
- By Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK., Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 19-26
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
EBLIP begins with a question, a need to understand the problem, which is then articulated or clarified. For librarians this may be an area where service improvement is required, or it may be related to the management of the library's collection, for example. It could be a question about how an instruction or academic librarian should best teach information literacy concepts, or it could involve a big decision such as the reconfiguration of reference services in the library. Different stakeholders may have different types of questions; for example, practitioners’ questions may well be about practice, whereas managers, funders or policy makers may want evidence to demonstrate the use or value of a service. This chapter will outline the importance of a clear question and describe methods that have been used to clarify and situate questions within EBP.
The importance of a clear question
Eldredge notes that ‘Questions drive the entire EBL process. […] The wording and content of the questions will determine what kinds of research designs are needed to secure answers’ (Eldredge, 2000b, 292). This is true to a certain extent, but, as noted in the previous chapter, this book follows a holistic approach to EBLIP. We need to ensure that the question allows us to capture what we already know and incorporates local evidence and our professional knowledge. Therefore, it is more appropriate that the wording and content of the question will allow us to consider all the relevant evidence that we may want to use in order to answer the question.
A clear question will enable us to find the appropriate evidence to help us make the decision (Booth, 2006). Just as when embarking on a research project it is important to have a clear research question, because vague research questions tend to lead to vague results, with EBLIP, clear questions will help us make better-informed decisions.
Davies (2011) suggests that articulating the question also involves a period of reflection, considering issues such as ‘Is this really what I'm looking for?’, ‘Why am I looking for this information?’ and ‘Is there another option to pursue first?’ As well as being clear about the question or problem itself, we need to think about what we know already, the ultimate purpose of the decision (or question), and we must be honest about assumptions or difficulties that may present obstacles.
14 - Conclusion
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 165-170
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In this book we have attempted to provide you with an overview of the current state of EBLIP, as well as tools to help you develop an evidence-based approach. EBLIP has shifted over the years, developing from roots in EBM into a model that takes the unique context of LIS professionals into account. The model we have presented is one that was derived from observation, tested and developed by empirical research and, through the case approach in this book, has been demonstrated to be widely applicable across library sectors. The model takes a more holistic view of evidence as well as of the cyclical nature of professional decision making. It also considers barriers to practising in an evidence-based way. While we have presented a model with various stages, we want to emphasize that it is not the exact stages that are important. Having a model is a helpful way to consider and discuss aspects of the process and to break it down into steps that seem manageable. However, we hope that this book has emphasized that EBP is more about approaching practice with a particular mindset, rather than about checking off steps in a process.
Being evidence based means that you consider your practice from a curious and questioning perspective, with a view to continuous improvement. As such, you question what you are currently doing and think about possible ways to do things better. This questioning leads you to gather evidence sources that are best to help answer your questions. Where no good evidence sources exist, or to make sense of your context, you engage in gathering local evidence or in doing research that is appropriate to the question at hand. You share what you learn with others in order to improve the knowledge of the profession and grow a community of practice that ultimately changes the profession for the better. You implement solutions that you believe are the best, based on the evidence you have found, and then reflect on and further evaluate whether your new implementation has worked. You talk about what you are doing with your community of users, and listen to and incorporate their feedback, adapting services over time.
PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 79-80
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Frontmatter
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp i-iv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
List of figures and tables
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp vii-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
6 - Agree
- from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
-
- By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 59-70
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
After assessing and weighing all the evidence, you need to determine what would be the best course of action in answering your question and implementing a solution in practice. We call this point in the process Agree because, more often than not, you will not be the only one making the decision. Quite often library-based decisions are made in groups, which could consist of an internal group of librarians assigned to come up with a solution. Even if you do work on something by yourself, at the point of decision, others may be involved.
At this point in the process you must determine the best way forward, based on your assessment of the various sources of evidence (Chapter 5). It is important to remember that we all bring biases to our interpretation of the evidence as a whole, so recognizing this is an important step toward making better decisions. In this chapter we discuss some of these factors that may influence the decision-making process.
As you are working through this process, some of the questions you need to ask include whether you have looked at all the evidence openly and without prejudice; what is the best decision based on everything we know from the problem, the context and the evidence; and whether you have considered all reasonable alternatives.
Ultimately, you will need to determine a course of action and begin implementation of the decision. Ideally, you would be able to reach consensus among those making the decision, based on the strength of the evidence found and considered. However, it is unlikely that this will always be the case. The more clearly you can present to others the reasons for your decision, the evidence that was reviewed and how it led you to the decision made, the easier your implementation will be at an organizational level. In this chapter we will explore some of the factors within individual and group decision making that librarians should be aware of in order to ensure that the process and implementation are as smooth as possible. Figure 6.1 illustrates the influences on effective decision making that we will discuss in this chapter.
2 - A new framework for EBLIP
- from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
-
- By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 11-18
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The model for EBLIP that we use in this book is based on doctoral research results (Koufogiannakis, 2013b). It is not meant to be a rejection of previous EBLIP theory, nor does it stand in opposition to the model as put forward by Booth and Brice and published in 2004. If anything, the model we propose in this book builds upon Booth and Brice's (2004b) model as it was first described but reaches further, to embrace other types of evidence as appropriate for librarianship and to consider how such a merging of different types of evidence can work in the context of librarianship. As such, the model is far more realistic with respect to the context in which librarians work and the appropriate forms of evidence on which to base decisions. At the same time, it attempts to encourage further research within our profession in order to strengthen the evidence base upon which we draw external validation of local practices.
Much credit must be given to Andrew Booth for envisioning this evolution of EBLIP through his reflection on evidence-based practice in librarianship following the EBLIP5 conference that was held in Stockholm, Sweden (Booth, 2009b). Booth, having been very involved with EBLIP since its start and a keen observer of the general change in the field's discourse, noted the following limitations of the original model as it stood at the time: ‘first it is oriented to individual, not collective, activity; and, second, it seeks to simplify and thus preserve the integrity of, the entire EBP process making no allowances for the realities of pragmatism and expediency’ (Booth, 2009b, 342). Koufogiannakis (2013b) validated these observations in her doctoral study of how academic librarians use evidence in their practice. Her thesis, based on qualitative research, proposed the use of Booth's ‘alternative’ model to move towards a process that would be more meaningful and pragmatic for practising librarians. This book provides the next step in making this model available for librarians of all sectors to use in their practice.
We doubt that any one model will perfectly fit all situations or explain the complexity of EBP in its fullness, because we can never look in detail at every situation or circumstance.
1 - Introduction
- from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
-
- By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 3-10
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This book brings together recent theory, research and case studies from practice environments across the broad field of librarianship to illustrate how librarians can incorporate the principles of evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) into their work. EBLIP is an approach to professional decision making; however, we wish to emphasize an overall approach to practice that is about being evidence based, which is not limited only to decision making. Being evidence based involves:
• questioning our practice:
— are we doing things in the best way, and is there a better way?
— do we have the information we need to do our jobs?
— do we have the evidence we need to make well-informed decisions?
— why are we making the decisions that we are making?
• gathering or creating the evidence (through research or evaluation) if we don't have it already
• using information or evidence wisely:
— to make decisions about our own practice
— to improve our practice by testing out new ideas and implementing them based on the evidence we find
— to make decisions about our services
— to help others make decisions about our services (by demonstrating our effectiveness, value, impact or worth)
• using our professional skills to help others (often to make their own evidencebased decisions).
This book develops and rethinks the original EBLIP model. It takes an open and inclusive approach to exploring EBLIP and the ways in which it can improve the practice of librarianship. Since EBLIP's inception in 1997 the understanding of what evidence is, as well as how and why librarians use evidence, has grown more mature. Correspondingly, this book puts forward a model and approach to evidence that has evolved but is more realistic and practical for librarians in their everyday work.
This book builds upon the seminal work of Booth and Brice (2004b) by incorporating recent research and practice- based examples to illustrate the natural progression of EBLIP since Booth and Brice's work was published. This book seeks to provide librarians with an accessible new reference point for how they can use and create evidence within their practice to better meet the needs of their communities. It is organized into two sections; the first is structured around Koufogiannakis’ revised framework for EBLIP (Koufogiannakis, 2013), which embraces a wider breadth of evidence sources and understanding of how librarians use evidence.
4 - Assemble
- from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
-
- By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 27-44
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Working within the EBLIP process, librarians need to assemble evidence from a variety of sources that are most appropriate to the problem or question at hand. Assembling evidence is key to the whole concept of EBP, and determining the sources of evidence that one will draw upon when making practice-based decisions is paramount. We must use professional judgement to determine the best and most appropriate sources of evidence, depending upon what we want to know. Evidence may come from external sources, locally gathered data or our own professional knowledge. This chapter will start with an overview of the concept of evidence and how it relates to librarianship, explore different types of evidence and look more specifically at sources of evidence within librarianship and how to find the needed evidence. The goal of this chapter is to expand your thinking about what evidence is and to help you determine some of the sources that you can draw upon. Being evidence based means that we consider many forms of evidence in conjunction with one another to form a well informed and considered professional opinion.
The concept of evidence
To begin considering what types of evidence we should seek and then use as part of decision making within librarianship, we first need to ask ‘what is evidence’ within our field. This is no small question, but one that underlines the whole evidence-based approach.
The Oxford Dictionary (2010) states that evidence is ‘the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid’. Scholars agree that evidence is that which serves as a form of proof (Hornikx, 2005; Reynolds and Reynolds, 2002; Twinning, 2003; Upshur, Van Den Kerkhof and Goel, 2001). Schrum (2011) notes that evidence has three major properties – relevance, credibility and inferential force or weight (p. 19). This means that, to be considered as evidence, pieces of information must be relevant to the question at hand, must be considered credible or trustworthy and must show strength in comparison to other pieces of information that are being considered. We will consider how to assess the credibility and weight of evidence in more detail later, in Chapter 5.
Contents
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp v-vi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Index
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 205-208
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
5 - Assess
- from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
-
- By Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK., Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 45-58
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Assess is a critical part of EBLIP and involves assessing the located evidence for its quality (often known as appraisal or critical appraisal) and quantity. There is also a need to weigh up or balance the results from different types of evidence, to get to know the evidence and what it is saying and then to put it into the context of the wider, overarching problem and the situation in which the decision is being made. While previous work within EBLIP has focused on appraising or assessing research evidence, this chapter will begin with research evidence but move on to examining how to assess other types of evidence and incorporating these into the decision-making process.
When assessing the evidence you may be asking yourself: of the evidence assembled, what pieces of evidence hold the most weight? Why? What evidence seems to be most trustworthy and valid? What evidence is most applicable to the current problem? What parts of this evidence can be applied to my context? This chapter considers how research evidence can be assessed using critical appraisal techniques, how critical appraisal techniques can be developed and used more routinely, the role of systematic reviews and a framework for weighing different types of evidence against each other. It aims to help you evaluate and weigh evidence sources and determine what the evidence says as a whole. Although assessing is a critical part of the EBLIP process, it is worth bearing in mind that there is little point in solely paying attention to this part of the process if the articulate and assemble aspects have not been thoughtfully executed in the first place.
Critical appraisal
Critical appraisal of research is an element of EBLIP that has received much attention in the literature and in practice. It is an important part of the process because it helps you to determine the worth of the research literature, but doing critical appraisal is not a skill that most librarians have been familiar or comfortable with. However, it is a skill that is relatively easy to teach and can be developed over time. Furthermore, some elements of the process are akin to other tasks that librarians are familiar with, such as critical thinking (a skill developed during master's-level study), or choosing the most appropriate results from a literature search, which requires decisions about applicability.
References
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 171-204
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
11 - Health libraries
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Jonathan D. Eldredge, Associate Professor at the University of New Mexico., Joanne Gard Marshall, MLS MHSc PhD spent 16 years as a medical librarian before becoming a faculty member at the University of Toronto in 1987., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK., Heather N. Holmes, MLIS AHIP is the Associate Director of Libraries with a faculty appointment of Associate Professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Lotta Haglund, MLIS is Head of Library and Archive at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, in Stockholm, Sweden since 2012, Rick Wallace, Professor and Associate Director at the Quillen College of Medicine Library at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 121-132
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The historical evidence suggests that the health professions might never have developed EBP had it not been for the development of sophisticated research tools such as PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for identifying authoritative evidence (Eldredge, 2008a). By working with health professionals in using these tools, health librarians were pivotal figures in the development of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and the broader EBP movement. From supporting health professionals in EBP, health librarians have gone on to develop and use evidence within their professional practices – EBLIP. This chapter will provide a context for health librarian's work, describe EBLIP within the health library field and the state of the evidence base, and discuss the types of evidence used by health librarians. Two case studies show how EBLIP has been translated into practice and demonstrate how health librarians continue to push the boundaries of EBLIP. Finally, the future directions for research and EBLIP practice will be considered within a health library context.
The health library context
Health librarians often collaborate with other health professionals in a fast-paced environment that demands high levels of accountability for the accuracy of their work. Any mistakes can result in missed diagnoses, inappropriate treatments, incorrectly trained health professionals (Maggio et al., 2015) or misguided research projects. Many health librarians take years to establish credibility for their expert skills among other health professionals (Hannigan and Eldredge, 2014). With increasing frequency, health librarians work outside of physical libraries in roles as embedded colleagues, liaisons, clinical librarians, informaticists and informaticians; therefore, throughout this chapter the term health librarian will be used to describe all of these roles.
The context in which health librarians work is continuing to change (Funk, 2013). At one time, the majority of health librarians worked in hospital libraries. Now, in the USA many librarians work in centralized academic health-science centre libraries that co-ordinate access to electronic databases for their users, including health professionals and staff in affiliated hospitals. The National Library of Medicine in the USA coordinates outreach and other centralized functions. In the UK, health librarians work in hospitals, academic institutions and, increasingly, throughout other NHS organizations. Collections for NHS staff are centralized and health libraries are monitored and supported by a national Library and Knowledge Service.
10 - Public libraries
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Pam Ryan, Director, Service Development & Innovation at Toronto Public Library., Becky Cole, Learning Partnerships Coordinator at Northumbria University in the UK.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 105-120
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The political, social, technological and financial landscape in which public libraries operate has undergone dramatic change in recent years, presenting the sector with daily challenges ‘in the field of digitization, changing usage patterns, and evolving expectations of patrons’ (Irwin and St-Pierre, 2014, 1). In countries such as the UK, public sector budget cuts have resulted in widespread library closures and had a negative impact on traditional metrics such as visit and lending figures (Anstice, 2015). Efficiency measures and staffing reductions have led to an increase in self-serve, community and volunteer-run facilities and have engendered a culture which is increasingly reliant on external funding. Yet, rather than accepting their muchprophesied demise (Worstall, 2014), public libraries across the world have responded to this altered environment and to a ‘revolutionary shift in user behaviour’ brought about by the ascendancy of the ‘networked information landscape’ by developing innovative service-delivery models, multi-functional library spaces and new ways of working, and by reinventing themselves as ‘invisible intermediary’, ‘memory institution’, ‘learning centre’ and ‘community resource’ (Brophy, 2008, 8).
In North America, early literacy and lifelong learning remain strong focuses for public library programming, as do developing and providing services to underserved populations and socially excluded groups such as homeless, disabled and incarcerated populations. Increasingly, however, public libraries are also embracing a new identity as digital literacy and inclusion centres: providing free computer and WiFi access and developing electronic collections, which continue to be in high demand. In a 2013 national survey of Americans aged 16 and older, 77% identified free computer and internet access as a ‘very important’ library service and indicated a strong interest in the wider uses of technology in libraries (Zickuhr, Rainie and Purcell, 2013). The cumulative results of the Impact Survey (Impact Survey, n.d.) also provide good evidence of how patrons are using library technology in the USA and the significant outcomes and benefits they report from its use (Crandall and Becker, 2016). And libraries are responding to these needs: investing in more e-books and diverse eresources such as magazines (Recorded Books, 2016; EBSCO, n.d.), comic books (Midwest Tape, 2015) and internet-based learning tools such as Gale Courses (Gale Cengage Learning, 2015) and Lynda.com (Lynda.com Inc, 2015), and facilitating public access to new technologies ranging from 3D printers to recording studios (Zickuhr, Purcell and Rainie, 2014).
12 - School libraries
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Carol A. Gordon, Principal of Gordon Consulting, an international consultancy with a mission to support initiatives that empower educators to develop creative 21st century learning environments and experiences.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 133-150
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
School libraries have played an important role in the education of young people around the globe for many decades, but today they are more critical than ever. The school library is often the best-equipped ‘classroom’ for educating digital youth accustomed to self-directed information seeking, personalized learning and content creation. Evidence for what works is increasingly important as education transitions from an industrial-age model of teaching to a digital-age model for learning. What do we want students to learn? How will they best learn it? How will we know that they have learned it? In an attempt to address these questions, school libraries are embracing EBLIP to validate and gain support for new ways of learning. This chapter examines several dimensions of EBLIP and illustrates how evidence-based approaches are changing school libraries and the work of the school librarian or teacher-librarian.
Overview of school libraries today
Initially conceived as traditional libraries defined by their collections, school libraries evolved to support school curricula. When audio-visual media began to package information in sound and image, school libraries became media centres and information literacy replaced bibliographic instruction as best practice. The most recent evolution of school libraries is as networked, digital and physical environments for young learners where they confront information overload and screen-based reading. The curriculum is guided by a definition of information literacy that includes critical reading and thinking. The pedagogy is information-based enquiry that requires learners to construct new knowledge within a curriculum-based learning task, such as the following:
You are a journalist who uses primary sources to refute the claims of Holocaust deniers. Publish a print or online news report that contains your strongest evidence and arguments for the Jewish Holocaust as a historical event.
This kind of intellectual challenge requires librarians and teachers to work collaboratively, gathering evidence of students’ progress, or lack of it. Evidence resides in students’ work and instruction takes the form of feedback. As students use feedback to revise their work, so the teacher-librarian team uses feedback to revise their teaching.
Everyone is a learner as students work in a participatory culture of face-to-face and online learning communities and educators collaborate in communities of practice. This kind of evidence-based approach to instruction has significant implications for the school library and the work of the teacher-librarian.
Contributors
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
9 - Academic libraries
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Mary M. Somerville, University Librarian for University of the Pacific Libraries in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Stockton, California., Lorie A. Kloda, Associate University Librarian for Planning and Community Relations at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada.
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 93-104
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Academic librarianship is well suited to EBLIP. In this chapter, we provide some context as to why this is the case – the rapidly changing role of academic libraries and librarians, as well as higher education institutions more generally. The knowledge base of evidence is described, in terms both of the types of research available and of the size and scope of the available evidence. The knowledge base in academic librarianship is growing quickly, due to research on developing issues in higher education and academic libraries, as well as an increased focus on assessment and evaluation programmes for continuous improvement and demonstrating value.
We discuss the types of evidence sources available for academic librarians to draw on beyond the traditional journal article and conference presentation, and examine how librarians are creating evidence, in some cases by collaborating with others who work outside of libraries. Methods used by academic librarians for finding and using evidence to inform decision making are presented, along with considerations regarding organizational climate, or readiness for EBP. We conclude with examples from the academic library sector of successful application of the principles of EBLIP for informing changes in practice and transforming organizational processes.
The changing landscape and growing body of evidence
The role of academic libraries and the practice of academic librarianship have been transformed in recent years by dramatic changes in both higher education and scholarly publishing. Print has transitioned increasingly to electronic form and librarians have been vigilant in ensuring seamless access to online resources as well as encouraging their integration into discovery layers and learningmanagement systems. In anticipation of emerging publication models and platforms with new licensing requirements, highly skilled experts in acquisition, discovery and access are required. At the same time, conversations about learningmanagement systems’ features, including customization and personalization, have advanced students’ and researchers’ engagement with library resources in order to improve learning outcomes. Physical library facilities have also changed, increasingly employing participatory design methodologies with campus stakeholders, with a focus on users’ needs. All of these changes have both drawn from and contributed to a growing body of research, making academic librarianship the ideal setting for EBLIP.
8 - Practitioner-researchers and EBLIP
- from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
-
- By Virginia Wilson, Director of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP) at the University Library, University of Saskatchewan (U of S), Canada
- Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
-
- Book:
- Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
- Published by:
- Facet
- Published online:
- 08 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 31 August 2016, pp 81-92
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Research can be a mysterious domain, especially if you are approaching it from a practice perspective. Traditionally, research has been undertaken by academics in higher education, faculty members of the professoriate who often have a 40/40/20 work assignment split between teaching, research and service. However, the perennial gap that exists between research and practice in various disciplines, including library and information science (LIS), has encouraged practitioners to conduct research to help inform their own practices. EBLIP and reflective practice have also provided impetus for librarians to take up the research mantle. Practitioners have questions that need answering, and often the timelines are tight. Research undertaken by LIS scholars (academics working in university library and information science departments) can take a long time to produce published, accessible results. There is also the potential of such research not being relative to practice. Johannes Balslev, the former Director of Ringsted Public Library in Denmark, wrote about this issue within LIS research, stating that ‘[to] a practitioner with very down-to-earth needs, the research being done at the Royal School of Librarianship at that time seemed rather remote’, and went on to say that if he ‘wanted the gaps to be filled’ he would ‘have to start filling them’ himself (Balslev, 1989, 4). As noted in the first part of this book, EBLIP is a way of working that incorporates research evidence with user preference and professional expertise to aid in decision making. Conducting research can be part of that process should the published research evidence in a particular area be lacking: librarians essentially filling the gaps themselves as practitioner-researchers (see Table 4.4).
Crumley and Koufogiannakis’ definition of evidence-based librarianship speaks to the notion of librarians conducting research to enhance the evidence base:
Evidence based librarianship (EBL) is a means to improve the profession of librarianship by asking questions as well as finding, critically appraising and incorporating research evidence from library science (and other disciplines) into daily practice. It also involves encouraging librarians to conduct high quality qualitative and quantitative research. (2002, 62)
Defining EBLIP as a way to improve the profession of librarianship suggests that conducting research extends further than our own libraries. We have an obligation to the profession and to others in situations similar to our own. Who is going to represent what we do if we don't represent what we do?