Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice 9781783301454, 9781783301195

Citation preview

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page i

Being evidence based in library and information practice

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page ii

Every purchase of a Facet book helps to fund CILIP’s advocacy, awareness and accreditation programmes for information professionals.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page iii

Being evidence based in library and information practice Edited by

Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page iv

© is compilation: Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle 2016 e chapters: the contributors 2016 Published by Facet Publishing, 7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE www.facetpublishing.co.uk Facet Publishing is wholly owned by CILIP: the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. e editor and authors of the individual chapters assert their moral right to be identified as such in accordance with the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Except as otherwise permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, with the prior permission of the publisher, or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by e Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to Facet Publishing, 7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE. Every effort has been made to contact the holders of copyright material reproduced in this text, and thanks are due to them for permission to reproduce the material indicated. If there are any queries please contact the publisher. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978-1-78330-071-6 (paperback) ISBN 978-1-78330-119-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-78330-145-4 (e-book) First published 2016 Text printed on FSC accredited material.

Typeset from editors’ files by Facet Publishing Production in 10/13 pt Minion Pro and Myriad Pro Printed and made in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page v

Contents

List of figures and tables..................................................................................vii Contributors.......................................................................................................ix PART 1 BACKGROUND AND MODEL ...............................................................1 1 Introduction...............................................................................................3 Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle 2 A new framework for EBLIP ....................................................................11 Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle 3 Articulate .................................................................................................19 Alison Brettle and Denise Koufogiannakis 4 Assemble .................................................................................................27 Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle 5 Assess.......................................................................................................45 Alison Brettle and Denise Koufogiannakis 6 Agree........................................................................................................59 Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle 7 Adapt........................................................................................................71 Alison Brettle and Denise Koufogiannakis

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page vi

VI

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

PART 2 EBLIP IN ACTION ...............................................................................79 8 Practitioner-researchers and EBLIP .......................................................81 Virginia Wilson 9 Academic libraries...................................................................................93 mary m. somerville and lorie A. Kloda 10 Public libraries.......................................................................................105 pam ryan and Becky cole 11 Health libraries......................................................................................121 Jonathan D. Eldredge, Joanne gard marshall, Alison Brettle, Heather n. Holmes, lotta Haglund and rick Wallace 12 School libraries .....................................................................................133 carol A. gordon 13 Special libraries.....................................................................................151 Bill fisher 14 Conclusion .............................................................................................165 Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle References ......................................................................................................171 Index................................................................................................................205

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page vii

Figures and tables

Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 6.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6

Bringing the evidence sources together ..................................................................13 A cyclical illustration of EBlIp .......................................................................................14 Key questions a practitioner should ask...................................................................16 Influences on effective decision making..................................................................60 the learning-centric school library ..........................................................................135 Evidence-based practice in school librarianship ................................................138 the action research cycle ............................................................................................145 the collaboration spiral................................................................................................145 model of the information search process .............................................................146 the 3D library learning site.........................................................................................146

Tables 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1

Elements of the EBlIp process......................................................................................15 pIco question formulation............................................................................................21 spIcE question formulation ..........................................................................................22 types of research evidence ...........................................................................................31 types of local evidence...................................................................................................34 types of professional knowledge ...............................................................................39 methods for gathering evidence.................................................................................42 lIs example of the tApUpAs assessment of evidence.........................................55

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page viii

VIII

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

6.1 choo’s four modes of organizational decision making (2006) .........................66 7.1 stages for changing and maintaining information literacy practice .............77 8.1 practitioner-researcher process compared to EBlIp process............................88

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page ix

Contributors

Alison Brettle BA(Hons) MSc PhD is a 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. She has specialist expertise in literature searching, systematic review methodology, evidence based practice and the evaluation of health information services; pioneering the use of systematic reviews in library and information practice. Most recently she has published a systematic scoping review on the value, effectiveness and impact of trained library and information professionals on behalf of CILIP. She has over 20 years’ experience of health, social care and library related research and teaching environments, and has led and supported a wide range of projects, published extensively and developed a PhD by Published Works Programme at the University of Salford. She has been involved with the open access professional journal, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, since its inception ten years ago, and is on the International Programme Committee of the International EBLIP Conference series.  As an active member of CILIP, she leads awards and prizes on behalf of the Library and Information Research Group.  Becky Cole BA (Hons) MLitt MA PhD is a Learning Partnerships Coordinator at Northumbria University in the UK. She has a specialist interest in evidence based practice and the evaluation of public library services developed during seven years working at Newcastle Libraries.   Aer reading English Literature at Newcastle University where she achieved a BA (Honours), MLitt and PhD, she began her LIS

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page x

X

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

career in 2008. In 2010 she was appointed to the post of Trainee Library and Information Officer – the only dedicated role of its kind in the UK – and in the same year gained an Information & Library Management MA from Northumbria University with distinction. In 2012 she began working as a Library and Information Officer at Newcastle where she was asked to create an Evaluation Toolkit to collect, store and present rich evidence of impact. Her work in this area is documented in CILIP Update (June 2014) and Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Vol. 9, No. 4, 2014). In 2013 she was appointed Project Officer: Digital Inclusion at Newcastle City Council and in 2014 secured a research bursary from the CILIP Information Literacy Group to pursue her work. In 2015 she presented her research at the LILAC, CILIP and i3 Conferences; published a project report in the Journal of Information Literacy (Vol. 9, No. 1, 2015) and was nominated for the UKeiG Early Career Award. She is a member of the Program Committee for the 9th International EBLIP Conference (2017). Jonathan D. Eldredge BA (Hons) MLS MA PhD is an Associate Professor at the University of New Mexico. His primary appointment is in the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center with a secondary appointment in the Department of Family & Community Medicine, with the administrative title of Evidence Based and Translational Sciences Collaboration Coordinator. He received his BA with Honors from Beloit College in Wisconsin, his MLS from the University of Michigan’s School of Information, and his MA and PhD in public policy analysis from the University of New Mexico. For years he has enjoyed the challenges of tackling increasingly complex projects. Most of these challenges relate to applied research for the benefit of practitioners with their making informed decisions. Jon has an active research program with over 40 articles published in peer reviewed journals. He led a team that conducted two Delphi studies that defined the Medical Library Association’s research agenda; his team subsequently coordinated the pursuit of 15 systematic reviews. He has conducted six randomized controlled trials to date. In 1998 he created and then taught the MLA continuing education course on Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 27 times. At the University of New Mexico he co-directs the three-year longitudinal Evidence Based Practice course for all medical students and co-teaches required courses related to EBP for clinical research, public health, and physician assistant graduate students. Bill Fisher PhD is a professor with the School of Information at San Jose State University.  His teaching areas include management, leadership and the collection/use of specific resources (eg. business/economics and sports/recreation).  He is also an Adjunct Professor at Queensland University of Technology and supervises doctoral students in the joint SJSU/QUT Gateway PhD program.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page xi

contrIBUtors

XI

Carol A. Gordon MEd MLS EdD is 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. Her consultancy seeks to bridge research and practice across public, school, and academic libraries. She is Project Researcher for the IMLS Grant, Empowering Public Libraries to become Community Science Centers and she serves as a Faculty Fellow and member of the Advisory Board for an IMLS grant held by the School of Education at Granite State College. She is currently research advisor to a commission created by the Massachusetts legislature to determine the status of school libraries in the Commonwealth. Carol has worked as a secondary school teacher of English, a school librarian, an academic librarian, and a library administrator in public and private schools and universities in the USA and abroad, and as professor of Education at Boston University and professor of Information and Library Science at Rutgers, e State University of New Jersey. She has authored several books, over seventy journal articles, and delivered more than 250 keynotes, presentations, and workshops across the USA and worldwide. Her focus is to optimize teaching and learning through information and technology while building a strong foundation for the development of multiple literacies and knowledge construction. Her approach to reflective practice aims at continuous improvement of teacher and student performance through evidence-based practices. Lotta Haglund MLIS is Head of Library and Archive at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, in Stockholm, Sweden since 2012. She has a masters degree in Library and Information Science, and has worked in health sciences libraries since 1992. She is currently the Vice President of the European Association of Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL). Her professional interests include library management, professional development, marketing and communication, as well as evidence-based practice. She was involved in introducing the concept of EBLIP to Swedish librarians, and was responsible for organizing the 5th Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference in Stockholm 2009. She has served as an evidence summaries writer, together with David Herron, for the Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Journal for four years. 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. She received her Master of Library and Information Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh in 1998. She has presented at several international meetings including MLA and the Alliance for Continuing Medical Education (ACME) and was invited to the International Congress on Medical Librarianship (ICML) in Brisbane, Australia, in 2009. She is a 2010 recipient of the National Library of Medicine’s biomedical

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page xii

XII

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

informatics fellowship held in Woods Hole, MA, as well as one of Library Journal’s ‘Movers & Shakers’ for 2011. She is also a Distinguished Member of the Academy of Health Information Professionals and the 2014 recipient of the Lois Ann Colaianni Award for Excellence and Achievement in Hospital Librarianship. She has a vested interest in evidence based library and information practice, and has had an active role in developing and furthering the research behind MLA’s research agenda. She is also passionate about clinical librarianship and continues to mentor others who are just breaking into the specialization. Lorie A. Kloda MLIS PhD is Associate University Librarian for Planning and Community Relations at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. Her interests include the information needs of health professionals, expert searching for systematic reviews, library assessment, and evidence-based practice. Recently, her research has investigated the value of journal club participation by academic librarians and the research output of Canadian library and information studies faculty. Lorie is the Editor in Chief of the open access journal, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Denise Koufogiannakis MA MLIS PhD is Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In 2013 she received her PhD in Information Studies from Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK.  Denise co-founded the open access journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice and has held several editorial positions since the journal’s inception in 2006, including Editor-inChief from 2009 to 2011. Denise has contributed numerous research papers to the scholarly literature of EBLIP, and has served on the Program Committee of the international EBLIP conference series since 2003. In 2007, Denise was named a ‘Mover and Shaker’ by Library Journal for her contributions to the evidence based librarianship movement. 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. In 1999, she became Dean of the School of Information and Library Science at UNC Chapel Hill. Since 2005 she has been a Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina where she has taught courses in health information and research methods and pursued her research interest in health information seeking and use and evidence-based practice. She was principal investigator of the Value of Health Library and Information Services in Patient Care Study funded by the US National Library of Medicine. She is a past president of the Medical Library Association and has received multiple awards from both the Medical Library Association, the Special Libraries Association and the Canadian Health Libraries Association.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page xiii

contrIBUtors

XIII

Pam Ryan MLIS is the Director, Service Development & Innovation at Toronto Public Library. Previously, she held Director positions at Edmonton Public Library and was an academic librarian at the University of Alberta, most recently as Head, Cameron Science and Technology Library.  She has served as President of both the Library Association of Alberta and the Canadian Association of College and University Libraries, and she has been involved in supporting the Evidence Based Library and Information Practice journal since its inception, initially as Production Editor. She is a Sessional Instructor at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Alberta, teaching Leadership and Management in the Information Professions, and holds an MLIS from the same institution. Mary M. Somerville PhD serves as University Librarian for University of the Pacific Libraries in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Stockton, California. Her leadership approach combines participatory design and action research to create workplace learning systems and professional information practices. Information sharing and knowledge creation activities foster informed action and reflective evaluation exercised within co-designed communications systems for using information to learn. Guiding theory and best practices for Informed Systems leadership and collaborative evidence processes are described in Informed Systems: organizational design for learning in action, published in 2015 by Chandos Press, a subsidiary of Elsevier. She also serves as Adjunct Professor in the School of Information Systems, Science and Engineering Faculty, at Queensland University of Technology, in Brisbane, Australia. Rick Wallace MA MDiv MAOM MPH MSLS EdD AHIP is a Professor and Associate Director at the Quillen College of Medicine Library at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee. He is the author of 24 peer reviewed publications and 113 papers and posters presented at regional and national conferences. He was listed as a ‘Mover and Shaker’ in Library Journal’s first ‘Mover and Shaker’ awards presented in 2002.   He has won 10 research awards for posters and papers at professional conferences. He was noted as Academic Librarian of the Year by the Southern Chapter/Medical Library Association in 2003, and in 2013 was awarded the Michael E. DeBakey Library Services Outreach Award for Outstanding Service to Rural or Underserved Communities, a national award presented by the Friends of the National Library of Medicine (FNLM). He won the Project of the Year from the Consortium of Biomedical Libraries of the South (CONBLS) in 2005 and 2011. He was awarded the Exemplary Project of the Year from the Rural Health Association of Tennessee in 2002 and was inducted into Delta Omega, the honorary society of Public Health in 2014. He has received $475,000 in grants and awards and is active in multiple professional groups.  He has craed creative programs with smartphone/PDAs in which 325 PDAs

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page xiv

XIV

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

were delivered to rural clinicians with training; outreach to rural health professionals that has delivered over 30,000 journal articles; and a consumer health information outreach that trained the public library workforce throughout Tennessee. Virginia Wilson MA MLIS is the Director of the Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP) at the University Library, University of Saskatchewan (U of S), Canada. C-EBLIP supports librarians as researchers, promotes evidence based library and information practice, and provides avenues for librarians who conduct research to communicate, collaborate, and share. Her MA in English is from the University of Toronto and her MLIS is from the University of Alberta. She was one of the inaugural co-convenors for the Canadian Library Association’s Evidence Based Librarianship Interest Group and created a toolkit on evidence based library and information practice for public libraries. She has written evidence summaries and the EBL 101 column for the journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice and currently writes the Research in Practice column for that journal. She chaired the planning committee for the 7th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice conference which was held in 2013 at the University of Saskatchewan. She has established a program of research focusing broadly on evidence based library and information practice and conducts research as a faculty member at the U of S. As a working librarian who also conducts research, she strongly believes that practising librarians should be involved in conducting and using research to inform their own practice.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 1

PART 1 Background and model Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 2

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 3

1 Introduction Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

is 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)

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 4

4

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

• using our professional skills to help others (oen to make their own evidencebased decisions). is 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. is 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. is 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. e new framework is described and each element of the evidence-based cycle is considered in turn. Each chapter in this section provides theory relating to this step of the model, as well as practical tools and examples to help implement the theory. is section has been written by the volume editors, who are from Canada and the UK and have been involved with the EBLIP movement from its earliest days, and continue to be actively involved through their research in this area.

Part 1 Background and model Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle Chapter 1: Introduction – overview of the book and history of EBLIP Chapter 2: A new framework for EBLIP – presents a holistic and cyclical approach to considering evidence. e nature of evidence is seen as comprising research evidence, local evidence and professional knowledge. Evidence can be used for individual or group decision making and convincing and influencing others. e steps involved include: articulate, assemble, assess, agree and adapt. e following chapters consider these steps in turn. Chapter 3: Articulate – involves understanding the problem and articulating it within the context of the decision that needs to be made. Chapter 4: Assemble – involves gathering evidence from multiple sources that are relevant to the problem. is can involve finding and creating evidence as well as using tacit knowledge.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 5

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | IntroDUctIon

5

Chapter 5: Assess – involves examining the evidence in terms of its quantity and quality; evaluating the evidence that has been assembled and comparing and balancing the evidence from different sources and types of knowledge. Chapter 6: Agree – involves determining the best way forward and, if working as a group, achieving a consensus based on the evidence and organizational goals. en the decision needs to be implemented. Chapter 7: Adapt – involves reflecting on and evaluating the process and examining whether the change made a difference or whether further changes are needed. eories on reflective practice and change management may also be incorporated. e second section of the book focuses on the use of EBLIP in different sectors of the library profession. e context and drivers relating to evidence in each library sector are different and EBLIP has developed at different paces within each, but there are lessons and techniques to be learned between sectors. So, for example, even if you are not a school librarian, you may well find relevant approaches for your practice in the school library chapter. Each chapter considers the context and evidence base for the sector and how EBLIP is developing therein, and provides cases that demonstrate the use of EBLIP in practice. e authors in this section include leading scholars and practitioners who are actively contributing to the conversation about EBLIP today and who demonstrate the concept of evidence-based practice through their professional work. Reflecting the international nature of the EBLIP movement, the contributors have been drawn from the UK, North America and Europe.

Part 2 EBLIP in action Chapter 8: Practitioner-researchers and EBLIP – Virginia Wilson, Canada Chapter 9: Academic libraries – Mary M. Somerville, USA and Lorie A. Kloda, Canada Chapter 10: Public libraries – Pam Ryan, Canada and Becky Cole, UK Chapter 11: Health libraries –Jonathan D. Eldredge, USA, Joanne Gard Marshall, USA, Alison Brettle, UK, Heather N. Holmes, USA, Lotta D. Haglund, Sweden and Rick Wallace, USA Chapter 12: School libraries – Carol A. Gordon, USA Chapter 13: Special libraries – Bill Fisher, USA Chapter 14: Conclusion – Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle Before delving into the new model, the remainder of this chapter provides context by examining the origins and describing the history of the EBLIP movement.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 6

6

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Why EBLIP? Originating in medicine, evidence-based practice (EBP) developed as a way of applying research evidence to clinical decision making. Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) emerged in the early 1990s, growing out of work by Sackett and Guyatt at McMaster University in Canada. Guyatt’s editorial in the new publication ACP Journal Club was the first to coin the term ‘evidence based medicine’ and laid it out as a new approach to the practice of medicine wherein research literature is regularly consulted by clinicians so that new research evidence can be integrated with knowledge and clinical judgement (Guyatt, 1991). In 1992, JAMA: e Journal of the American Medical Association published an article by the Evidence Based Medicine Working Group which concretely outlined EBP as a new approach to teaching and practising medicine. From this publication, worldwide attention was focused on EBM and it began to grow and become firmly established as the best way of practising and teaching in the medical profession. Twenty-five years later, it is commonplace that medical schools integrate EBP principles into their curricula, and that healthcare provision is made on the basis of up-to-date evidence. For example, within the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), services are provided in accordance with the guidelines set out by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), a national body established to provide evidence-based guidance for health and social care. Although its adoption was often according to the level of enthusiasm or scepticism within the discipline (Trinder and Reynolds, 2000), the evidence-based approach quickly developed in other fields such as nursing (Stevens and Cassidy, 1999), rehabilitation (Bury and Mead, 1998), dentistry (Clarkson et al., 2003), social work (Corcoran, 2000), management (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006) and librarianship (Eldredge, 1997). Whatever the discipline, the principle of EBP is the same: that of combining best evidence with professional judgement (Trinder and Reynolds, 2000), involving a process which includes finding, appraising and implementing the evidence located. From the early days of EBM, librarians were considered crucial to the new approach and were oen fully integrated as part of the research team, since searching for the latest research literature was considered an important part of the process. Health librarians took on an important role in EBM, becoming a vital link in helping clinicians to find quality research evidence and in teaching students how to find and evaluate the research literature. Within the health library profession, involvement in EBP was proposed as a means of demonstrating expertise and developing new professional roles (Dalrymple et al., 1995; Palmer, 1996; McKibbon, 1998; Scherrer and Dorsch, 1999; Falzon and Booth, 2001; Harris, 2005; McGowan and Sampson, 2005; Medical Library Association, 2005b). During the early days of health librarians’ involvement in EBP, those working at

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 7

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | IntroDUctIon

7

large medical schools were well integrated and were incorporating these new processes into their own professional workflows. e natural next step of this integration was to apply the same principles to the library profession. Many librarians have now embraced EBLIP, and have been building a body of knowledge about how EBP can work in library and information studies, as well as building evidence about what works within the profession. EBLIP provides a structured approach to decision making. It begins with an issue or problem that arises in the workplace – an area in which librarians are looking to improve practice. e problem may start out somewhat vague, and should be formulated into an answerable, well-built question. Depending upon the subject area or domain into which the question falls, databases are searched to find research evidence, and other types of evidence are also considered. Once relevant evidence is found on the topic, it is critically appraised to determine whether it is valid, reliable and applicable to the question at hand. is knowledge is then applied to the librarian’s practice. e final step is to evaluate the process and determine what impact was made, where gaps remain and where improvement is needed for the next time. EBLIP is a continual cycle of improvement for the way librarians work and make decisions.

The growth of EBLIP In 1997, at a point when EBM was firmly recognized and health librarians were participating in the searching and teaching activities of EBM, the term ‘evidence based librarianship’ (EBL) appeared in the library and information science (LIS) literature (Eldredge, 1997). While the first mentions of ‘evidence based libraries’ (Roddham, 1995) and ‘evidence-based information practice’ (Bradley and Marshall, 1995; Haines, 1995) can be traced back to 1995, it was Eldredge’s 1997 article in Hypothesis, a publication of the Medical Library Association’s Research Section, that caught the attention of medical librarians and began the movement in earnest. At this point, EBL began to grow, particularly within the health library community. e Medical Library Association (MLA) began offering a continuing education (CE) course on the topic, and by 2000 the MLA Research Section had created an EvidenceBased Librarianship Implementation Committee, whose goal was ‘To foster Evidence-Based Librarianship (EBL) and to integrate its principles into the practice of health sciences librarianship’ (Eldredge, 2000, 7). At this same time there were a growing number of papers published on the topic, and the first conference on Evidence Based Librarianship took place at the University of Sheffield in 2001 (EBL2001, n.d., 99; Eldredge, 2001). In the same year, the US Special Libraries Association (SLA) released a new research statement which emphasized the building of a culture of EBP (SLA, 2001).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 8

8

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

While initially referred to as EBL, this approach to practice has also been called evidence-based information practice, and, since a meeting at the 3rd International Evidence Based Librarianship Conference in the autumn of 2005, has been generally referred to as EBLIP (Booth and Brice, 2007). This designation also mirrors the name of the journal that began publication in 2006 and the now biennial international conference series that was also renamed at about the same time. The change in name was largely due to the expressed desire to include information professionals of a wide range, which would include librarians but not be limited to those who held the job title ‘librarian’, and was prompted by the founding of the new journal, with an open discussion regarding an appropriate name (EBLIG Archives, 2005). While EBLIP was initially of interest to health librarians, it has since grown to involve librarians from various sectors, including school (Todd, 2002a; Farmer, 2009; Gordon, 2009), academic (West, 2003; Booth, 2009a), public (Wilson and Hall, 2007; Ryan, 2012), law (Lerdal, 2006) and special librarians (Marshall, 2003; Fisher and Robertson, 2007; Savard and Alcock, 2007). It also extends to specific interests such as cataloguing (Carter, 2010), search interface design (Wildemuth, 2006) and information literacy design (VanScoy and Oakleaf, 2008). The journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice publishes articles from a wide range of library and information studies sectors and is a testament to the growth of EBP as a mainstream activity. EBLIP was strongly modeled on the original EBM process. e most widely cited and accepted definition of EBLIP was adapted from McKibbon et al.’s (1995) definition of EBM, keeping all the same components and basic meaning but inserting ‘user’ in place of ‘patient’ and ‘librarian’ in place of ‘clinician’: An approach to information science that promotes the collection, interpretation and integration of valid, important and applicable user-reported, librarian observed, and research-derived evidence. e best available evidence, moderated by user needs and preferences, is applied to improve the quality of professional judgements. (Booth, 2000)

EBL became better established in the literature in the year 2000, at which point Booth’s definition was published from a conference presentation that he gave that year (2000); Eldredge published a number of papers in different journals that same year (2000b, 2000c, 2000d). Eldredge’s publications were significant because they were the first published works that proposed a framework for EBL and the process involved and gave an outline for how to practise in this manner. Eldredge’s Bulletin of the Medical Library Association article from that year remains one of the most highly cited scholarly

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 9

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | IntroDUctIon

9

papers on the topic. ese publications allowed for scholarly conversation on the topic to begin. In 2004 a book edited by Booth and Brice (2004) brought together many contributing librarians for a more in-depth look at EBP in LIS, building upon the foundation laid by Eldredge. As the first book published on the topic, it remains a seminal source for those interested in EBLIP. It covers EBLIP according to the same process as EBM, but from an LIS professional’s viewpoint, providing examples of how this process works in LIS practice.

Moving forward More recently, researchers have begun to further examine the EBLIP model so as to better understand its application within LIS and whether that is different from the model adapted from medicine. is work is laying an empirical foundation that provides insights into how EBLIP is perceived and used in librarianship. e studies are qualitative, providing the field with rich data that provides knowledge about librarians’ use and understanding of evidence. Such work lays a foundation of evidence about the model of EBP in LIS and illuminates how such an approach works within our field. e earliest study by orpe, Partridge and Edwards (2008) followed by Partridge, Edwards and orpe (2010) examined how LIS practitioners experience EBP. is study shed light on different approaches and attitudes towards EBLIP, and showed that the process of evidence use is not always a positive one – evidence can be used as a ‘weapon’ within the workplace. Such findings introduced the idea of more complex factors within organizations that influence the use or non-use of evidence, and illustrate that being evidence based in practice is not so simple as one might initially suppose. In the span of two years, three independent qualitative research studies relating to the use of evidence in librarianship practice were published. Koufogiannakis’ (2013b) doctoral thesis and resulting articles (2012a, 2013a, 2015) focused on EBLIP within academic libraries and how academic librarians actually use evidence in their decision making. is study revealed that librarians use multiple sources of evidence that extend beyond research, that evidence is used for convincing, and the determinants of evidence use in practice, including a focus on the impact of organizational dynamics. At a similar time Gillespie (2013; 2014) was completing her doctoral work on teacher-librarians and their use of evidence in practice. Gillespie’s study revealed that teacher-librarians use many types of evidence in practice, including professional knowledge and expertise, and provided insights into how teacher-librarians both encounter and engage with evidence, noting that the process is a holistic one that necessitates a fluid approach in practice. Finally, a study by Howlett and Howard

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 10

10

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

(2015) on special librarians’ use of evidence in practice showed the high use of local sources of evidence by special librarians and the importance of environmental factors and workplace influences upon the use of evidence. While there were some differences in the findings of these three studies, as a whole they all point to the importance of using a variety of sources of evidence, depending upon the problem; the importance of professional knowledge within the decision-making process; and the complex nature of evidence-based decision making within the organizations in which librarians work.

Conclusion is later research across multiple library sectors provided the foundations and ideas for this book. Combined with conducting research in the field, attending and speaking at conferences, running workshops on evaluation, research and evidence-based practice and editing the journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the editors have gained a wealth of insights and experience on ‘being evidence based’. By sharing these through this book we hope that more librarians will see the value of being evidence based and will thus drive their profession forward through effective decision making and demonstrating their value to their stakeholders. Aer all, finding information or making evidence available is at the heart of our profession and professional values; why shouldn’t we want to do this in the best way possible? Being evidence based makes sense!

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 11

2 A new framework for EBLIP Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

e 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

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 12

12

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

research, proposed the use of Booth’s ‘alternative’ model to move towards a process that would be more meaningful and pragmatic for practising librarians. is 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. However, we choose to use this model because we believe that it is the best to date to provide structure for those who wish to approach their practice in an evidence-based way and embrace the concept of being evidence-based practitioners. e model allows us to consider various elements of the process and talk them through as points for consideration, elements that a librarian should consider and think about critically. It is not meant to be either the definitive or a static process that you work through and easily complete. In this book we encourage readers to consider the issues around EBP in librarianship and then apply various aspects to their own situation. As is the case with most things in life, the process is unlikely to completely fit or always work neatly. at is acceptable, as it is the mindset relating to an approach to practice, the way of thinking about practice, that is really most important.

The original model As noted in Chapter 1, the original concept, model and definition of EBLIP, or EBL as it was known at the time, was based directly upon that of EBM. Hence, the model focused on research-derived evidence and was largely discussed within the context of an individual professional making decisions and applying them to their practice. Eldredge outlined a conceptual model for EBL, with the following seven principles: 1) EBL seeks to improve library practice by utilizing the best-available evidence combined with a pragmatic perspective developed from working experiences in librarianship; 2) EBL applies the best-available evidence, whether based upon either quantitative or qualitative research methods; 3) EBL encourages the pursuit of increasingly rigorous research strategies to support decisions affecting library practice; 4) EBL values research in all its diverse forms and encourages its communication, preferably through peer-reviewed or other forms of authoritative dissemination; 5) EBL represents a global approach to information seeking and knowledge development, involving research but not restricted to research alone; 6) EBL supports the adoption of practice guidelines and standards developed by expert committees based upon the best-available evidence, but not as an endorsement of

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 13

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | A nEW frAmEWorK for EBlIp

13

adhering to rigid protocols; and 7) In the absence of compelling reasons to pursue another course, EBL adheres to the hierarchy […] for using the best-available evidence, lending priority to higher levels of evidence from the research. (Eldredge, 2000b)

Booth and Brice (2004b) noted that there are five stages of evidence-based practice: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

identification of a problem or question finding, as efficiently as possible, the best evidence to answer the question appraising the evidence for validity and usefulness applying the results to a specific population evaluating the outcome of the intervention. (p. 6)

While the model could be interpreted broadly and include many sources of evidence, in practice it was interpreted to focus only on research evidence. e interpretation also focused on individual practitioners rather than a community of practice and did not really consider how decisions were in fact being made in libraries. However, a research focus was, and still is, important in order to build a greater knowledge base for the field. ere was also a concerted effort among those in the community to develop critical appraisal tools, to critique the research literature and to promote greater research skills among practising librarians.

A revised model for EBLIP A holistic approach e revised model looks at the whole of EBP, incorporating research evidence as well as local evidence and professional knowledge (Figure 2.1). Good research evidence provides us with findings from quantitative and qualitative research that is undertaken according to methods which allow us to have confidence in the outcome of the research. Hence, we can have greater trust in the research than we would in someone’s anecdotal account, for example. Of course, not all published research is

research evidence

local evidence

professional knowledge

Figure 2.1 Bringing the evidence sources together (Koufogiannakis, 2011, 53)

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 14

14

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

necessarily of such a high standard, which is why we must be careful when using research results, and this will be explored further in Chapter 5, Assess. But, in general, research is an essential part of EBP because it brings us closer to building a body of knowledge that is based upon sound methods, well documented process and rigorous interpretation of the data. Within librarianship, however, we also need to consider local context and circumstances, because the decision being made is specific to those circumstances. e populations we serve and their needs are not necessarily the same in all instances. While librarians should be consulting and learning from the broader research literature of the field, we also need to understand local needs and preferences and to incorporate these elements into good decision making. is means gathering and understanding appropriate forms of local evidence that should be considered, depending on the question. All forms of evidence need to be respected and librarians, whether they are making solo decisions or working together with a team, need to use their underlying professional knowledge in the decision-making process. e evidence that is applicable to a situation will need to be balanced within the context in which it is found, and only the practitioners dealing with that decision can appropriately assign value and importance within that context. is process itself, being a thoughtful and reflective one, builds and changes how practice works and how new initiatives proceed, further building professional knowledge which brings research and practice together, rather than separating them. ere must be an emphasis on applicability, because decision making is ultimately a local endeavour. e context of the situation impacts on our decision making and should not be ignored. For example, we must recognize that, oen, political or financial influences may be as or more important than what we learn from the research literature. at may be unfortunate, but it is realistic. ese elements are facts of life and boundaries that we have to live within. Within such boundaries we need to weigh appropriate evidence and make contextual decisions. Adapt

Articulate

A cyclical process

Agree

Assemble

Assess Figure 2.2 A cyclical illustration of EBLIP

e EBLIP model is cyclical in nature and takes a broad approach, allowing and encouraging different sources of evidence to be incorporated into decision making. It also places emphasis on existing professional knowledge. ese elements were present in past definitions of EBLIP, but were not explicit or given much attention in the original model. e process

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 15

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | A nEW frAmEWorK for EBlIp

15

can be applied to both individual and group decisions. Groups can use the process to prompt questions and critical thinking within the group, as well as to ensure that the process is transparent. is model is meant to be more holistic and encompassing of the complex process of evidence-based decision making, as well as more realistic (Figure 2.2). e elements of the model are briefly summarized in Table 2.1. In the next five Table 2.1 Elements of the EBLIP process (adapted from Koufogiannakis, 2013b) Process element

What do I need to do?

What types of questions do I need to ask?

What action do I need to take?

Articulate Come to an understanding of the problem and articulate it.

What is already known about this problem? Clarify existing knowledge and be honest about assumptions or difficulties that may be obstacles. This may involve sharing background documents, having an honest discussion and determining priorities. Consider the urgency of the situation, financial constraints and goals.

Set boundaries and clearly articulate the problem that requires a decision.

Assemble Assemble evidence from multiple sources that are the most appropriate to the question/problem at hand.

What types of evidence would be best to help solve this problem? What does the literature say? What do those who will be impacted say? What information and data do we have locally? Do colleagues at other institutions have similar experiences they can share? What is the most important evidence to obtain in light of the problem previously articulated?

Gather evidence from appropriate sources including research evidence, local evidence and professional knowledge.

Assess

Place the evidence against all components of the wider overarching problem. Assess the evidence for its quantity and quality.

Of the evidence assembled, what pieces 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?

Evaluate and weigh or balance evidence sources. Determine what the evidence says as a whole.

Agree

Determine the best way forward and, if working with a group, try to achieve consensus based on the evidence and organizational goals.

Has the evidence been examined openly and without prejudice? What is the best decision based on everything known from the problem, the context and the evidence? Have all reasonable alternatives been considered? How will this impact on library users? Is the decision in keeping with organizational goals and values? Can the decision be explained with confidence? What questions remain?

Determine a course of action and begin implementation of the decision.

Adapt

Revisit goals and needs. Reflect on the success of the implementation.

Now that the decision has been implemented, what is working? What isn’t? What else needs to be done? Are there new questions or problems arising?

Evaluate the decision and how it has worked in practice. Reflect on your role and actions. Discuss the situation with others and determine any changes required.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 16

16

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

chapters of this book a more thorough examination of the aspects one should consider within each element will be detailed.

EBLIP in action EBLIP asks librarians to think critically about their practice and the process they use in making decisions. As such, EBLIP prompts us to ask lots of questions. When faced with a problem or question in practice, first you may ask more about the problem itself to try to dig deeper into what the actual question is. en you ask, ‘What do I already know?’ about the problem at hand (Figure 2.3). Reflecting on this question draws upon both professional experience and knowledge of the specific situation. Asking what is already known allows for reflection on the situation and the factors that may influence future action. Next, ask yourself what are the best potential sources of evidence that would help you to solve this problem. Determine if local evidence is available that may be directly relevant. From there, you can look to the literature and see if there is any research that would be relevant to the problem or the decision required. is is where the skills of critical appraisal and knowing how to read different types of research are useful. Sometimes, there may not be any research on the topic, but there may be descriptions of similar situations at comparable institutions that can help.

What do I already know?

What worked? What didn’t? What can be improved? Adapt

Articulate What are the best evidence sources to answer this question?

What is the best decision based on all the evidence?

Agree

Assemble

Assess

How does the evidence I have apply in my context? Figure 2.3 Key questions a practitioner should ask

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 17

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | A nEW frAmEWorK for EBlIp

17

At this point it is good to review all existing evidence and ask ‘What other information do I need to gather?’ Doing so allows gaps in knowledge to be identified. You can then determine if more data is required, speak to appropriate groups of people or begin planning a research or assessment project. At the same time, consider all the evidence and how it applies to the situation or problem at hand. is is a crucial professional knowledge skill that puts the evidence in context. Depending upon the urgency of the situation, or deadlines, proceed to make a decision; ask what is the best decision based on all the evidence gathered. e decision will need to proceed based on the best evidence available at the time; evidence may change over time, but, in that moment, a decision must be made. Finally, aer implementation, reflect on the process and ask questions such as ‘What worked? What didn’t? What did I learn?’ Taking the time to assess the situation and learn from it is a key part of enhancing professional knowledge. is process puts the practitioner (or group of practitioners) in the centre of the process and in control of their decision making. It incorporates the use of best evidence, whatever that may be, depending on the situation. It enables librarians to practise in an informed and thoughtful manner, bringing together the art and science of the profession.

Implementing the model e model described above follows a process that appears to flow neatly from one step to the next, while accounting for differences in context and sources of evidence. However, this is notably an ideal, providing a model of how the process could work well. In reality, the process may not necessarily work as planned; however, it can be a guide. For example, obstacles to moving ahead could occur at any stage in the process, and progress may be stalled. e organizational climate may not facilitate an environment of open discussion, and individuals may feel excluded from the decision-making process. Regardless, every librarian can take steps towards being evidence based by trying to implement aspects of this process and by questioning and seeking evidence. In order for EBLIP to be successful, both individual librarians and employers have a leadership role to play. Employers, or senior library managers, need to create a climate in which evidence-based decision making is valued. ey should foster a culture in which decision-making processes are transparent and use evidence sources that are important to the question, as opposed to implementing decisions that leave librarians wondering why a particular decision was made. Clear communication within the organization is paramount. Senior managers can also set the tone in relation to the importance of asking questions and engaging in professional education in areas

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 18

18

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

related to research and assessment. Having clear goals and work expectations regarding those elements is one way to bring the use of evidence into daily use. Managers can identify areas for which local data is regularly collected, and done so in a useable manner for future decision making. ey can also prompt collaboration within workplaces and encourage the use of both internal and external sources of evidence. Ensuring that significant time is given to projects that require involved decision making, and emulating behaviour by asking questions and requiring evidence, are also important. Individual librarians must also take responsibility for ensuring the success of this model by acknowledging that uncertainty is acceptable and that questioning practice is a healthy part of growth. Individual librarians must foster collegial relationships and contribute to a positive workplace. When working in groups, librarians must be attuned to some of the possible pitfalls, such as individual biases and group-think, by ensuring inclusion and diversity of opinion, and ensuring that a range of evidence sources are consulted. ey need to take responsibility for their own continuing education, filling gaps in the skills related to research, evaluation, assessment and critical appraisal, as well as the soer skills such as decision making and collaboration. ey must also make time for this approach of incorporating evidence into their decision making, rather than pointing to the barrier of time as being beyond their control. It is up to individual practitioners to be actively reflective in their practice so that they recognize problems and potential solutions sooner and can trace progress in their own decision making within the context of their organization. Being actively reflective may lead to greater awareness and innovation in practice. It will lead to more questions and continual renewal of both individual and organizational approaches to practice.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 19

3 Articulate Alison Brettle and Denise Koufogiannakis

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. is 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. [...] e wording and content of the questions will determine what kinds of research designs are needed to secure answers’ (Eldredge, 2000b, 292). is 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. erefore, it is more appropriate that the wording and content of the question will allow us to consider all the relevant

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 20

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

20

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. is may involve sharing background documents, having an honest discussion and determining priorities among colleagues. It is also worth considering the goals or urgency of the situation, any financial constraints and the needs of other stakeholders. Oen, working out the question or the problem is the hardest part of the EBLIP process. However, this is time well spent, since the clearer the question, the easier it is to assemble the evidence and then assess or weigh the evidence to help make the decision.

Frameworks for forming questions A standardized format or framework for asking questions helps to focus on the key elements (Davies, 2011). A number of frameworks exist that are based on mnemonics. ese can be used to focus the question, help to think through the concepts and synonyms which need to be considered in a search and help to form a search strategy. Booth’s (2006) overview was expanded by Davies (2011) and both consider how concepts from EBM can be adapted in librarianship, as well as discussing libraryderived frameworks. More recently, frameworks for use in qualitative synthesis in healthcare have been explored and tested by Cooke, Smith and Booth (2012) and Methley et al. (2014). Initially, health librarians used the PICO model from EBM for question formulation (Richardson et al., 1995). PICO stands for: P I C O

– – – –

Patient or problem (who is the patient or what is the primary problem?) Intervention (what is the main intervention being considered?) Comparison (what is the main comparison intervention?) Outcome (what are the anticipated outcomes or effects?)

So, for a library interested in the effectiveness of one of its services, formulating the question would work as shown in Table 3.1.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 21

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | ArtIcUlAtE

21

Table 3.1 PICO question formulation PICO question element

Example

P – Patient or problem

Nursing students (who can’t find information)

I – Intervention

Online tutorial to teach search skills

C – Comparison

Face-to-face teaching

O – Outcome

Improved search skills (better use of resources, improved question formulation, use of subject headings/thesaurus searching)

Question resulting from the above elements: Does an online tutorial improve nursing students’ search skills, as compared to using face-to-face teaching?

Since PICO is very clinically oriented, it did not work as well for librarians, particularly those outside of health sciences who were unfamiliar with the terminology. It also doesn’t work well for health-related questions that don’t involve effectiveness, and can be problematic for other health professionals. Davies (2011) describes a range of health-related adaptations (PICOTT, PIPOH, PECODR and PESICO) and considers how they can be adapted for LIS scenarios, as well as their limitations. Another alternative health-related framework which may be more appropriate in a library context, as it was derived for health management and policy questions, is ECLIPSE (Wildridge and Bell, 2002). Within library and information studies, Booth developed the SPICE model to more accurately reflect the elements of questions that LIS professionals would be asking: S – Setting – where? P – Perspective – for whom? I – Intervention–what? C – Comparison – compared with what? E – Evaluation – with what result? (Booth, 2004b)

For a scenario where a library is trying to determine whether using volunteers instead of trained library professionals is a good idea, the question could be formulated as noted in Table 3.2. Frameworks have also been developed for specific types of questions, such as the SPIDER framework, which is focused on locating studies of qualitative or mixed methods designs (Cooke, Smith and Booth, 2012). Although the framework was designed to be more inclusive than the PICO framework on which it was based, in practice the tool located fewer studies than the PICO method (Methley et al., 2014) and thus has been recommended only when a comprehensive set of studies is not required.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 22

22

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Table 3.2 SPICE question formulation SPICE question element

Example

S – Setting

Public libraries

P – Perspective

Managers and policy makers

I – Intervention

Volunteers at the reference desk

C – Comparison

Trained library staff

E – Evaluation

Less cost, change in user satisfaction

Question resulting from the above elements: Does using volunteers in a public library reduce costs and maintain user satisfaction, in comparison to using trained library staff?

Davies (2011) suggests that the frameworks are tools to guide the formation of search strategy. e results of the testing of the tools by Cooke, Smith and Booth (2012) and Methley et al. (2014) reinforce this message: the frameworks are there as guides but we shouldn’t become a slave to them, nor worry if our question doesn’t fit every element of the chosen framework. In practice, trying to use all elements of the framework may restrict our search results too far and evidence may be missed, as was discovered by Methley et al. (2014). In this case, two or three components of the framework can be used to search, and the remaining elements can be used as inclusion criteria to help systematically si through the evidence located and determine whether it needs to go on to the Assess phase of the process. Mnemonics are not for everyone, and your problem may not fit within a framework. In such cases it is still important to have a clear question, and the ‘but what’ or ‘so what’ approach may help you to think through what it is that you are really trying to ask. is can be done in groups, in pairs or on an individual basis (with someone, or asking yourself the ‘but what’). For example: I’m interested in information literacy (IL) – …but what is it about IL that you are interested in? I’m interested in what works – ...but what do you want to know works? I want to know if my method of teaching works – ...but what method of teaching do you use? I use an online tutorial – …but what do you want to know about it? I want to know whether my students complete it and whether their skills improve when they’ve done it. Working through such an exercise will allow you to focus on what it is that you really want to know, and you can refine questions in your own mind. rough such a process you may come to realize that your questions actually are:

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 23

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | ArtIcUlAtE

23

1 Do the students use my online tutorial? 2 Do their skills improve when they’ve used it? As well as clarifying the question, formulating a good question may also lead you to think about the kind of evidence you may need to help answer the question, as well as to reflect upon what you already know from your professional knowledge and past experience. In the above example, if you are not already doing so you may want to collect some local evidence (see Chapter 4) so as to learn more about your current practice, but if you were interested more generally in whether online tutorials worked you would want to look at the research evidence and perhaps compare whether your experience matched that of others. If you are just starting to think about your problem, this approach may be a first step in articulation. You may then find that you could move onto a framework to develop your search strategy.

Situating questions in the broader context When you are at the point of articulating your question to both yourself and others it is generally a good idea to situate that question in the broader context. Doing so will help you to better understand your question, judge its overall importance and determine what level of interest there may be in this question beyond your own workplace. ere are developed tools and areas that may be useful to help you in thinking more broadly about your question and the functional area into which it falls. In this section we will discuss three such tools that may assist you: (1) domains of librarianship allow you to focus your question and consider the broad functional area into which it falls; (2) systematic reviews provide a comprehensive overview of evidence on a particular question, revealing where further research is needed; and (3) Delphi studies provide insight into areas within the profession that have been noted as important questions in need of answers.

Domains Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2001, 2002) proposed domains for the LIS literature in their presentation at the first EBL conference, based on the main professional areas that librarians deal with in their daily practice. e reason for creating such domains was to ‘aid librarians in determining where the answers to their questions may be found and ultimately assist them in conducting a better search for information’ (Koufogiannakis, Slater and Crumley, 2004, 230). e idea for these librarianship domains came from and was modelled on the use of domains in EBM. e proposed

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 24

24

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

domains comprised six areas of librarianship: reference/enquiries, education, collections, management, information access and retrieval and marketing/promotion. Koufogiannakis, Slater and Crumley (2004) subsequently tested and modified the domains via a large-scale content analysis of the LIS research literature. is led to a change which involved incorporating marketing and promotion within the management domain and considering LIS education as a significant and unique subset of the education domain. e original articles have been highly cited and the domains were widely adopted within EBLIP, being referred to frequently in the Health Information and Libraries Journal’s research column, incorporated into a FOLIO (UK) online course about EBLIP and used to structure the handbook published by Booth and Brice (2004b), as well as being used to structure other content analyses and a wiki which compiles and summarizes the systematic review evidence in LIS (LIS Systematic Reviews, 2012– 2015).

Systematic reviews Systematic reviews provide practitioners with a reliable assessment of existing research on particular topics. Systematic reviews have become an important source of information because they both synthesize the existing research on a topic and critically appraise it and try to draw conclusions from the total body of quality research evidence (Koufogiannakis, 2012b). ‘A good review should focus on a well defined question and use appropriate methods’ (CRD, 2009). us, they can be helpful for answering practitioners’ questions and, as they seek to summarize the state of the evidence on a question, they also highlight gaps and suggest where research needs to be undertaken, and so are a useful place to start when articulating questions. An overview of systematic reviews in LIS (Koufogiannakis and Brettle, 2015) located 82 systematic reviews. e main questions where evidence was found were in relation to information needs, information-seeking behaviour, literature searching within systematic reviews and the effectiveness of information literacy, suggesting that there are many areas and questions within librarianship which remain unanswered. Another recent systematic review, which used different methods of inclusion, located 52 systematic reviews (Xu, Kang and Song, 2015) and found that only 50% had clear research questions. is suggests that although reviews are available, they don’t always answer a clear and focused question and they may be of more use in highlighting gaps in the evidence, rather than in providing evidence to answer specific questions for librarians. Meanwhile, Weightman et al.’s (2015) systematic review on information literacy interventions not only updated other work (Koufogiannakis and Wiebe, 2006; Zhang et al., 2007) but also suggested that it was

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 25

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | ArtIcUlAtE

25

time to stop conducting research comparing online and face-to-face methods of information literacy instruction, as evidence suggests that online is as effective as face-to-face, and we have known this for some time. Systematic scoping reviews can also highlight where systematic reviews need to be undertaken and highlight gaps in the evidence base (while ascertaining that there is likely to be evidence out there to answer the question). For example, Gardois et al. (2012) conducted a scoping review of Web 2.0 services in academic libraries and found a range of heterogeneous studies and concluded that a systematic review was needed in order to determine their effectiveness. Similarly, in examining the evidence for trained library and information professionals, Brettle and Maden (2015a) suggest a number of questions where systematic reviews could be used to provide evidence of the effectiveness and impact of LIS professionals across sectors.

Delphi studies e Delphi method is a technique of several rounds of questionnaires used to arrive at a consensus of expert opinion. Delphi studies have been used to tell us what research questions need answering in LIS (Eldredge et al., 2009; Eldredge et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2013; Mačeviciūtė and Wilson, 2009). e former used this method to set the Medical Library Association research agenda, and translated the top 15 questions into a series of systematic reviews which are currently in process (Eldredge, Ascher and Holmes, 2015a) (see Chapter 11). Types of questions covered include: the effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings; what studies have measured about the added value libraries bring to education, research and patient care in the health sciences and healthcare fields; the information needs of practising physicians and other healthcare workers. For individual librarians, the Delphi approach may be a useful way forward to gain an expert consensus in an area where evidence does not exist and other research designs are not appropriate. For example, it has been suggested as a way of answering the question ‘what kind of skill sets are librarians requested to have to be strong partners in continuing effectiveness’ (Eldredge et al., 2012).

Conclusion EBLIP begins with articulating a question or problem, and the clearer this is, the easier it is to follow the remaining parts of the EBLIP cycle. ere are likely to be many different questions, and different stakeholders will have different types of questions. Part of articulating the problem includes working out what is known already and why

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 26

26

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

the information is needed, as well as ensuring that the problem is set in the appropriate context. Frameworks may be useful tools to articulate the question or clarify concepts before assembling the evidence. Systematic reviews may provide the answer to some questions, as well as highlighting gaps. Delphi studies may be a useful approach to reach a consensus and have been used to date to determine what questions are challenging the profession.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 27

4 Assemble Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

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. is 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. e 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. is is no small question, but one that underlines the whole evidence-based approach.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 28

28

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

e 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). is 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. e assembling evidence part of the process should be broad and as complete as possible, depending on the problem faced or question posed. Asking what would be the best evidence to help answer the question is generally a good place to begin. For example, in librarianship we can look to empirical research evidence, but sometimes that form of evidence may be lacking or insufficient to answer the question at hand. Libraries generally have other forms of evidence at the local level that are very important to consider. Davies (2007), Casey (2011) and Koufogiannakis (2011; 2013c) all point out the importance of other types of evidence beyond research evidence. Evidence that comes from local sources of data is usually the most directly applicable evidence that a librarian will consider. Such evidence provides insight into user behaviour, particularly when it is systematically collected. Davies (2007) considers this local evidence to be that which pertains to ‘operational aspects of a library service and may be quantitative, or qualitative’ (n.p.). is type of evidence includes inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts of specific library services, and may be data collected routinely or when measured through assessment and evaluation of library programmes and services. In the wider academic literature there have been various categorizations of evidence types. Glasby, Walshe and Harvey (2007) note that ‘we need to embrace a broad definition of evidence, which recognizes the contribution of different sorts of knowledge to decision making’ (p. 434), and propose three types of evidence: theoretical, empirical and experiential. A different categorization, by Rieke and Sillars (1984), put forward four different types of evidence as anecdotal, statistical, causal and expert. While they are different, these categorizations show that evidence in professional practice can involve a wide variety of sources. What is perhaps most important is that the evidence should be carefully considered and should always be used in context. Tarlier (2004) makes this connection within the profession of nursing when she notes that ‘to be readily accepted as true, new evidence must exhibit some congruency with what nursing already holds to be true within [the] existing disciplinary knowledge’ (p. 130). is connects our use of evidence back to existing

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 29

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

29

professional knowledge, which is needed in order to interpret and fully understand evidence that is being considered in a professional context.

Evidence in librarianship In this book, we have chosen to categorize evidence in librarianship according to three overarching categories that we think apply best to practising librarians. We will provide an explanation of each category and further detail specific types of evidence being used within that category throughout the next sections of this chapter. We will also try to explain how these different types of evidence should work together. e three categories of evidence sources are research evidence, local evidence, and professional knowledge, as were noted in Figure 2.1. In order to enable a more holistic approach to EBP in librarianship, as we are attempting in this book, all three elements should be present when making evidence-based decisions. Each element brings an important piece to the puzzle, and together they form a complete picture.

Research evidence Research can be defined as ‘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’ (Peritz, 1980). e EBP movement has always placed a strong emphasis on the need for research evidence to help guide decisions. A professional field should have an established and growing body of research evidence to help support decisions and knowledge within the field. Good research evidence is grounded in sound research design and should be valid and reliable. Looking to the research literature for evidence on a question or problem under consideration should be done early in the process of assembling evidence to help with decision making. If there is research literature on a topic, it will be of great value in assessing how particular services have benefited patrons, or which way of approaching a service may be more helpful or efficient, for example. e quality and quantity of the LIS research literature has oen been lamented, and noted as a potential barrier to implementing EBLIP (Haddow, 1997). Sometimes, for example, there may be enough literature on a particular topic, but research studies within that literature are lacking (Plutchak, 2005). Several content analyses have looked at the LIS literature and have found the percentage of research studies within the published research to range between 15 and 57%, much of it descriptive in nature (Buttlar, 1991; Feehan et al., 1987; Jarvelin and Vakkari, 1990; Koufogiannakis, Slater and Crumley, 2004; Kumpulainen, 1991; Nour, 1985; Peritz, 1980; Williams and Winston, 2003). e EBLIP movement has prompted discussion about improving the

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 30

30

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

quality of research in LIS, for without good-quality research evidence, the evidence base is lacking and practitioners will not be able to make decisions based on reliable information. It is ideal to find research that is applicable to your situation and answers the same or similar question to yours. In seeking the best research, reading research articles should be done with a critical eye to ensure that the methods used were appropriate and the study was conducted in an appropriate manner. Chapter 5 (Assess) delves into these issues in further detail. While you may not always find a study that directly addresses your situation, oen you can apply what you learn from a similar study, or build upon past research so that it better fits your situation. In addition, research oen teaches you more about the topic in general and may give you theoretical models in which to situate your own problem, and possibly your own future research (Table 4.1).

Quantitative research Quantitative research is objective in nature – at the beginning of the research you determine what you are going to do (using a protocol) and then the research proceeds as prescribed. Robson (2011) describes this approach as a fixed design. You set out what you are going to measure – and then you measure it. is may be in the form of an experiment (with a hypothesis); or you may undertake some other form of data collection and analysis, such as a cohort study where groups of users are followed and tested, or a survey where the responses are put into categories (yes/no), or a scale (1–5 or poor–excellent). Quantitative research oen answers ‘how’ or ‘what’ questions and may involve finding support for a hypothesis, testing or counting things, and is useful to determine whether something works. It oen takes into consideration larger sample sizes (that can be generalized to a wider population), variables and confounders (other elements that may affect the results). Examples of quantitative research in the library literature include Brettle and Raynor (2013), who conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare an online tutorial with face-to-face teaching of information literacy skills to nursing students; correlational studies that highlight links between library provision and children’s improved reading ability (Farmer, 2006; Lance and Schwarz, 2012); and a return-on-investment study of the British Library (Tessler, 2013).

Qualitative research Qualitative research is more subjective in nature. It is about understanding perceptions and meanings, and where the design may be more flexible in nature as it develops or emerges during the data collection and analysis process (Robson, 2011). Qualitative research is useful for answering ‘why’ questions. Examples of qualitative study designs

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 31

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

31

Table 4.1 Types of research evidence Research evidence type Definition

Study design examples

Quantitative research

‘Quantitative research studies produce Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), results that can be used to describe or cohort studies, surveys, bibliometrics. note numerical changes in measurable characteristics of a population of interest; generalize to other, similar situations; provide explanations of predictions; and explain causal relationships’ (Kraska, 2010, 1167).

Qualitative research

Research that seeks to ‘explore the human elements of a given topic, where specific methods are used to examine how individuals see and experience the world. [...] Qualitative approaches are typically used to explore new phenomena and to capture individuals’ thoughts, feelings, or interpretations of meaning and process’ (Given, 2008, xxix).

Grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography.

Mixed methods research

‘Mixed methods research is the type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration’ (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner, 2007, 123).

Involves mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches or data collection methods within a single study. For example, using both a quantitative survey and qualitative in-depth interviews within the study design. Action research frequently will use mixed methods.

Secondary research

‘Secondary analysis is any further Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, analysis of a survey or social data set re-use of research or local data. that presents interpretations, conclusions or knowledge additional to, or different from those presented in the first report’ (Hakim, 1982, 12).

include grounded theory (where a theory emerges from the data), phenomenology (the study of a phenomenon of interest) or ethnography (an observation of a culture). Sample sizes are usually small and the results cannot usually be generalized to other situations or contexts. Examples of qualitative studies in the library literature include Rankin’s (2012) examination of the impact of the Year of Reading in the UK; Cavanagh’s (2006) ethnographic study on knowledge sharing, creation and use within reference transactions at a public library; and Koufogiannakis’s (2013b) grounded theory study on the use of evidence by academic librarians, which forms the basis for this book.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 32

32

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Mixed methods research Mixed methods research, as its name suggests, is a combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. e different elements can be studied sequentially or concurrently, and the one can be used to explain the other. So, for example, a quantitative survey or experiment could be undertaken to test a hypothesis, and then a qualitative element could be added to explain the data. For example, in Brettle, Maden and Payne (2016) a quantitative survey was conducted to identify the impact of the work of clinical librarians on patient care and organizational outcomes. Respondents were able to provide only fixed responses in relation to survey questions (e.g., did the information provided impact on length of hospital stay, or reduce costs); follow-up interviews then asked how the information was used to contribute to the outcomes, providing a holistic view of how clinical librarians really do make a difference. Other examples of mixed methods research include a large study on how providing internet access in US public libraries makes a difference to people’s lives (Becker et al., 2010), and Todd and Kulthau’s study on how school libraries make a difference to student learning (2004).e advantage of these types of studies is that they are able to provide large amounts of objective evidence or data which makes claims about the benefits of the library, alongside qualitative data which explains how the library really works or makes a difference to individuals, thus making sense of the quantitative results. Action research deserves a special mention as a type of research that frequently uses mixed methods. Action research bridges research and practice in an active and conscious manner. It is a combination of the action of doing practice and research to study that practice, which leads to professional learning and growth (Harada, 2003). In LIS, Curry (2005) notes that ‘action research requires trust, openness, high tolerance for uncertainty and surprise and a genuine desire on the part of all participants to improve library service’ (n.p.). Much action research has been done in school libraries, in keeping with the strong tie of this method to the education field (Ballard, March and Sand, 2009; Kwok, 2009), but it has also found a place in academic libraries (Brown-Sica, Sobel and Rogers, 2010; Markless and Streatfield, 2006; Mehra and Braquet, 2007) and health librarianship (Seeley, Urquhart, Hutchinson and Pickard, 2010). As Civallero (2007) points out, action research shares many basic aspects of the EBLIP process in that it encourages practitioners to integrate research into their practice. However, in action research the focus is on the doing of that research to solve a particular problem within the context of the situation. It is very local and is based in practice, while focusing on action. In this respect, action research goes further than EBLIP because the aim is always action within practice.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 33

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

33

Secondary research e most well known form of secondary research in relation to EBP is the systematic review. Systematic reviews are a type of literature review conducted according to a protocol. ey seek to provide answers to a fixed question which is specified at the beginning of the study. Only literature which provides an answer to the question is included, but all the decisions on how the literature is located, included and assessed are documented as part of the process so that the reader can determine the amount of bias that has been included in collecting the evidence. Because of this transparency in the process, systematic reviews are generally seen as high-quality evidence (provided that they have been conducted well). e number of systematic reviews in LIS is growing (Koufogiannakis and Brettle, 2015).1

Local evidence Local sources of evidence include various forms of data that you either have on hand already, or that you specifically gather in order to learn more about a library service at your place of work. e strength of local evidence is that it provides directly applicable evidence that you know is relevant to your user community. You can oen start with local evidence because the problems or questions arise from local situations. ere are many valuable sources of local evidence, which are summarized briefly in Table 4.2, and further detail is given below.

Statistics Statistics are data that a library keeps on the services it provides or on the use of the collection. Such data may also be referred to as input and output measures. As explained by Kyrillidou: Inputs are the resources available to the system, ranging from financial, staffing, and material resources in analog or digital forms; outputs are the activities the system exports ranging from transactions, to hours the premises are available, to the availability, and use and usability of the material resources to name a few. (2002, 43)

For example, some of the input measures that libraries track and frequently report are counts of the number of staff, and the amount of money provided for the collection budget. Input measures can provide a sense of a starting point, or what resources are being put into the ability of a library to function. Output measures include circulation statistics, number of interlibrary loan requests, e-journal usage data, number of

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 34

34

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Table 4.2 Types of local evidence Local evidence type

Definition

Examples

Statistics

Data pertaining to library resources and the use of library products or services.

Journal usage statistics, reference statistics, circulation statistics, etc.

Local research, assessment and evaluation

The evaluation and assessment of services.

Programme evaluations, surveys, focus groups, etc.

Documents

Non-scholarly publications that provide information about a service, event or person.

Policies, web pages, blogs, course materials, information about products, etc.

Librarian observation

Issues observed in the course of daily practice.

Observation of use of computer terminals, space usage in the library.

Feedback from user community

Individual feedback received from Comments, discussions, e-mail. users on products or services.

Anecdotal evidence

‘[I]nformation obtained from Stories, observation from personal accounts, examples, and individual instances. observations. Usually not considered scientifically valid but may indicate areas for further investigation and research’ (Jonas, 2005).

Organizational realities

The constraints and realities of the Budget amounts, staffing, organizational context at the point organizational priorities, national in time when you need to make a policy. decision.

individual research consultations provided by the library, website traffic patterns and so on. is data provides concrete measurement of the uptake of particular library services, or demonstrated use of library materials. Such data oen provides a starting point to assess a problem. For example, looking at usage statistics is an easy way to determine if specific journal titles are in demand, and comparisons can be made with the use of other journals in the field to help with collection management decisions. When combined with expenditure information, the data can be used to calculate the cost per use of a journal title in order to examine value for money spent.

Local research, assessment and evaluation Sometimes libraries undertake local or internal research or evaluation to help determine directions or improvement needed for a particular service that they provide. Such research is oen not published and has likely not been developed with the close methodological attention it might have received if it had been intended as a full-blown empirical research study. However, this type of assessment or evaluation does show considered intent to learn something about a service in a more systematic way. Since

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 35

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

35

such evaluation is taking place within the institution and is helping to answer the specific question that a library has, it is likely the most directly relevant evidence that you will bring to bear when making a decision. Many reports in the library literature are reports of evaluation rather than research. An evaluation involves measuring a person, service or programme against some kind of yardstick, or using research (Marshall, 1995). e majority of tools or methods that are used to collect and analyse the data in an evaluation are the same tools that are used in research. ese include surveys, questionnaires, interviews or focus groups. Sources that fall into this category include surveys of library users’ needs and perceptions, time audits to measure workload, staff surveys to generate feedback on workload, in-house surveys, testing how something works, evaluation of instruction, SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis, workplace climate survey, individual research projects, pre- and post- assessment instruction surveys and web usability testing. Such sources are useful when you want input from the community you serve, or from the staff who work at an institution. e type of information that is gained from evaluation, assessment and local research will oen have an impact on future services, such as revision of content taught in an instruction session or targeting of services to meet specific needs. e assessment community has done a tremendous amount of work on sharing best practices related to assessment and creating tools to assist librarians (ARL, 2016). Assessment is a key component of EBLIP because librarians gather and create local evidence when they are actively doing assessment. As Ryan (2006) notes: In assessment work, evidence can only be local. e nature of assessment work is that it circles around what users are experiencing, so the appropriate study design is frequently a qualitative, user‐engaging method. Only your users, or the usage trails they leave behind in your systems, can tell you where your web site isn’t up to snuff, that your Philosophy collection isn’t being used, how your study space is insufficient, or how your staff are perceived. (p. 79)

While Ryan is writing from the perspective of academic libraries, her words hold true across all sectors. For example, public librarians focus on serving their communities and being responsive to change and must continually prove their worth to public boards. ey have long used local evidence to show the value of the services they provide.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 36

36

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Documents Decisions need to be made in the context of the organization and the situation. Oen this requires examination of existing policies, strategic plans or documentation of past decisions in order to have all the background information so that the decision can be grounded in relevant documentation; and if a team is making the decision, they all have the same documents and shared points of reference. Depending on the situation, this type of evidence can also include sources such as job postings, position descriptions, brochures, mandate documents, safety standards, webinars, collection policies, library policies, websites (particularly those of other libraries), Library of Congress classification, collective agreements, CVs, internal procedure documents, past internal review documents, blogs, Twitter, reports from other institutions, workplace standards, newsletters, journal/publisher information on websites and consultants’ reports. ese types of documents are not scholarly or research based, but they provide pertinent information that may be useful in making decisions. ey will oen help you to establish the parameters in which you must work, or at least take into consideration.

Librarian observation In the course of daily practice, librarians will have encounters with patrons or observe patterns in the way the library is being used. Such observation will provide knowledge about the use of the library, areas where services or staffing levels may need to be changed, or times when programmes are best offered. Actively writing down and tracking information about what is happening in the library is a good way to be systematic and to keep a record of observations in order to more easily demonstrate certain needs.

Feedback from users Obtaining feedback from library users can be done in many ways. When it is more rigorous, as part of a study or planned evaluation, it can be placed in the category of local research and evaluation, which usually focuses on users of a service. Sometimes, however, librarians receive individual feedback on products or services, whether solicited or not, and this generally falls into the category of anecdotal evidence. In academic libraries, for example, such feedback is used most frequently in collections management, and also in teaching/instruction activities. Feedback from academics that is related to collections is most oen looked upon favourably as a source that will hold a great deal of weight in decision making. However, librarians must be careful not to place too great a weight on this type of evidence from one individual. Such

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 37

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

37

feedback can be a good prompt to explore further, but making large-scale library decisions based on one complaint, or one person’s need, is usually insufficient. Such information should be listened to and considered, but then looked at in a wider context and against other sources of evidence that are more widely applicable to the population being served (assessing the evidence will be discussed further in Chapter 5).

Anecdotal evidence Anecdotal evidence is ‘information obtained from personal accounts, examples and observations. Usually not considered scientifically valid but may indicate areas for further investigation and research’ (Jonas, 2005). Most academic librarians would not include this in a conceptual discussion of what they consider to be evidence. However, it is a source of evidence that is oen drawn upon when making decisions. Anecdotal evidence may be the prompt that sets investigation of a potential problem into motion, and it is oen used in group conversations when determining a course of action. is type of evidence is most frequently frowned upon as not being worthy, but in the absence of anything else it is certainly used. Most oen, librarians will look to other sources of evidence to confirm or deny anecdotal evidence.

Organizational realities Organizational realities include the priorities or constraints faced by your organization at the point in time when you need to make a decision. Such realities are key considerations because, regardless of how good a solution may seem, if there is insufficient funding, or if what you propose is not in keeping with the political direction of the institution or wider landscape, it is less likely that you will be able to succeed with that decision. Hence, we need to make decisions and look at possibilities in the light of the evidence we have about our organization’s climate and its direction. If, for example, you are faced with budget cuts and have to cancel journals, that is a reality and you will need to try to make the best possible decisions within the new limitations on your budget. Working within our organizational realities is important and, although one institution may be able to achieve something and show in the literature that it was successful, each library’s circumstances may be different. is kind of evidence comes in the form of strategic plans, budgets, discussions with administrators and keeping abreast of emerging areas within your place of work. is is also an area where we may use previously collected data to make a case for resources and priorities within a climate of fiscal restraint.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 38

38

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Professional knowledge is category of evidence is perhaps the most controversial, since it includes that which is tacit and not concrete or clearly laid out for others. Professional knowledge encompasses knowledge built over time, taking into account what we learn and know tacitly as we progress in a professional capacity. It is important to acknowledge that such knowledge is evidence that contributes to librarians’ decision making. Librarians draw upon professional knowledge to understand the whole of the problem, placing the situation in the context of the organization and environment. Within the category of professional knowledge we have included sources that may be drawn on as a part of professional learning and that are frequently consulted, such as the professional knowledge of others. Together with one’s own professional knowledge, this encompasses a body of professional knowledge that in daily practice enhances and drives forward our collective practice. In practice theory this concept is known as ‘knowing in practice’ (Ryle, 1945). Knowing in practice is a key component of how one practises in a profession. It simply cannot be ignored. It is a critical piece of activity in practice, contributing to completeness in a practice. One cannot practise without this type of knowing and ability, and hence, in terms of EBP, this know-how that practitioners possess is an important element of evidence that should be considered alongside the more explicit research knowledge. As Schön notes, ‘Even when [the practitioner] makes conscious use of research-based theories and techniques, he is dependent on tacit recognitions, judgements, and skilful performances’ (1983, 50). Librarians hold a great deal of evidence in their professional knowledge that is progressively built over the course of a career. Much of this is tacit, but it is helpful to make such knowledge explicit when possible, so that knowledge can be shared. Evidence is shown to us every single day: as we practise our cra, we learn what works and what doesn’t in certain situations in our own environments. Librarians have practical, real-life experiences to draw on that are grounded in different contexts. As professionals we have foundations that form the basis of our knowledge, provided by our education, training and on-the-job experience. We build skills and know-how that are not necessarily written down but which provide us with a great deal of specialized knowledge. As we learn how to most effectively provide good service, or build quality collections for our users, or build relationships within our community, all these things provide us with evidence of how to be a better professional. at does not mean that we can just rely on these experiences, but rather that through reflection and critical thinking we will see where things may be improved and begin to investigate ways to make them better. Without the evidence that comes from our experience, we would not even know how or when to question or critique choices (Table 4.3).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 39

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

39

Table 4.3 Types of professional knowledge Professional expertise

Knowledge that is learned over time via education and experience and may lead to specialization in particular areas.

Expertise about library and information studies in general, with specialization in specific areas such as cataloguing, collection management, children’s services, administration, etc.

Tacit knowledge

Knowledge that is embodied by an individual and difficult to transfer to another person.

Experience, intuition, ‘common sense’.

Input from colleagues

Going to colleagues to seek their advice or feedback, or for information about a programme or service of which they may have specific knowledge.

Discussions, feedback, brainstorming, conference presentations.

What other libraries do

Accounts of decisions taken by other libraries.

Marketing of new services, essays or blog posts about changes at other libraries, conversations with colleagues at another library about how they operate.

Non-research literature

Non-research publications.

Journal articles, books, conference papers, opinion pieces that are not based in research.

Professional expertise A librarian’s professional expertise is the result of accumulated knowledge that is learned via a combination of education and experience. Librarians with a Masters or MLIS degree all have a basic grounding in the theory of our profession. is contributes to our common set of values, scope and history of our profession. Education gives us a basis for our future practice. Librarians actively continue to learn via work experience and the mentoring they receive from those with more experience. e sharing of such knowledge via mentoring and guidance is an important way to pass on skills and help newer librarians increase their professional capacity to become better practitioners. roughout our careers, we need to actively engage in ongoing education, via active conference participation, workshops, online seminars, reading of the literature and conversing with other practitioners. Learning must be ongoing over the course of a career in order to maintain expertise and the latest knowledge of the field. Being an actively engaged professional means continual learning, gaining and sharing of knowledge for the betterment of the profession. Within such a context, we can then draw upon the skills we have learned and the knowledge we have acquired in order to place decision making within the broader professional context and judge the evidence we are weighing.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 40

40

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Tacit knowledge Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is embodied by an individual and is difficult to transfer to another person. It can be thought of as those things that we know but may not be able to explain. Within librarianship, tacit knowledge is that which forms part of our professional expertise but which is not easily transferrable, such as knowing how to make purchase decisions, or how to conduct a good reference interview so that you truly help the person asking the question, or how to effectively communicate and build rapport with faculty members. Oen we can explain to others some of the strategies we use to do these things, but how to be successful in the overall process is more difficult to convey. ese tacit skills are usually learned over time by doing, and are the result of our experience.

Input from colleagues It is common for librarians to discuss issues or practice-related questions with colleagues in order to seek their advice or feedback. While this may not be considered evidence by all, it is a source that librarians frequently use and incorporate into their decision making. Such input from colleagues, either within one’s own workplace or elsewhere, provides librarians with a way to learn from others who have more experience in a particular area. It is a sharing of knowledge and expertise. Such interaction also helps to confirm a librarian’s initial thoughts on a topic, adds to them and can confirm that there will be support for a decision. is type of interaction combines the evidence of experience and knowledge with factors relating to the politics of the institution. It gives the librarian a sense of what other librarians do and becomes a confirming experience. For many, it is also a way to obtain viewpoints different from one’s own, ensuring that the full picture is being considered. Ways of gaining such input from colleagues include one-on-one conversations, email discussion lists, attending conference presentations, asking someone to critique teaching or writing, networking at group events including conferences, corresponding via e-mail or phone and getting informal feedback from a number of people. It may also come through established channels of one-on-one mentoring or other forms of peer support. Input from colleagues is usually acquired in conjunction with other forms of evidence, but this type of input is considered very valuable for providing insights and knowledge that cannot be gained from the more concrete sources of evidence, or if it is a new area where little has been written. Hence, combining what is found in the literature, or what local evidence shows, with the professional experience of colleagues puts other sources of evidence in context, provides insight and flags any potential problems. However, it should be noted that external colleagues may not fully understand the internal context. Internal colleagues will provide a contextual view on

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 41

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

41

the problem, which is particularly important if one is new to the organization. Internal colleagues understand the specifics of the context in which the decision is being made. But external colleagues are equally, if not more, important for what they provide in terms of an external viewpoint, new ideas, success stories and different ways of approaching practice.

What other libraries do When considering how to implement a new service or way of working, a key source of information comes from other libraries. You may be part of a network of libraries or librarians, or you may start by browsing other libraries’ websites to see how they have handled a situation or to read any documentation that they may have on their processes. You may target libraries that are known for their innovation or have proved to be leaders in a particular area. Gaining background information based on their service may help you in determining a path forward, or serve as a guide for aspects that need to be considered. Speaking with colleagues at other institutions can be a good source of perspectives other than what you are hearing at your own institution, and can reveal what worked and what didn’t work at each institution. Of course, this will need to be taken in the context of the institution you look to and then applied within your own context, which may be different. is type of evidence can help to guide you and provide ideas and possible solutions that may be tested within your own workplace. Having such discussions with colleagues at other institutions helps us to build a community of practice, which helps to guide overall professional practice, navigating new norms over time, changing and evolving library service as society changes and evolves.

Non-research literature We previously discussed the importance of the research literature, but there is also much to be found in non-research literature as well, such as ideas for new services. is is another way of looking externally to determine what is happening within our wider professional community in relation to library services. e reliability and validity of such publications is not as high as what would be found in research literature because, generally, such publications are only telling a story or providing an opinion, rather than an objective, systematic approach to a question. Oen this non-research literature will provide you with a wider context and background information. In general, all documents found within the published literature are rarely consulted in isolation. ey usually need to be combined with local evidence in order to determine a complete answer. Oen library literature may be disappointing because

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 42

42

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

many articles are not of high quality or are simply not relevant. For some topics, such as new technology or current trends, more relevant information may be found in sources such as blogs, news on websites or via social media.

Gathering evidence When assembling evidence from the variety of sources noted above, a librarian will need to take a multi-pronged approach to evidence gathering. Some sources can be obtained at the point of need, such as retrieving a research paper, but other sources will require proactive strategies to remain current and aware of what is happening in the field. In many cases, you need to plan ahead and collect data for assessment purposes over a longer period of time in order to have sufficient data available to evaluate and make decisions about services. Much of the evidence gathering will be dependent on a library’s long-term plan for the types of local data they need (Table 4.4). In terms of actually searching the literature in order to find relevant research on a topic, we will not go into any detail in this book. Librarians should consider sources within and outside of the library literature and should consider the domain into which their question falls, as was outlined in Chapter 3. Good sources of information on search strategies include Eldredge (2000d), Beverley (2004), Winning (2004) and Bradley (2006), who have outlined helpful strategies and provide context for the challenges of searching the LIS literature.

Table 4.4 Methods for gathering evidence Method

How

Examples

Pull

Proactive and specific.

Literature search in databases, Google (internet) search, gathering statistics for circulation or journal usage, looking up facts, asking colleagues questions related to their experience or sources of information.

Push

Passive, general awareness. Notifications via ToC services, Twitter, RSS feeds; attending conferences and listening to presentations, colleagues passing on information, getting feedback from users, anecdotal evidence (hearing stories).

Create

Proactive and specific.

Reflect

Proactive examination of Carefully considering context and what is known about the knowledge and experience. situation, tacit knowledge (unique for each person).

Serendipitous discovery

Passive, by chance.

Including evaluation with instruction, doing a research project related to the problem, conducting in-house surveys or focus groups, keeping reference statistics.

Coming across an article or some other document or piece of evidence that is related to a decision, even when not directly looking for it. E.g., picking up a journal and while flipping through it, finding something relevant; seeing something in the news that points to a source that is relevant.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 43

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AssEmBlE

43

Conclusion ere are many forms of evidence to consider when you are at the point of assembling the evidence. We hope that this chapter has given you an idea of some of the sources you may wish to consult when being evidence based. It is important to consider all the various sources of evidence that may assist with making the best decision possible. is will mean drawing upon your professional knowledge, research evidence and local evidence. Ideally, all three aspects are considered and used in conjunction with one another in order to come to a fuller understanding of the issues and the problem and to professionally make a best decision about an aspect of your practice.

Note 1 For a list of systematic reviews see https://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces.com/Welcome.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 44

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 45

5 Assess Alison Brettle and Denise Koufogiannakis

Assess is a critical part of EBLIP and involves assessing the located evidence for its quality (oen known as appraisal or critical appraisal) and quantity. ere 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? is 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.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 46

46

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

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. Distinguishing the best research from that which is not as well conducted is crucial to being able to confidently determine what evidence should be weighed more heavily in decision making. Critical appraisal of research requires a close reading of the articles found so as to examine the studies and specifically look at three factors: 1) Validity or credibility – the extent to which the results of the research are likely to be free from bias or flaw that may explain the findings. 2) Reliability or trustworthiness – the likelihood that the study reports something that is reproducible as opposed to being a ‘fluke’ or chance result, or for qualitative research, the results can be verified. 3) Applicability – the extent to which the results are likely to impact on practice. (Booth and Brice, 2004a, 105)

When developing critical appraisal skills, it is useful to begin with formal processes, but as the skill develops it may well become more natural and instinctive. One of the formal ways of conducting critical appraisal is by using tools or checklists which help you to determine the quality of a research article. Such a tool can be used only as a guide to help you decide what to consider in assessing the quality of the study. It is not a substitute for having knowledge about research methods. ere is insufficient space in this chapter to consider specific research methods; however, useful texts include Robson (2011), Wildemuth (2009), Bryman (2012), Pickard (2013), Grant, Sen and Spring (2013) and the EBL101 column in the journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. ese can be used prior to or alongside critical appraisal tools when examining the research literature.

Critical appraisal tools e EBLIP movement has encouraged the development of publications that synthesize

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 47

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | AssEss

47

or appraise existing research so that practitioners do not have to do all the work themselves each and every time they encounter a problem or question. Booth and Brice developed the Critical Skills Training in Appraisal for Librarians (CriSTAL) programme to assist with the development of these skills, and produced a tool for the appraisal of user studies and information needs analysis (Booth and Brice, 2003). Koufogiannakis, Booth and Brettle (2006) developed a tool for use with educational intervention studies, and Glynn (2006) developed a general tool for the critical appraisal of LIS research. Within LIS (and with the exception of Glynn, 2006), most of the tools that have been developed are specific to different types of library studies. is means that you need to select your tool carefully according to the type of study you are interested in. Within healthcare many tools have been developed, and oen these need to be selected according to study design (CASP, 2013). is is fine if you wish to appraise individual articles, but it does mean that you need to have a good awareness of the available tools each time you wish to critically appraise your evidence. Tools developed for appraising social care interventions (Long et al., 2002) offer a more generic approach and have been successfully adapted for use in a number of LIS reviews (Brettle, 2003; Brettle, 2007; Brettle et al., 2011), and approaches developed in education (Newman and Elbourne, 2005) are also worthy of further investigation. As tools in LIS were being developed, Clyde’s research (2004; 2006) brought to light that even people who are well versed in the appraisal of research have different understandings of quality and will rank articles differently. Clyde notes that coming up with a single measure of research quality may be difficult and that the evaluation of research is a complex process (2006). In addition, Booth (2007) reminds us of the limits of critical appraisal and cautions that library and information practitioners should not give up on research papers just because they do not seem to meet all the criteria of a critical appraisal checklist. Indeed, it is likely to be a rare paper that will meet all the requirements on a critical appraisal tool. Practitioners must move forward with the best evidence that they have, and this may also mean going forward to conduct your own research or evaluation (as discussed in Chapter 8).

Journal clubs A journal club is formed in order for the journal club members to meet periodically and discuss items from the literature, usually research articles (Dozier and Webber, 2015). Participation in a journal club is a great example of being evidence based. ere are examples in the literature of where librarians have established their own journal clubs to discuss library-related literature and develop EBLIP (Barksey, 2009; PearceSmith, 2006). e Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada hosts a monthly journal club and includes a

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 48

48

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

summary of the discussions on its Brain Work Blog.1 Pearce-Smith (2006) demonstrated that journal clubs were useful tools to help librarians develop critical appraisal skills and increase their reading of research articles. Librarians may also be involved in journal clubs within healthcare, where the concept has long been established for professional development purposes (Dozier and Webber, 2015). According to systematic review evidence, characteristics of successful journal clubs include ‘regular and anticipated meetings, mandatory attendance, clear long- and short-term purpose, appropriate meeting timing and incentives, a trained journal club leader to choose papers and lead discussion, circulating papers prior to the meeting, using the internet for wider dissemination and data storage, using established critical appraisal processes and summarizing journal club findings’ (Deenadayalan et al., 2008). More informal tips from librarians attending a workshop in Edinburgh echoed these, but also suggested the need for clear aims and purpose, a summary of the article (which you shouldn’t assume has been read) and making it fun (Dozier and Webber, 2015). A journal club may therefore be a useful way forward for developing an individual’s critical appraisal and research skills, or for developing a more critical or evidence-based approach to decision making within a group.

Systematic reviews The EBLIP movement has also encouraged the development of publications such as systematic reviews that synthesize or appraise existing research so that practitioners do not have to do all the work themselves each and every time they encounter a problem or question (see Chapter 4). Systematic reviews in LIS were virtually unheard of in 2000 (Eldredge, 2000d), and have since grown in number as the movement has grown and brought awareness of the need for such research syntheses. In 2008, Ankem found seven systematic reviews and five meta-analyses published in the LIS literature, which may not seem like many, but is noteworthy for this type of intensive research synthesis in a relatively short period of time (Ankem, 2008). A recent compilation of citations of systematic review in LIS indicates 82 published reviews (LIS Systematic Reviews, 2015). There has been a steady increase in published reviews since 2006 (Koufogiannakis and Brettle, 2015), but the majority of these (n=50) are health related, although there are reviews in academic (n=14) and public libraries (n=5), and the most popular domains are reference (n=27) and information access and retrieval (n=22). Systematic review evidence is available for information needs, information-seeking behaviour, literature searching for systematic reviews and the effectiveness of information literacy; however, there are many gaps where evidence is needed (or needs to be brought together in this rigorous way), including collections, management and for

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 49

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | AssEss

49

disciplines beyond health (Koufogiannakis and Brettle, 2015). Booth and Brice point out that a systematic review helps LIS practitioners to ‘keep up-to-date, define the boundaries of what is known and what is not known and can help us avoid knowing less than has been proven’ (2004a, 111). However, the complexity of applying such methodology to research in LIS should not be overlooked (Urquhart, 2010). Brettle notes that while most systematic reviews in healthcare use controlled studies, ‘it is appropriate for systematic reviews in the library domain to take a wide view of relevant evidence and include a variety of designs appropriate to the topic or review question at hand’ (2009b, 45). is means that the techniques used within the review must be appropriate to incorporate this wider view of evidence. ere are a number of guides to producing systematic reviews in LIS (Saxton, 2006; Phelps and Campbell, 2012; Urquhart, 2010), and guides to producing systematic reviews within the social sciences are also useful, such as the one from Petticrew and Roberts (2006). Recent analyses confirm the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base and, of greater concern, highlight issues with the quality assessments in LIS systematic reviews and how these may impact on the review findings (Maden and Kotas, 2016; Xu et al., 2015). Clearly there is still work to be done on providing guidance and tools for conducting systematic reviews in LIS if these are to be a useful and reliable tool for practitioners.

Evidence summaries e journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice has been publishing evidence summaries since its inaugural issue in 2006. Evidence summaries are an attempt to bring brief synopses and critical appraisals of recent individual research articles to practitioners in an open access format that allows readers to benefit from the critical appraisal of others (Koufogiannakis, 2006). e evidence summaries are published in each issue of the journal and cover research from different library domains and disciplines. A study that examined the impact of the evidence summaries (Kloda, Koufogiannakis and Brettle, 2014) found that evidence summaries had an impact on librarians’ knowledge and practice (their own and within the workplace) and on library users, suggesting that evidence summaries are an effective means of bridging the gap between library research and practice.

Weighing up evidence The pros and cons of hierarchies A key but much debated feature of EBP is the ‘evidence hierarchy’. Again adapting principles from EBM, Eldredge developed a nine-level hierarchy for EBLIP.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 50

50

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

1) Systematic reviews of multiple rigorous research studies 2) Systematic reviews of multiple but less rigorous research studies, such as case studies and qualitative methods 3) Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 4) Controlled-comparison studies 5) Cohort studies 6) Descriptive surveys 7) Case studies 8) Decision analysis 9) Qualitative research (focus groups, ethnographic observations, historic, etc.). (Eldredge, 2000b and 2000d)

e research methods at the top of the hierarchy are more likely to be free of bias, whereas those methods lower in the hierarchy have a harder time controlling for bias. is is seen as important because, the less bias in a study, the more likely it is to be ‘true’ according to the scientific paradigm. us, the hierarchy is most useful for studies that have been conducted according to a scientific or positivistic paradigm. In other words, studies of effectiveness, where the evidence-based movement began. e hierarchy does not take the quality of individual studies into account, and simply because a study has a design which is at the top of the hierarchy we cannot automatically assume that it is a study of higher quality or provides better evidence than those lower down the hierarchy. Eldredge notes that the levels do not make judgements about the merits of individual studies, but are a way for ‘the busy practitioner to make quick comparisons between multiple pieces of evidence with conflicting results’ (2006, 346). Hence, if a practitioner does a search of the literature and finds several promising studies that may assist with their question, an initial filter may be to prioritize reading by study designs that are higher in the hierarchy. Or, where studies are in conflict, more weight would be placed on the study with a design nearer the top of the hierarchy. However, one of the problems with using a hierarchy of evidence to indicate study quality is that for certain types of questions study designs nearer the top are not always feasible, ethical or appropriate. A healthcare example that illustrates this point well is that of smoking. If we wanted to find out whether smoking really did cause lung cancer, would we randomize people into groups of smokers and non-smokers and wait to see who got lung cancer? For some questions and situations, other research designs are far more appropriate and will provide the best-quality evidence for that particular question. Booth and Brice point out that such a hierarchy should be used only for questions of effectiveness (2004a); for example, when comparing different interventions such as methods of teaching, or service provision. However, even this

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 51

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | AssEss

51

can be problematic; for example, when comparing methods of teaching within a university setting, an RCT may be feasible, but pragmatic decisions will need to be made so as to ensure that there is a sufficient sample size so that the study is well powered, and that all students receive the same intervention and are not disadvantaged in terms of their ultimate grades (Brettle and Raynor, 2013). ese decisions may well fall short of the quality implied as necessary by RCT checklists, and put the study lower down the evidence hierarchy, but the chosen design may provide the best evidence possible for the particular question and context. is was recognized by Eldredge, who suggested that the levels should not be applied rigidly, particularly when one considers the relative degrees of adherence to methodologically rigorous standards that might be found within any EBL evidence level. Some research found at the lower levels of evidence in this hierarchy actually might contain higher quality applications of methodological rigor than some research studies found at higher levels. (2000d)

Eldredge later refined his hierarchy into a ‘levels of evidence’ table (2002a; 2006; 2008a), wherein levels of evidence are slightly different depending upon the type of question being asked. Prediction questions ‘seek to predict an outcome under similar circumstances’; intervention questions ‘seek to compare different actions in terms of efficacy in attaining intended goals or outcomes’; exploration questions ‘imply a “why” inquiry’ and ‘have a greater tendency to have more open-ended orientations’ (Eldredge, 2002a, 11–12). However, it is difficult to account for all types of questions as well as all potential study designs, and both the designs listed in the hierarchy of evidence or the hierarchy of evidence tables are not designs regularly seen in the library literature or library research texts (particularly those near the top). Someone taking a hierarchical view of evidence and applying it to their practice may well quickly become disheartened and assume that much of the evidence is irrelevant because of its poor quality. While there may be issues with the quality of library research in general, this does not mean that we can’t be evidence based in our approach. While the levels of evidence are a well known aspect of EBP, they are not something that the EBLIP community has wholeheartedly accepted. e application of such a hierarchy has been a concern for many within the field (Banks, 2008; Booth, 2010; Crumley and Koufogiannakis, 2002; Given, 2006; Koufogiannakis, 2010a). Given (2006) complained that the positioning of qualitative research at the bottom of the hierarchy may ‘disenfranchise qualitative research from the EBL process, and […] discredit the results of qualitative work without further (quantitative) investigation of the conclusions that those studies draw’ (p. 381). An examination of the chapters in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 52

52

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

the second part of this book and a scoping review of the evidence on the effectiveness and impact of librarians (Brettle and Maden, 2015a) highlight an even greater variety of study designs, including mixed methods, correlational studies and return-oninvestment designs, which do not feature in any of the proposed models. Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) proposed a core-centred approach to librarianship rather than a hierarchical one, noting that a medical-style research hierarchy is not a good fit for librarianship, where qualitative methods are oen more appropriate. ese concerns and the wide range of research designs in the library literature suggest that the application and usefulness of a hierarchy which meets the needs of all LIS practitioners is one that requires more research and development, or a complete rethink. Concern about the appropriateness of hierarchies and levels of evidence is not unique to LIS. Other professions that have adopted evidence-based principles (public health, nursing or education, for example) also note that this view of evidence does not fit with the evidence used within their particular field. A textbook aimed at nurses (Schmidt and Brown, 2012) notes that this type of hierarchy is one of a range of ways to rate research evidence. Others include the US Preventive Task Force Grades (USPSTF, 2012), which grade the strength of the evidence from A – strongly recommends, to D – recommends against, and include an I – insufficient evidence. ese are based on the quality, quantity and consistency of evidence (AHRQ, 2002, 4). GRADE (Guyatt et al., 2006) is an international collaboration to develop a universal system of evaluation for clinical guidelines and brings a number of prominent organizations in healthcare and EBP together. e system ranks evidence into strength and quality on four levels (high–very low), with a recommendation of strong or weak. Although all these frameworks are more inclusive than the initial evidence hierarchy, they are all based on reviewing research evidence, which, as noted in Chapter 4, does not account for other forms of evidence commonly used by librarians that are not research based.

An alternative approach to weighing evidence One approach that may offer possibilities for assessing all types of evidence used by librarians is a framework (or set of generic standards) published by the UK Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) (Pawson et al., 2003). SCIE was a body responsible for evidence-based guidance for social care within the UK, but has now been incorporated into NICE. SCIE developed the framework following a review that identifies the main types of research, experience and wisdom that combine to form the social care knowledge base’. In other words, SCIE recognized that social workers and those

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 53

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | AssEss

53

working in social care used a wider range of evidence in their work than that found in research studies. According to the preamble, ‘it is only through looking at the sector from a whole perspective – including the views of service users and practitioners – that we can truly advise social care workers on what works best’. e preamble goes on to say ‘But this does not mean that all knowledge is equally good or useful. It may be badly collected or recorded, make unjustified claims or ignore evidence from other sources.

is ethos fits well with the types of evidence or knowledge used by librarians and discussed in Chapter 4, and may well be appropriate for librarians. e framework groups types of knowledge into five categories that can be mapped onto the types of evidence provided in Chapter 4: 1 Organizations (local evidence) 2 Practitioners (external evidence, professional knowledge – tacit knowledge/experience) 3 e policy community, that is, knowledge gained from the wider policy context (external evidence) 4 Research, gathered systematically with a planned design (research evidence) 5 Service users and carers (local evidence – user surveys and perceptions). e framework seeks to be applicable across all types of knowledge and to aid reflection on the quality of each piece of evidence within its own knowledge source. As noted by Long, Grayson and Boaz, ‘critically it doesn’t seek to privilege one source over another, as in the form of a hierarchy of knowledge sources or types’ (2006, 209). e framework (or set of generic standards) is known as TAPUPAS, which stands for: • • • • • • •

Transparency – are the reasons for it clear? Accuracy – is it honestly based on relevant evidence? Purposivity – is the method used suitable for the aims of the work? Utility – does it provide answers to the questions it set? Propriety – is it legal and ethical? Accessibility – can you understand it? Specificity – does it meet the quality standards already used for this type of knowledge?

When using the framework, each source of knowledge should be ‘fit for purpose’, that is, examined with the appropriate criteria for that particular type of knowledge, as well as being assessed using the TAPUPAS framework (Long, Grayson and Boaz, 2006).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 54

54

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

is allows different types of evidence to be weighed against each other, as well as taking into account their own merits. For example, any research evidence could first be assessed using the critical appraisal tools described earlier and then, once their quality has been established, assessed in terms of their TAPUPAS. e standards have been tested initially (Long, Grayson and Boaz, 2006) for social care documents. It was found that the framework’s main strength was the ability to assess different types of evidence, but there were some problems in interpreting the meaning of a couple of the standards, so further testing is needed (Long, Grayson and Boaz, 2006). e framework has been used within a systematic review of nursing rehabilitation, where it was used in conjunction with other tools (Long et al., 2002) to provide an assessment of both research evidence and ‘informational evidence’ (Kneafsey, 2007). According to Kneafsey (2007), the main problem with using such a diverse type of sources within a systematic review context was the heterogeneity of the evidence; the research evidence provided evidence of effectiveness, but the informational evidence provided detail about the context. Long, Grayson and Boaz (2006) suggest that the framework may be relevant in other fields, and Ramon (2006) advises a wider discussion of the scheme where different types of knowledge and evidence need to be assessed. EBLIP provides an opportunity to further test TAPUPAS within the library context to determine whether it can offer a practical way forward for librarians. Table 5.1 opposite shows an example of how TAPUPAS might be implemented with the following library example. A UK public librarian would like to establish a reading scheme for children at her library during the summer. She believes that this would be of great benefit to the local community; however, she needs evidence to substantiate these beliefs and to present to local councilors who are responsible for the library budget. She has gathered multiple sources of evidence and now needs to weigh them in light of her situation and how the pieces of evidence might help the local councilors to make a decision. Use of the framework in this context can help one to weigh the evidence, and also to compare pieces of evidence against each other, while looking at the whole picture. In this example there are both national and local drivers for such a scheme. ere is both research evidence and evidence from local users that a scheme may well be beneficial and used; however, there are no clear statistics on the potential uptake. But there is support from local schools that would help to make this scheme work. What perhaps is lacking is support from other local librarians and details about costs. Before presenting the evidence formally, it may well be worth filling this gap in the evidence on this question.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 55

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | AssEss

55

Table 5.1 LIS example of the TAPUPAS assessment of evidence Evidence type

What evidence

TAPUPAS

Organization Council meeting (local minutes evidence) Library plans

Practitioners (external knowledge, tacit)

How might this inform the decision?

T – All the documents have been produced for official purposes with clear aims and objectives. A – The documents were produced Local school data for different purposes but are all relevant to the question at hand Statistics on children as well as being recent. in area with low P – It is clear how the data has been grades collected and presented. Local news reports on U – All the documents provide lack of community relevant evidence to the facilities for primary question. school children P – The documents are legal and ethical. Circulation statistics A – All the documents are for children’s books understandable. S – There are no standards for these documents, but they are all produced by official local bodies for local requirements.

Local minutes may provide evidence of budget constraints but a need for the local council to work with agencies to improve the education of primary school age children.

Experience of helping T – Discussions with both library staff library users, and and teachers may have been for their anecdotes various purposes without clear through aims and objectives. communication in the A – The information is relevant and library recent, as the discussions have taken place in the last year. Experience of local P – Information was collected as part school teachers of formal meetings or ad hoc from users at the reference desk over the last few years. U – Provides information relevant to the question. P – It is largely irrelevant that the information is legal, but is likely ethical if part of professional practice. A – Easy to understand. S – There are unlikely to be any formal standards, but you may take the experience and credibility of the people involved into account.

Anecdotal knowledge at the reference desk has shown you and your colleagues that there is interest in this area. Discussions with local teachers have also suggested that there is interest from an educational point of view. They would be interested in supporting and promoting a scheme by helping to recommend and select material and referring children to the library collection. This is essential in helping to make the scheme practical and feasible.

Statistics show that children’s reading ages are lower than national average. Circulation statistics at all the local libraries show a varied range of borrowing. There are no standards for these documents but they are all clear, produced by official local bodies and provide relevant context to the problem.

Continued on next page

Conclusion Assess is an essential part of the EBLIP process. is stage is when all the evidence is brought together and considered as a whole and is assessed in terms of its quality. e

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 56

56

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Table 5.1 Continued Evidence type

What evidence

TAPUPAS

How might this inform the decision?

Policy community (external evidence)

Government policy on improving education standards

T – It is clear what the documents are about (even from their titles). A – This criterion may not be relevant here, as it can only be assumed Chartered Institute of that the documents are accurate Library and and represent the policy of the Information organization. Professionals (CILIP) campaign, My library P – The purpose of both types of policy document is clearly laid out by Right in the documents. U – The policies provide useful information to support the need for this type of service. P – The documents are from government or professional bodies and therefore propriety is assumed to be high. A – Both documents may contain rhetoric, although the language is clear and easy to understand. S – No source-specific standards

Policy documents are useful to provide a context on which to frame or hang arguments; in particular, if a local council has to demonstrate that it is achieving government targets and a link can be made between a policy and target.

Research evidence (external evidence)

Systematic review on T – All the review studies have clear return on investment aims and objectives. in public libraries A – The accuracy is checked with the (Aabø, 2009) help of a critical appraisal tool and each piece of evidence is Study on impact of determined as accurate. public access P – All the research studies have a computers in US clear purpose that matches with public libraries providing evidence in relation to (Becker et al., 2010) the impact of public libraries or Study on impact of the effectiveness of reading year of reading on schemes. social outcomes U – All the studies provide useful (Rankin, 2012) research evidence on the relevant questions. P – All the studies were conducted according to ethical research principles. A – The research language was a bit difficult to read in some of the studies. A methodology textbook was helpful to explain some of the terminology. S – The papers met standards for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews or qualitative research.

The systematic review provides evidence of the wider-ranging impact of public libraries and their value. Other research studies demonstrate a wide range of impacts of public library use. This suggests that a reading scheme would be an effective means of impacting on the local community and contributing to education.

Continued on next page

EBLIP movement has thus far developed several tools and guides to help assess research evidence, such as critical appraisal tools and evidence summaries, which are

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 57

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | AssEss

57

Table 5.1 Continued Evidence type

What evidence

Users (local evidence)

Recent library survey

TAPUPAS

T – It was clear to users that the survey was an annual event to get Increased number of feedback on library services. requests for children’s Additional requests for children’s books books are recorded as standard practice. A – The survey was based on individual perceptions and can only be assumed to be based on their views at the time. It wouldn’t capture all library users’ views, just a snapshot. The request recording procedure has been in place for a number of years. It may be under-representing actual requests, due to staff time in completing the sheet. P – It is clear what both these pieces of evidence are for. U – Both provide useful pieces of evidence, one in the form of numbers, so relatively objective, and the other in the form of users’ views. It is important to take both into account when planning. P – The survey was conducted in accordance with good practice for user surveys and was anonymous and non-coercive. Neither one has a legal status. A – Both are easy to read and understand. S – The survey was conducted according to good practice for surveys.

How might this inform the decision? The user survey covered a wide range of topics. Not all were relevant to children, nor was a direct question regarding reading schemes asked. However, users were asked to select from a range of topics the types of material they would like to see in the library and children’s literature was the most popular. Requests for children’s books have steadily increased over the last five years. Both these pieces of evidence suggest a demand from current users.

very helpful. However, as the focus of EBLIP begins to shi and incorporate other types of evidence beyond research, there is much work for the EBLIP community to do in order to develop new tools that can encompass the assessing and weighing of many evidence types. e TAPUPAS framework may provide a means of doing this, or at least provide librarians with a guide to start thinking about the evidence as a whole.

Note 1 http://library.usask.ca/ceblip/activities/c-eblip-journal-club.php.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 58

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 59

6 Agree Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

Aer 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 oen than not, you will not be the only one making the decision. Quite oen 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. e more clearly you can present to others the reasons for your decision, the evidence that was reviewed and how it led you to

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 60

60

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

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.

openness transparency

Bias groupthink organizational culture power

Agree

collaboration convincing Influencing

shared goals Effective decision making Advocacy Figure 6.1 Influences on effective decision making

Individual decision making Regardless of a person’s role in an organization, on a daily basis everyone is involved in making decisions in the workplace at some level. Sometimes our decisions are made independently, and other times with a group, usually when they are more complex decisions that set organizational direction. Decisions require consideration of options and judgement making, which in turn lead to actions that will impact on the organization. Decisions are rarely based solely on rational processes. Individuals have different decision-making styles, and biases also come into play. Hence, many elements lead people to make poorer judgements than are optimal. Psychologists use the term ‘bounded rationality’ to convey that, due to the complexity of problems and organizational factors affecting decision making, optimally rational decisions are not

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 61

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AgrEE

61

met. Instead, rationality is bounded by these other factors, and satisficing (the point when one decides that something is ‘good enough’) occurs (Furnham, 2005). March and Simon (1993) convey this reality of decision making when they write that: Most human decision making, whether individual or organizational, is concerned with the discovery and selection of satisfactory alternatives; only in exceptional cases is it concerned with the discovery and selection of optimal alternatives. (p. 162)

Of course, individuals do not all make decisions in the same way. Research on decision making styles has categorized orientations towards particular styles. People can use different styles, although they generally have one dominant style. Rowe, Boulgarides and McGrath (1984) note four managerial decision-making styles: Directive – people with this style do not tolerate ambiguity well. ey make decisions quickly because they do not consider many alternatives and rely on existing rules. ey have a high need for power and are autocratic. Analytic – people with this style carefully analyze problems based on as much data as possible, considering all alternatives. ey prefer complex problems and are willing to use innovative methods. ey have a need for control, but can also adapt well to new situations, and enjoy variety. Conceptual – people with this style are achievement and future oriented. ey solve problems creatively, with an artistic and humanistic approach. ey consider many broad alternatives and enjoy new ideas. ey value relationships, commitments, and integrity. Behavioral – people with this style have a deep concern for the organization in which they work, as well as for the development of their co-workers. ey are interested in helping others, and are open to suggestions from others and communicate well. ey do not rely on data for decision making, and are mainly people-oriented. (pp. 18–19)

Differences in decision-making styles may cause conflicts in the workplace, and being aware of others’ styles can help to understand how other people may be considering a problem, and what their focus is.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 62

62

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Bias Another huge factor affecting decision making is bias. Decisions are influenced by a host of personal factors, including memory, perception, motivations, past experiences and beliefs (Furnham, 2005). ere are many types of bias that will affect decision making, including overconfidence bias, when people think they know more than they actually do; confirming bias, when people gather information selectively in order to confirm what they already think; framing bias, when people make different decisions depending upon how information is presented; and representative bias, when people rely on stereotypes and predict outcomes based on past situations (Greenberg and Baron, 2008; Robbins, 2005). Eldredge (2007) made the connection between bias and EBLIP at a presentation he gave at the 4th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference. His research illustrates how cognitive biases can interfere with the evidence-based process for decision makers by ‘causing misperceptions about their environments or by hindering their performing effective analyses’ (p. 13). Eldredge surveyed medical librarians, who were asked to identify the top three types of cognitive bias they had identified in colleagues when working in a group. e most-mentioned biases were professional deformation; status quo; authority; anchoring; groupthink; halo or horns effect; and confirmation bias. Hiller (2008) noted many of the same biases when thinking about the biases that were most common when he visited academic libraries as part of the Association of Research Libraries’ Making Library Assessment Work programme. Most common were professional deformation, halo or horns effect, perseverance of belief, wishful thinking and worst-case scenario. • Professional Deformation – Viewing a situation through the common perceptions of one’s profession rather than by taking a broader perspective. • Halo or Horns Effect – Allowing another person’s positive or negative characteristics to affect perception of this person in other unrelated contexts. • Perseverance of Belief – To persist in believing previously acquired information even aer it has been discredited. • Wishful inking – Assessing a situation incompletely according to a desired rather than a likely outcome. • Worst-Case Scenario – Emphasizing or exaggerating those possible negative outcomes disproportionate to all possible outcomes. (Hiller, 2008)

Eldredge (2007) noted that participants in his study were quite critical of how their colleagues had succumbed to these biases, which he found troubling, since bias is a common human characteristic which affects everyone. is is an important point to

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 63

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AgrEE

63

note if we wish to recognize and minimize such bias without doing so in a negative or blaming manner. Creating an environment where members of the organization feel safe enough to admit their own biases, or point out bias exhibited by others, is not easy. One way to help create this culture is to be upfront about bias during the Agree stage and, as a check on the process, to go through each potential type of bias and talk openly about whether there are any concerns that this type of bias may be affecting the decision. Such a process should be led by someone who can ensure that the group is comfortable to speak and that members are not afraid of negative consequences. Setting such a tone early is important. Other individual strategies include having an ‘accountability buddy’ (Wilson, 2015) with whom you have achieved a level of trust so that this person can point out flaws or question some of your reasoning. A more formal version of this is mentoring, which Eldredge (2010) points to as a way to help minimize bias providing ‘a sounding board to discuss and review the rationale(s) for the final decision’ (p. 12).

Group decision making Group decision making in organizations adds further complexity and dimensional factors to how decisions are ultimately made. One of the strengths of groups is in bringing together more diverse viewpoints as well as information and knowledge that bring more input and alternatives to the decision-making process. People bring their unique skills, and can share the workload. Groups that are heterogeneous, with complementary skills and where ideas can be freely communicated, are better than individuals for solving complex problems (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). Robbins (2005) notes that groups make higher-quality decisions, and working in groups generally leads to the increased acceptance of a chosen solution. ose who participate in the decision will be more committed to the implementation. On the other hand, groups take longer to reach decisions and are less efficient than individuals. Furnham (2005) points out that research consistently shows that ‘groups do better on well structured tasks, although they take longer’ (p. 544). Potential disagreement between group members may also breed ill-will, which, if it is disruptive, could impact negatively on group decisions. As well, if groups are controlled by those trying to please a dominant leader, there will be a lack of open discussion regarding possible solutions (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). e size of groups also factors into success. Smaller groups tend to function better, whereas the larger a group becomes, the less group members participate and the more likely conflict will occur. Smaller groups are also more cohesive, whereas large groups tend to be fractious and form cliques (Greenberg and Baron, 2008).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 64

64

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Organizations such as libraries need to be careful to avoid groupthink. Groupthink is ‘a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action’ (Janis, 1982, 9). Groupthink results in limited or incomplete assessment of all the steps of rational decision making. Hence, when groupthink occurs, members may not consider all alternatives in their decision making, or search for sufficient information. ey may be easily swayed by the group leader, rationalize assumptions, become overconfident and not voice any concerns, in order to maintain a cohesive group. Janis notes that several factors contribute to a groupthink environment, including the group’s cohesiveness, insulation from ‘outsiders’, a leader who pushes for his or her preferred outcome and a lack of established norms to follow methodological decision-making procedures. Time pressure, a sense of urgency and ineffective group leadership are additional factors that contribute to groupthink (Neck and Moorhead, 1995). Strategies for reducing groupthink include promoting open enquiry and playing devil’s advocate; the use of subgroups to generate more ideas and have a fuller discussion with the whole group aerwards; admitting shortcomings in order to avoid the illusion of perfection; holding ‘second-chance’ meetings before implementing a decision; giving group members the ability to ‘sleep-on-it’; and voicing any doubts prior to implementation (Greenberg and Baron, 2008).

Organizational culture A key factor that must be considered in organizational decision making is that of the organization’s culture. Schein (2010) defines organizational culture as: a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 18)

Cultures will be different depending on the organization and the people that work there. Characteristics that determine an organization’s culture include the level of innovation and risk taking that employees are encouraged to undertake; the degree to which they are expected to pay attention to detail; whether there is a focus on outcomes or processes; the orientation of the organization towards the people working there; the degree to which work is organized around teams rather than individuals; the degree of competitiveness that exists; and the degree to which stability is

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 65

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AgrEE

65

emphasized versus growth and change. As a whole, these characteristics provide a picture of shared understanding of the organization’s culture, regardless of whether or not employees are happy about those aspects of their workplace. ey provide a picture of how the organization functions and the way people behave. Subcultures can also exist, particularly in large organizations. Such subcultures may be defined by their geographical location or by departmental designation. In such cases, core values are generally retained across the organization but may otherwise be modified within distinct departments (Robbins, 2005). Organizational culture is neither inherently good nor bad. On the positive side, it can provide a sense of identity and commitment among employees. It also emphasizes norms for behaviour and attitudes, essentially providing individuals with a sense of how things are done in their organization. However, there are potential negative aspects to organizational culture as well. e culture of an organization can stifle creativity and innovation if new ideas do not conform to the underlying assumptions of the organization. Martin (2006) points out that, challenges to these assumptions will result in defensive behavior from the members. erefore organizational culture can explain the resistance, fear, and sometimes ‘irrational’ behavior that one encounters in any organization, especially when trying to implement change. (n.p.)

Greenberg and Baron (2008) explain that the value placed on people within the organization is very important because in organizations where people do not feel valued a toxic culture is created and such organizations lose good employees and struggle. Healthy organizations, on the other hand, treat people well and inspire their employees, resulting in low turnover, higher morale and motivation. e complexity of organizational decision making in academic libraries is well captured in the four modes outlined by Choo (2006): the rational mode, process mode, political mode and anarchic mode. Choo notes that goal uncertainty and procedural uncertainty are the two main factors in how difficult it is to make a decision. Goal uncertainty is higher when goals are ambiguous and when there is disagreement about goals. Procedural uncertainty is higher when there is no prior experience in dealing with a problem and when there are time constraints or pressures, such as in a crisis situation. e four organizational decision-making modes that Choo describes depend on the levels of procedural uncertainty and goal uncertainty. Table 6.1 shows a simplified version of Choo’s four modes of decision making. Procedural uncertainty and goal uncertainty play a large role in organizational decision making. In academic libraries it was found that the decision-making

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 66

66

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Table 6.1 Choo’s four modes of organizational decision making (2006) Rational mode

• • • •

Goal directed Guided by rules, routines and performance Low procedural uncertainty Low goal ambiguity

Process mode

• • • •

Goal directed Multiple options and alternative solutions High procedural uncertainty Low goal ambiguity

Political mode

• • • •

Conflicting goals, interests Certainty about preferred approach and outcomes Low procedural uncertainty High goal ambiguity

Anarchic mode

• • • •

Goals are ambiguous Processes to reach goals are unclear High procedural uncertainty High goal ambiguity

environments that were present in the organizations where participants worked clearly had an influence on how they approached their decision making (Koufogiannakis, 2013b). More negative examples emerged when goals or processes were unclear, or when there was conflict with a senior decision maker. In situations where an anarchic decision-making environment seemed to be operating, one way that the librarians coped with the lack of structure was to use research evidence as a prop to back up the solution they would like to see happen. is was also the case in a political situation where there were differing viewpoints: research evidence was used to make a stronger case. When goal uncertainty and conflict within the organization were low, as in the cases of the rational and process models noted by Choo, group decisions proceeded more smoothly. Because there was a clear direction, or at least a clear process for reaching a decision, conflict was not a dominant aspect of the decision making and the librarians could work well with their colleagues in a group setting, bringing forward different forms of evidence and evaluating all the evidence sources to arrive at what they felt was the best decision. Samuels and McClure (1983) also found that organizations where decision making is shared and the environment facilitates more open communication engender greater use of information in decision making. Koufogiannakis (2013a) found that academic librarians are very conscientious and use evidence (including research) in order to be more confident and confirm that they are making good decisions. Others have written about the importance of research and data in decision making within libraries and that such use requires an environment where openness, integrity and trust are enabled (Hiller, Kyrillidou and Self, 2008; Lakos and Phipps, 2004). Involving staff in decision making and developing clear communication systems helps to facilitate this type of

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 67

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AgrEE

67

organizational change where evidence can become part of the culture of the organization (Davies, 2007). Davies also stresses the importance that ‘evidence is used honestly and that data is acquired and presented in as transparent a fashion as possible’ (2007, 6). Such transparency and honesty allow staff to participate more fully and contribute to the integrity of the decision-making process. Hiller, Kyrillidou and Self (2008) determined that evidence alone is not enough to create a research culture where decisions are grounded in data. Ultimately, organizational culture and leadership within the organization are crucial to the integration of evidence as a normal part of decision making within academic libraries.

Power Another element that factors in group decision making in organizations is power. Dahl (1957) defined power as ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would otherwise not do’ (p. 202). Power, he notes, cannot exist in isolation, but relates to other individuals or groups. Rowe, Boulgarides and McGrath (1984) identify four components of power in organizations: • Power sharing – the degree to which power is shared amongst participants. • Authority – the degree of legitimacy afforded to the person responsible for the decision. • Organizational politics – the relationships that affect cooperation, including coalitions, negotiations, and consensus. • Influence – the ability to persuade during the process of arriving at a decision. (p. 26)

A concept that is necessary for power relationships to exist is that of dependency. e greater dependency employee B has on employee A, the greater power employee A has over employee B. When something is plentiful, it will not be a source of power. But, as Robbins (2005) notes, ‘If you can create a monopoly by controlling information, prestige, or anything that others crave, they become dependent on you’ (p. 179–80). Power does not have to be negative, although it is usually perceived that way. Almost all organizations have some form of a power structure in place and use these structures to manage work and responsibilities. An abuse of organizational power is frequently exhibited via organizational politics. Such politics are ‘actions by individuals that are directed toward the goal of furthering their own self-interest without regard for the well-being of others or their organization’ (Greenberg and Baron, 2008, 488). Organizational politics can take various forms, including control over and selective use of information, building powerful coalitions,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 68

68

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

blaming and attacking others and creating obligations and using reciprocity to hold power over others. Political behaviour is most likely to occur in organizations when there is ambiguity over roles, there is a history of political behaviour, when resources are scarce and when employees do not feel empowered in their jobs (Greenberg and Baron, 2008). As was found in Koufogiannakis’ (2013b) study, when making group decisions librarians feel more positive about the process if they are in an environment where they can contribute to and collaborate on the decision. When this happens, the decision is likely to be more successful. As Greenberg and Baron (2008) point out, smaller groups tend to function more successfully, since group members are usually able to contribute more than in bigger groups. Librarians making decisions in groups should be aware of the potential danger of ‘groupthink’ (Janis, 1982) and ensure that cohesiveness does not mean that group members are afraid to speak or contribute differences of opinion or contrary evidence. If that happens, it will diminish the effectiveness of the group’s decision making. e individual questioning and exploring that are promoted within evidence-based practice need to carry through into group situations, ensuring open discussion and evaluation of the available evidence. Koufogiannakis (2013a) also found that academic librarians will use evidence to convince others within their organization, which aligns with the findings of orpe, Partridge and Edwards (2008) and Partridge, Edwards and orpe (2010), who found five different ways that information professionals experience EBP. All five categories include some level of influencing as it pertains to decision making and depend on power and relationships within an organization. Koufogiannakis (2013a) found that influencing could be positive when a librarian or group of librarians use evidence that they have assessed openly and without bias to demonstrate to someone more senior in the organization what the best decision is; or it could be negative if being used in an underhanded way simply to gain power within the organization or to promote a biased perspective on an issue. No two situations are the same, and the process of applying evidence is not a simple one. Librarians are continually negotiating with others in the workplace. e more important the decision, the more likely that others will be involved in that decision making and individual control is diminished. In order to compensate, librarians will try to convince others of what they feel will be the best decision. is convincing is oen done using research or local sources of evidence, as those seem to be most persuasive to other people and increase the chance that the decision made will be agreeable to the librarian who is doing the influencing. e process can potentially be devious, but this is not likely. However, librarians may subconsciously be biased to a particular point of view if they do not consider all sides of the argument and look at all the evidence. In a well functioning work environment, convincing can be used openly and honestly, to the point where everyone can work towards shared goals.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 69

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | AgrEE

69

Conclusion Agree is a critical point in the process of evidence-based decision making because it is when you actually have to make a decision. You do so based on all the evidence you have gathered and assessed. Librarians oen use this evidence to influence or convince. But at this point in the process other factors relating to how we individually approach decision making come into play. Our decision-making styles and our cognitive biases need to be acknowledged and made as transparent as possible so that they do not unduly influence the process. Working within an organization, the culture of our organization and the dynamic we have with others also has the power to influence our decision making. Aspects such as groupthink, organizational politics and power all play a role, and good decisions require attention to the elements that may derail them. Approaching your practice from a transparent, open and evidence-based perspective will help in addressing some of the issues that arise.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 70

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 71

7 Adapt Alison Brettle and Denise Koufogiannakis

e final step in the EBLIP process is to evaluate and determine what impact was made, where gaps remain and where improvement is needed for the next time (Adapt). is involves both reflection on the implementation of the decision and ongoing assessment or evaluation to determine whether the decision is working in the longer term (Booth 2004a). Within the literature, this step appears to be the one that has received the least attention, yet if you are going to the trouble of working through the other steps of the EBLIP process you should also take the time to examine whether your decision worked or made a difference. Furthermore, if you are adopting a whole evidence-based approach to your practice, this shouldn’t be seen as a final step but as an ongoing part of the cyclical nature of your way of thinking. e first reflective step involves thinking about what worked and whether any changes need to be made. New or further questions may also have arisen. e second part of the reflection involves evaluating any service change that was made, so as to determine if it had the desired effect. is can be done via measures of service quality such as benchmarking, performance measures and audit (Booth, 2004a). In reality, the former is more important if the evidence was used for advocacy or to help a stakeholder make a decision about your service, particularly if the decision wasn’t a welcome one and led to large service changes. Evaluating service changes to see if they had the desired effect is part of the larger picture relating to quality improvement.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 72

72

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

Reflection on the process Reflection is noted as an important continuing professional development activity within EBLIP (Koufogiannakis, 2010b). In the UK, reflection is part of the process required for professional revalidation with CILIP, whereas in the USA the Medical Library Association has recognized the importance of reflection in the research process, challenging its members to ‘build a culture of reflective practice in which the profession’s evidence base is routinely used’ (Grefsheim, Rankin, Perry and McKibbon, 2008, 115). Examinations of how librarians can be more reflective in their practice are becoming more prevalent in the literature (Booth, 2010; Forrest, 2008; Sen, 2010), with an easy approach being to think of reflection in terms of What? So What? Now What? (Alcock, 2014). e use of reflection has been encouraged within EBLIP when assessing performance. Reflection allows us to pause and consider what went right, what went wrong and what might be done differently next time. is process moves some of what we learn in a tacit manner into a more explicit, systematic approach where learning and thinking and making change are all contributing to our professional knowledge. Using reflection as part of the assemble or adapt parts of the process may help to bring what may normally be an unconscious or automatic process to the fore. e idea of reflective practice within EBLIP builds upon the work of Schön, whose 1983 work e Reflective Practitioner has been very influential. Reflection allows the practitioner to be actively insightful and to consciously learn from experience. Grant’s (2007) review on the role of reflection in the LIS sector found a small number of papers pertaining to reflection in or on LIS practice. She found that analytical reflection provided the greatest personal and professional benefit, but that further research is needed on the impact of reflection upon practice. In relation to school libraries, Todd (2009) puts forward a model of EBLIP that sees reflection as an essential element of evidence that is found in practice. He suggests that reflective practitioners should integrate available research evidence with deep knowledge and understanding derived from professional experience, as well as implementing measures to engage with local evidence so as to identify learning dilemmas, learning needs and achievement gaps. is helps to facilitate decisions about the continuous improvement of school library practices, leading to optimal outcomes and active contributions to a school’s mission and goals (Todd, 2009). Todd’s model fits well with the EBLIP model put forward throughout this book. Sen and Ford also consider deep reflection in their SEA (situation, evidence, action) change model (2009). e SEA change model was developed to help library students and their educators build reflection into their practice, particularly in relation to learning. e model has three core process elements: consideration of the situation (S); consideration of the evidence used during the practice of reflection (E); and action

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 73

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | ADApt

73

(A) needed as a result of what has been learned from the reflective process. It is noted that reflection can occur at a deep and low level, but it is only the deep reflection that leads to the final action stage (Sen and Ford, 2009). ese three process elements fit well with our EBLIP model with the S(ituation) mapping to the articulate and assemble stages, E(vidence) mapping to the assess stage and the A(ction) mapping to agree. In practical terms, it may not matter which model you use or when or how you do the reflection. e key issue is that using evidence and then reflecting on it are both needed to move both decisions and practice forward. e context of each situation will determine what evidence is used, and each practitioner needs to determine what form of reflection is best for them and find an approach that fits into their practice. Keeping a log or reflective diary are common methods of documenting reflections.

Evaluation of the process As noted above, within EBLIP, evaluation can be linked with service quality and improvement. However, this is quite a simplistic view. Evaluation, its terminology and links to research and EBP can be confusing. One explanation is that evaluation is a means of ‘measuring a person, service or programme against some kind of yardstick’ (Marshall, 1995). Robson, in his book on real-world research, describes evaluation as a ‘study with a distinctive purpose’ (Robson, 2011). Research, on the other hand, involves a systematic enquiry into a problem, with the goal of gathering evidence to generate new knowledge (Bradley and Marshall, 1995). Both research and evaluation need clear aims and objectives, and both can use similar techniques to collect data. However, the distinction between research and evaluation lies in the generation of new knowledge. In relation to EBLIP, the results of either research or evaluation can be part of the evidence we use (or assemble) to make a decision (agree), and then we need to evaluate (assess) the decision and reflect to determine whether that decision has made a difference or whether adjustments need to be made (adapt). Evaluation can be either formative – continuous, throughout a programme, to provide monitoring or feedback; or summative – a formal evaluation at the end, assessing to what extent the objectives have been achieved (Marshall, 1995). Using these definitions and the idea that EBLIP is more of a cyclical than a step-by-step process, summative evaluation forms part of the adapt phase of the EBLIP process. However, it is worth bearing in mind that a formative evaluation could also be undertaken as part of the local evidence-gathering process (in the assemble phase). As part of evaluation within the EBLIP process, librarians can use what they have learned through the process of assembling, assessing and agreeing, to implement positive change. Koufogiannakis’ research (2013a) has shown that academic librarians use evidence to convince. Convincing has two elements, the first being confirming,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 74

74

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

which is applied to oneself when learning and growing in practice. e second element of convincing is influencing, which is applied to others in order to convince them of a decision. Depending on the organizational conditions, as discussed in Chapter 6 (Agree), influencing can be either positive or negative. In the adapt stage, librarians may use their findings from the combined evidence to convince colleagues of change, or to outwardly show governmental, parent or funding bodies the value of the library or a service that requires funding. Using existing evidence proactively to demonstrate the value of libraries, librarians and library services is one of the reasons why we need to develop a strong evidence base in order to clearly and definitively demonstrate worth. Evidence allows librarians to speak knowledgeably and confidently about the work they are doing and to show impacts and outcomes based on concrete measures rather than just their own opinion that the service is a good one.

Evaluation, quality and impact Evaluation can also form part of the quality agenda or performance management within organizations (Dalton, 2012; Marshall, 1995). Dalton (2012) provides a good overview of performance management and explains how outcome-based metrics can form part of performance measurement within hospital libraries. Dalton (2012) also argues that data collected from these kinds of evaluations (impact assessment) is a powerful tool for advocacy (or convincing), in other words for demonstrating the value of the library to stakeholders. She also argues that outcome-based indicators (the indicators which are used to evaluate performance) can be channelled more easily into concrete actionable insights which can result in real changes in system, processes and services (Dalton, 2012). Dalton’s study (2012) set out to develop a set of indicators that the library could use for continuous monitoring and advocacy. She developed a simple tool – a response to one question (Did the library help in….), capturing six possible impacts on patient care – for use in an Irish health library. ese indicators were based on previous work (Marshall, 1992) and are similar to the Value study described in the health libraries chapter of this book (Chapter 11). Dunne et al. (2013) suggests that if a simple standardized tool were applied on a national basis, the culture of objective and continuous assessment could be fostered. In turn this should lead to local service improvements and provide a valuable tool for evidence-based advocacy. e Knowledge for Healthcare Quality and Improvement Group in England is currently developing a similar tool and other metrics for use across NHS libraries (Edwards and Ferguson, 2015). Use of this indicator across the UK will enable comparisons for benchmarking and quality purposes, as well as demonstrate the effects and impact of the health library service to stakeholders. While

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 75

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | ADApt

75

continuous quality improvement is not the same as EBP, it is part of the same agenda – that of ensuring that high-quality decisions are made to produce effective outcomes.

Adapt in action A good example of where research, evaluation and EBLIP occurred hand in hand was in a study of problem-based learning described in Koufogiannakis et al. (2005). At the University of Alberta, health librarians were involved in problem-based learning groups with medical and dental students. is was resource intensive, but feedback (local evidence) from faculty and students was positive and indicated that librarians’ involvement was beneficial. Reflection and evaluation by the librarians regarding the local evidence was that this didn’t really demonstrate whether the involvement was beneficial to the students. Given a lack of alternative research evidence on this subject, the librarians undertook a research study to determine whether having a librarian present in the small-group, problem-based learning modules for first-year medical and dental students resulted in an improved understanding of EBM concepts, the nature of medical literature and information access skills (creation of evidence). is was classed as research because of the systematic nature of the enquiry and the methods used, which ultimately generated new knowledge about the librarians’ involvement (research evidence). Objective tests following the intervention showed that there was a small positive librarian impact, but final exam scores showed no impact. ere was also no difference in attitudes or comfort levels between students who had a librarian in their group and those who did not. Evaluation of this evidence resulted in a decision to withdraw librarians from small problem-based learning groups but to maintain librarians’ involvement at a higher group level. Ongoing evaluation has continued, collecting local evidence of satisfaction and changing the course in line with curriculum changes.

The danger of failing to adapt e above example highlights the potential danger in failing to adapt (or, more accurately, of failing to consider the Adapt stage of the EBLIP process). As local evidence suggested that librarians’ involvement was working, had the librarians not reflected on the need for more evidence, an unnecessary and resource intensive practice would have continued. One of the drivers of EBM was safe, effective care, since care not based on the best available evidence has the potential to impact on patients’ lives. While it is unlikely that failing to adopt an evidence-based approach will result in killing library users, at best, poor decision making can lead to a waste of resources, but failing to use evidence for effective advocacy could potentially result in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 76

76

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

killing off library services! An early example of this was the driver for the Rochester study (Marshall, 1992), which provided evidence to link the value of library services to patient care in the face of cuts in New York. More recently in the UK, CILIP has taken this ethos on board and commissioned a review of the evidence for trained and professional library, information and knowledge professionals across all sectors (Brettle and Maden, 2015a), which it will use to advocate for continued professional library services. Similar reports have been produced to advocate for academic libraries (Oakleaf, 2010) and school libraries (Williams et al., 2013). Failure to evaluate the results of what we have done, or to adopt an evidence-based approach, has also potentially led to unnecessary research and evaluation and inefficient working in information literacy. Systematic reviews comparing computeraided with face-to-face teaching within libraries have highlighted positive effects for over 10 years (Koufogiannakis and Wiebe, 2006; Zhang et al., 2007). A more recent review (Weightman et al., 2015) highlighted a large number of additional studies on the same topic in the intervening years, also demonstrating positive effects. Brettle and Maden (2015a) highlight a large number of studies and systematic reviews on the positive effects and impacts of clinical librarians. Perhaps now it is time to ensure that we think more about this final stage of the EBLIP process and evaluate and act on the evidence that we already have.

Change management If the decision taken is likely to result in a change (particularly a large one), it is worth considering models of change management to help in implementing the change. One of the most common and well known is Lewin’s (1951), which essentially has the stages: unfreeze (preparing for change), change (where the change occurs) and refreeze (making sure the changes are used and converted to routine). is process can be illustrated with the information literacy example above. For example, an academic library has found it difficult to provide resources for all the undergraduate courses that require one-shot information literacy sessions. An examination of the research evidence (Koufogiannakis and Wiebe, 2006; Weightman et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2007) suggests that computer-aided instruction is as effective as face-to-face teaching. One of the librarians has developed an online tutorial that staff and students on a number of courses have suggested is easy and fun to use and gets the same concepts across as do the face-to-face sessions. Furthermore, the university management and administration have decided that too many rooms are empty for most of the semester and a university-wide policy has been developed to reduce room space, limiting the availability of spaces for information literacy teaching. So the evidence has been assembled and evaluated and the decision has been agreed by library management to

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 77

BrEttlE & KoUfogIAnnAKIs | ADApt

77

replace all one-shot sessions with online tutorials that will be accessed via the virtual learning environment. is is a pretty big change to be considering, and it is therefore worth taking into account some of the theory related to change management if you wish the change to be successful. ere are many theories regarding change management. Lewin’s (1951) three-stage model is one of the simplest and is used in Table 7.1 to demonstrate the kinds of actions and steps you need to be thinking about as part of the Adapt stage. Table 7.1 Stages for changing and maintaining information literacy practice Unfreeze (prepare for change)

1 Make sure there is buy-in from library staff (look at the Agree part of the evidence-based process) and use the available evidence for convincing. 2 Ensure that the tutorial is suitable for all undergraduate courses – make modifications as necessary. 3 Ensure that all teaching staff are aware of the change and its benefits – attend meetings and send out information as appropriate to obtain buy-in. 4 Make arrangements with technical or administrative staff to ensure that the tutorials are available to all the appropriate courses at the correct time. 5 Test that everything is working and ready to go live. 6 Publicize and sell benefits of online tutorials to students.

Change (implement the change)

1 Make the tutorials live at a given date (perhaps the beginning of a new semester). 2 Ensure that there is appropriate technical support for both staff and students in case of any problems.

Refreeze (ensure the change is maintained)

1 Monitor any technical problems and implement remedial action immediately. 2 Solicit feedback from staff and students; implement suggestions for improvements. 3 Use objective data (any test or exam scores) to identify whether skills are maintained. 4 Examine impact on resource use within the library. 5 Examine and discuss results of 1–4 within the library. 6 Feedback to stakeholders.

It is worth bearing in mind that this is a simplified approach, that within each step further thought is needed and that each step may well need breaking down further. Following Lewin’s model, Table 7.1 provides examples of the steps that could be put in place to ensure that the change happens smoothly and is maintained.

Conclusion Adapt is the final stage in the EBLIP model, or, to put it another way, the stage where we reflect on the process and begin again. Although it is the final stage it is important to ensure that it happens. Evidence and insight gained in the Adapt stage can be used for advocacy to demonstrate the value and impact of library services, to argue for additional resources and to ensure that the library services provided are of the highest

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 78

78

pArt 1 | BAcKgroUnD AnD moDEl

quality. Combining the Adapt stage with other theories such as quality improvement, reflection and change management fits well with the EBLIP model and is likely to be a key to its success.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 79

PART 2 EBLIP in action

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 80

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 81

8 Practitioner-researchers and EBLIP Virginia Wilson

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 oen 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 oen 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. ere 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).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 82

82

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

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? Who else intimately knows the nature of the questions that arise from our practice? Who has the impetus to want to find answers to those questions like we do? e above definition situates EBLIP in ‘daily practice’, suggesting that EBLIP is not just to be applied on a special occasion. It is a way of working which includes undertaking research projects to help generate the best available evidence required for EBP. And of the various definitions of EBLIP, it is the only one that suggests that librarians could or should conduct research to inform their practice. Not only does it suggest that we should participate actively in the research enterprise, but it also suggests that there is a place for encouragement – for others to encourage us and for us to encourage our colleagues. Encouragement and support are integral both to the practitioner-research process and to EBLIP.

Who is a practitioner-researcher? Librarians who conduct research can be referred to as practitioner-researchers. e role of the practitioner-researcher is present in many different disciplines. In the health context, Yanos and Ziedonis’ definition of a clinician-researcher is ‘an individual who both conducts research and provides direct services’ (2006, 249). Shaw, in the social work field, defines practitioner involvement in research as the ‘evaluation, research, development, or more general enquiry that is small scale, local, grounded and carried out by professionals who directly deliver those self-same services’ (2005, 1232). Watson-Boone writes about practitioner-researchers in the context of academic libraries and states that they ‘approach projects and problems in ways that yield (1) solutions, (2) an enlarged understanding of their actual field of work – their practice and (3) improvements in that practice’ (2000, 85). Peter Jarvis, in the field of education, boils it down to simply being a practitioner who does research (1999). But what kind of research are we referring to? Jarvis specifically refers to research conducted on one’s

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 83

WIlson | prActItIonEr-rEsEArcHErs & EBlIp

83

practice using only the case study method. Indeed, researching our own practice is a way to save time and a way that feeds into the EBLIP model, but with academic freedom as tenured/tenure-track faculty members, academic librarians (in Canada and the USA in particular) can and do undertake research on whatever they want, using methods that are driven by their research questions. e term practitionerresearcher begs the question, however, that if the research is not related to practice, would the individual be better referred to as simply a researcher? e inclusion of the term ‘practitioner’ suggests that this is something to be highlighted and that research is reinforced as something that can be, should be and in many cases is part of the practitioner’s role. us, for the purposes of this chapter, as it directly pertains to EBLIP, a practitioner-researcher is defined as a person engaged in the practice of a skilled profession who also conducts research. It was the merging of what I initially perceived to be two roles – librarian and researcher – that inspired me to undertake a qualitative research project designed to explore the world of librarians who also conduct research. In the autumn of 2012, while on sabbatical from my academic librarian’s job at the University of Saskatchewan, I interviewed 14 librarians from Canada and the UK who self-identified as practitioner-researchers to learn how they see themselves in the roles of librarian and researcher. e majority of the librarians were academic librarians, although some special librarians were included as well. In Canada, the requirement is prevalent for academic librarians to conduct research as part of career advancement through the processes of tenure and promotion. Research is not a requirement for UK librarians, and yet they are also conducting research and publishing the results, for a variety of reasons. As the interviews progressed, questions about the term ‘practitioner-researcher’ came up again and again. What does it mean? Who can assume that title? Some participants inferred that the practitioner part of it meant that the research had to necessarily be tied to practice, and that by calling ourselves practitioner-researchers we are limiting ourselves. In one participant’s words: ‘if we tie ourselves too much to that term, we are probably limiting the possibilities of what our research could be’. For me, the crux of it is that we have our ‘regular’ librarian jobs and then the research piece as well, no matter what it is we are doing the research on. How do we negotiate that? What does that mean for us? Where two roles converge to make essentially one role is where I see the term practitioner-researcher being particularly useful.

Challenges Conducting research as a practising librarian, from conceiving a research question through to writing and publishing a paper or doing some other form of dissemination,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 84

84

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

does pose some challenges. e following challenges emerged from my research and have been corroborated elsewhere (Clapton, 2010; Fennewald, 2008; Fox, 2007; Schrader, Shiri and Williamson, 2014; Woods and Booth, 2014). Interestingly enough, these are many of the same challenges faced by evidence-based practitioners (Booth, 2011; Koufogiannakis, 2015; Todd, 2009).

Time Not surprisingly, the most prevalent challenge is time. Finding the time to fit research into a job that consists of a variety of activities in a fast-paced, highly changeable environment oen involves juggling competing priorities. Additionally, many information professionals work in settings in which the work load varies at different times of the year. For example, in an academic setting, librarians may be inundated with instruction requests in September and October and may not be able to get to their research until later in the year. e ebb and flow of library life can have an impact on which tasks get priority and, oen, research falls down the list when other activities seem more pressing. In terms of public, special and school librarians, the time to do research may be almost non-existent.

Motivation Another challenge, which is somewhat related to time, is the discipline or the selfmotivation to do the work. Because the ‘day job’ has the potential to overtake the research piece with tasks and activities that are more pressing, it can be quite a struggle to shi the focus. As one participant said: ‘And then finding the time, discipline, it’s not just time, it’s discipline, to get that research done, because it’s never required to the same extent as sitting at the reference desk is required.’

Funding Funding is another challenge faced by librarian practitioner-researchers. At first glance, it may seem that the types of research that librarians might do would not require additional funding. And, indeed, many practitioner-researchers have been managing by doing research within small pockets of time during their full-time dayjobs. However, when it comes to activities such as hiring a student assistant for data entry, purchasing incentives for focus groups (e.g., pizza) or needing to purchase a particular analytical soware package, the need for additional funding becomes clear. Many funding bodies are reluctant to award grants to applicants who have not received prior grants. en it becomes tricky because, if it takes funding to get funding, how

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 85

WIlson | prActItIonEr-rEsEArcHErs & EBlIp

85

do you get that first bit of funding? Starting with smaller, local funding opportunities can help librarians to build the funding portfolios that can help them to obtain larger grants.

Lack of research skills Many librarian practitioner-researchers feel ill-prepared to conduct research. With a PhD not being a requirement for the practice of librarianship, librarians may not have engaged in extensive post-graduate research. Or perhaps they were active researchers at one point, or arrived freshly taught from library school, but have not engaged in research for a period of time and feel like they have become ‘de-skilled’, with the adeptness for various methods being lost, due to lack of use. Self-confidence and selfperception can feel like an insurmountable challenge – can I do this? Is anyone interested? However, I would posit that we are more skilled than we perhaps think and, with a propensity for lifelong learning and curious inquisitiveness, learning new ways, means and methods of research is not beyond possibility.

Organizational culture e organizational culture of a library or larger institution has a substantial impact on the research conducted by librarians. If research is not prioritized or rewarded by the organization, there is little support, impetus, time or inclination for librarians to actively engage in research. If research is encouraged, there can still be challenges if there is a division between researching and non-researching librarians. ere can be tensions between librarians who are embracing research as a part of their job and those who are not. My research revealed that some librarians can be research resistant, almost as if they feel that something will be lost if the researcher’s role is embraced, encouraged and rewarded in librarianship. Perhaps it is as simple as how the role of a librarian is defined and whether or not that definition includes conducting research as part of a professional role. For some, being a librarian includes being a researcher, and for some it does not. Regardless, having a divided camp in an organization can present challenges to all involved.

Benefits e personal and professional benefits that librarians can derive from undertaking research are striking. is includes benefits to practice and to the profession of librarianship as a whole (Schmidt, 2000; Koufogiannakis and Crumley, 2002; WatsonBoone, 2000). In both Canada and the UK, librarians in my research study spoke

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 86

86

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

enthusiastically about their decision to incorporate being an active researcher into their professional work as librarians.

Professional development A major benefit is enhanced professional development. Developing a programme of research enhances our development as librarians. It helps us to keep up with our areas of practice and interest and allows us to be contributing members of the profession. is in turn gives librarians a higher profile – wider acknowledgement and increased reputation in professional circles; enhanced reputations within home institutions and without; and possible career benefits that can emerge from a higher profile (e.g., job offers, invitations to speak, invitations to write or peer review). For example, many health librarians are involved in systematic review projects where the librarians’ particular research expertise is a crucial part of the larger research project.

Enhance the ‘day job’ Research provides an interesting opportunity to enhance one’s ‘day job’. Much of the time, research endeavours are not integrated into the work of librarians or are not seen as the ‘real’ work of librarians. However, many librarians see conducting research as a great opportunity to add to the ‘day job’ and expand it into new and different areas. Sometimes the ‘day job’ doesn’t fulfil every aspect of a librarian’s professional desires and conducting research can help to alleviate that. Research can fill part of a professional need for validation that the everyday work of librarianship might not. Further, adding research into the work of librarians makes sense. Why do something without questioning it? Questioning and reflecting are part of the practitionerresearcher’s and the evidence-based practitioner’s tool box. Whether it is undertaking research to assess a long-standing process or programme, assessing and evaluating a new endeavour, or making a practice decision, research becomes a natural extension of the real work of librarians. Requirements or competencies in research are listed by some professional associations as a necessary part of a librarian’s job. For example, the UK’s CILIP includes research in its Professional Knowledge and Skills Base, stating that librarians should be responsible for ‘using research techniques and knowledge of information resources to support organizational, client or personal research projects to provide new findings and data’ (CILIP, 2014, italics added). In addition to professional associations, individual libraries list research skills as a core competency. For example, the University Library, University of Saskatchewan includes scholarly work as a heading for four competencies in the document entitled Core Competencies for University of

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 87

WIlson | prActItIonEr-rEsEArcHErs & EBlIp

87

Saskatchewan Librarians, which include the following: • Demonstrates capacity to write, create, edit, referee or review scholarly works (e.g., journal articles, books, reports) • Demonstrates knowledge of the fundamentals of qualitative and quantitative research methods including the research process (e.g. question formulation, peer review, etc. (Core Competencies, 2013)

Despite the fact that research skills are included in professional documents such as those above, my research has discovered that organizations’ official recognition of librarians as researchers is not ubiquitous, and that librarians who do conduct research experience satisfaction from it in addition to their regular library work.

Explore new horizons Conducting research as practising librarians allows us to push out the boundaries. In our daily work we are oen bound in other areas of practice by such things as budgets or institutional mandates. Especially in an academic setting, where academic freedom is present, no one can say what is right or wrong in terms of the types of research librarians can do. e research realm for practising librarians is wide open.

Benefits to practice Conducting research results in benefits for our practice, including increased credibility among faculty/students/researchers, particularly in academic and special library settings. If these library users know that librarians know what they are talking about in terms of research, there can be an increase of trust in interactions with them. From the librarian’s point of view, dealing with patrons involved in the research process is more straightforward. If librarians can map the users’ experiences back to their own experiences, a more complete and comprehensive transaction can occur.

The practitioner-researcher’s connection to EBLIP e practitioner-researcher’s role is deeply connected to EBLIP in that, should research evidence (one of the areas of importance to EBLIP) be lacking, practitioners are encouraged to undertake research to inform their practice. ese research projects could be small scale and local, or they could be intricate and cover a wide range of research questions. ere are similar characteristics that point to practitioner research across all definitions and descriptions in various disciplines. First, it is research that is

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 88

88

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

conducted by a group or an individual that also has a practice component to their job. us practitioner research is found in areas such as nursing, medicine, social work, teaching and librarianship, to name a few. e research is oen used to inform decision making or to advance practice in particular settings. Practitioner research meshes well with EBLIP, as it oen takes as its focal point the consumers of the service that the practitioners are offering, i.e. patients, clients, students, library users. Ideally, practitioner research also includes a reflective piece, which is necessary when practice is being examined and explored. Watson-Boone identified seven steps that are common to practitioner research and stated that practitioner-researchers consistently incorporate these steps as an approach to practice, whether or not they are going to go on to do a formal study (2000, 90). ese steps have a strong ring of familiarity to them when placed alongside the steps of EBLIP as suggested by Koufogiannakis (2013b). Seeing these two paths side by side in Table 8.1 illustrates that it is not a big leap to make either way: from practitioner-researcher to evidence-based practitioner, or vice versa. Ideally, keeping the principles of both in mind should inform practice to such an extent that a practitioner would not think of approaching an issue or a problem without consulting the various types of evidence and/or conducting some research to assist in determining a way forward. Table 8.1 Practitioner-researcher process compared to EBLIP process Watson-Boone’s practitioner-researcher steps (2000, 90)

Revised EBLIP model (Koufogiannakis, 2013b, 14)

1 Identify the true problem that needs attention.

1 Articulate – come to an understanding of the problem and articulate it.

2 Define various ways to solve the problem.

2 Assemble – assemble evidence from multiple sources that are most appropriate to the problem. 3 Assess – assess the evidence for its quantity and quality; place it against all components of the overarching problem.

3 Select the process that appears to have the greatest chance of working. 4 Set out criteria against which to measure the success of the specific problem-solving efforts. 5 Carry out the effort. 6 Evaluate what occurs. 7 Reflect on whether the results have solved the problem to a satisfactory degree.

3 Assess – assess the evidence for its quantity and quality; place it against all components of the overarching problem. 4 Agree – determine the best way forward. 5 Adapt – revisit goals and needs; reflect on the success of the implementation, including your own role.

Characteristics of an evidence-based practitioner-researcher Not all practising librarians will conduct research. Many will not want to. However, many do, and I believe there are some common traits among librarian practitioner-

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 89

WIlson | prActItIonEr-rEsEArcHErs & EBlIp

89

researchers. What does it take to be an evidence-based practitioner-researcher? Several characteristics emerged from my research and have been demonstrated by my practitioner-researcher colleagues as well as by what I have experienced personally. I also believe in the growth mindset (see overleaf) and that these traits can be cultivated. Below are some characteristics of an evidenced-based practitioner-researcher.

Research mindedness An evidence-based practitioner-researcher is research minded and not research resistant. Being research minded is ‘(a) an essential practitioner attribute, (b) a capacity to critically reflect on practice to develop researchable questions, (c) a capacity to be informed by knowledge and research related to [librarianship] values, and (d) capacity to understand research designs and related methodologies in order to theorize about practice (Harrison and Humphreys, 1998)’ (adapted from Austin, Dal Santo and Lee, 2012). In other words, a research-minded librarian is one who tends towards research and who values research as a means to inform the practice of professional skills.

A reflective practitioner Undertaking reflective practice is a crucial component. If we’re going to move forward as practitioners and as researchers, we have to reflect on what we are doing (see Chapter 7). at seems pretty obvious, but when things are moving quickly it can be difficult to deliberately stop and take the time to think about how we are working and what we need to know. Donald Schön, in his 1983 book e Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, writes: ‘A practitioner’s reflection can serve as a corrective to over-learning. rough reflection, he can surface and criticize the tacit understandings that have grown up around the repetitive experiences of a specialized practice, and can make new sense of the situations of uncertainty or uniqueness which he may allow himself to experience’ (p. 61). Practitioner-researchers question what the organization does. Is it still relevant? Is it doing what it set out to do? As a practitioner-researcher, you might reflect on practice, have it inform your research and then reflect on the research. ere are many permutations of that to explore, and lots of benefits to reflecting on your own pursuits as well as your larger practice.

Curiosity Another characteristic of an evidence-based practitioner-researcher is curiosity. Why would you do research? Yes, it’s to inform your practice and add to the knowledge base, and maybe it is a requirement for tenure or permanent status. But, hopefully,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 90

90

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

there’s some curiosity in there, too; an enquiring mind wanting to know why something is or what can be done. Curiosity can help to sustain the research process. If you tie curiosity in with reflective practice, you can get a deeper understanding of your practice and your research.

A growth mindset A mindset that includes embracing uncertainty, accepting the occasional setback and an attitude of lifelong learning is helpful for evidence-based practitioner-researchers; a growth mindset (one that understands that talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching and persistence) rather than a fixed mindset (one that believes basic abilities, intelligence and talents are fixed traits and cannot be increased) (Dweck, 2007). If we approach research with a growth mindset, then we can learn anything, any methodology, any theory. Learning becomes part of the process and a normal state of being. In fact, in any kind of creative venture (and I would argue that research involves a high element of creativity, as we are constructing or revealing something new) there are times of great uncertainty. With the right attitude at the outset, we can push through the uncertainty that we might feel as librarians who conduct research and come out the other side with more confidence and with research that is useful and that can take its place in the body of LIS knowledge.

Cultivation of an encouraging environment ere are all kinds of external aids that can assist you in your research journey, but there’s probably not one that is as influential as an encouraging environment. Environmental support, including support from administration and support from our peers, can go a long way to fostering confidence and assisting with motivation. Striving for a culture of research in your institution will help to build awareness of librarians as researchers and will help to develop a research-support infrastructure. An encouraging environment also includes mentorship or peer mentorship. A trusted, experienced librarian practitioner-researcher can help to navigate any possible pitfalls of the research process and can be an invaluable source of support. Additionally, peer mentors from your own group, within your institution or without, can help to battle feelings of isolation. It is always good to feel that someone is in the same position that you are in. A research network is related to mentorship but provides a broader and different range of supports. It’s essentially a group of people with the same broad research interests that can offer collaboration and support. A research network can be developed by being active on social media, attending conferences, participating in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 91

WIlson | prActItIonEr-rEsEArcHErs & EBlIp

91

scholarly journal activities such as peer review or editing and seeking out research partnerships. Or, if a group isn’t your style, try an accountability buddy. is is a stream of peer mentorship that is essentially finding someone to whom to tell your research plans and who will then ask you about them later; someone to be accountable to. It can really help to move the research process along if you know that you have to report back to someone in a week, over coffee, about what you have accomplished.

Conclusion e scholarly outputs of practitioner-researchers are crucial in order to move the practice of librarianship forward, to participate in EBLIP in a productive way, and to help to bridge the research–practice gap. e fact that practitioner-researchers are involved in daily practice in addition to conducting research to inform and improve that practice means that supports are needed in order to help facilitate this work. I have written elsewhere (Wilson, 2013) about next steps in terms of the librarian as practitioner-researcher. ey include determining what practitioner-researchers need so as to be better supported organizationally; focusing on dissemination of research findings that is effective (ideally, open access) so that those results are useful to practitioners; and encouraging LIS programmes to include more practitioner research in the curriculum in order to make it clear to LIS graduate students that research is expected and encouraged aer graduation and that there are many research possibilities available to them as practitioners. Having curious, confident and capable librarians conducting research as part of their professional practice in order to inform practice can only strengthen librarianship as a profession. Practising librarians are different from and complementary to LIS scholars – and what librarians research and disseminate can enhance what LIS scholars do, oen by virtue of being alongside it, for example in the published research literature or at conferences; so that, when you’re looking at the literature or attending a conference, ideally, you’re getting a balanced mix of relevant research by LIS scholars and by practising librarians. Research plays a vital role in the practice of librarianship and in EBLIP. With more and more practising librarians conducting research, we are poised culturally to meet the ever-present challenges that are innate to librarianship and, along with our local context, our professional expertise, and the voices of our users, we can continue to make library and information work a dynamic contributor to society.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 92

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 93

9 Academic libraries Mary M. Somerville and Lorie A. Kloda

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. e 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. e 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

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 94

94

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

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. Changes in the way that students and faculty members use information resources (e.g., Tenopir et al., 2015), and the reality that these users ‘expect more … [and are] demanding better libraries for today’s complex world’ (Lankes, 2012), place pressure on academic librarians to keep up with current needs and anticipate future needs. Accelerated demands are in part due to changing research practices within academic disciplines, as reported by Long and Schonfeld (2013) and Rutner and Schonfeld (2012). Studies of academics in both the UK (Housewright, Schonfeld and Wulfson, 2013) and the USA (Schonfeld and Housewright, 2013) reveal consistent trends that scholars are increasingly using online resources but value traditional formats as well. They also note changing patterns in information-searching practices, adoption of digital content and acceptance of open access. In a similar fashion, surveys of students reveal disciplinary differences that produce wide variations in their perceptions, including of the importance of searching, evaluation, processing and communication/dissemination (Pinto and Sales, 2015). In order to ensure libraries’ relevance in the digital age, librarians should aspire ‘to enhance scholarly productivity, to empower learners, and to participate in the entire lifecycle of the research, teaching, and learning process’ (Jaguszewski and Williams, 2013, 1). Growing acceptance of this ambitious mandate is reflected in association publications, research organizations, professional discourse and library literature, as highlighted below. In recent years, services have emerged in academic libraries in areas such as data curation, researcher profiles, digital scholarship, scholarly publishing, creative expression, impact measures, web development, government funding mandates (Kenney, 2014, 3) and digital humanities (Hartsell-Gundy, Braunstein and Golomb, 2015). Research data management services are increasingly mentioned in both conferences and the literature (Rambo, 2015; Tenopir, Birch and Allard, 2012). e

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 95

somErVIllE & KloDA | AcADEmIc lIBrArIEs

95

domain of academic librarianship can therefore be seen as expanding to incorporate new roles, and the research evidence, along with skills for producing local evidence, is emerging along with it (Passonneau and Erickson, 2014). In response to this changing landscape, library professionals, often working collaboratively with other academic or industry professionals (Somerville, Schader and Sack, 2012; Somerville and Conrad, 2013; Somerville and Conrad, 2014), have studied the information behaviour of various user groups. Studies to explore ‘how researchers really work’ (Foster, 2014b, 4) intend to ‘enable us to design services to fit in the researcher’s workflow, rather than the researcher attempting to understand or fit into ours’ (Rambo, 2015, 9). This aspiration has produced a considerable body of research on researchers’ behaviour, using a variety of research methods to provide evidence on the research behaviour of doctoral students (Jisc and the British Library, 2012), personal learning environments (Caldwell, Bilandzic and Foth, 2012) and data storage (Swauger and Vision, 2015). These explorations provide an evidence base for designing user-centred systems and services in academic libraries. A complementary line of enquiry has explored practical implications to improve the productivity and workflow of researchers (Conrad and Somerville, 2013; Conrad, Leonard and Somerville, 2015; Favaro and Hoadley, 2014). Relatedly, given the migration to e-resources in academic libraries and the trend of technology adoption throughout higher education (Horizon Report, 2015), library websites have become portals for discovery, access and fulfilment. e emergence of discovery-layer services has prompted studies comparing the features and functions of these products (e.g., Asher, Duke and Wilson, 2013). Other papers reporting local innovations have explored the topic of library website redesign (Deschenes, 2014; Woodfield and Lamond, 2015). Meanwhile, a holistic critique of the researcher experience challenges libraries to ‘develop a completely different approach to acquiring and licensing digital content, platforms and services. ey simply must move beyond the false choice that sees only the solutions currently available and instead push for a vision that is right for their researchers’ (Schonfeld, 2015, 13). is call for action coincides with the emergence of new conceptions of professional status that reflect a shi from autonomy to accountability (Eldredge, 2014). Within librarianship, this takes the form of decisions which reflect users’ actual or potential needs and which are based on evidence, as illustrated in this vignette: In your role as collection resources development librarian you need to ensure that most of your users’ needs for authoritative information are met most of the time, despite the constraints of a modest budget. You select collection resources using the EBLIP process

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 96

96

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

knowing that you must be held accountable to others for your decisions as part of the new professionalism. is transparency converges well with long-standing values of openness held by our profession. When others such as administrators or users request an explanation of your decisions, you can readily point to your EBLIP process that identified a body of applied research evidence found in the peer reviewed literature, past performance of the same types of resources by your user community, interlibrary loan request data on the same or similar titles, likely a cost-benefit analysis, and possibly even cohort or experimental studies. (Eldredge, 2014, n.p.)

In addition, there is a growing body of evidence to inform information literacy education. e published literature covers a wide breadth of topics showing the evolving discourse on information literacy models that are fortified by EBP, including topics such as embedded information literacy modules (Kavanagh, 2011), the connection between library instruction and academic success (Bowles-Terry, 2012), evaluation of digital information literacy (Sieberhagen and Cloete, 2012) and the impact of progressive librarian course collaborations (Booth et al., 2015). Rather than focusing on the quantity of library instruction taking place in universities, as has traditionally been the case, research in this area has become more sophisticated. Instructional effectiveness is increasingly measured in the library literature in relation to educational impact, whether in terms of student retention, learning outcomes or student performance (Eng and Stadler, 2015; Soria, Fransen and Nackerud, 2013; Stone, Pattern and Ramsden, 2012). In addition, there are three systematic reviews on the topic of effectiveness of information literacy instruction, and all conclude that online methods are as effective as face-to-face instruction (Koufogiannakis and Wiebe, 2006; Weightman et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2007). is focus on assessment within academic librarianship aligns well with a corresponding trend in higher education. Whether driven by external circumstances, such as higher education accreditation or external programme review processes, or by an organizationally inspired desire to improve, library leaders and managers are expected to plan and implement both comprehensive and targeted evaluations of their impact, services, resources, programmes, virtual and physical spaces and partnerships. is is demonstrated in an overview commissioned by the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) in the USA, Value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and report (Oakleaf, 2010). Notable individual studies examine and provide evidence of the library’s value to the grants process (Tenopir, 2010) and to research and researchers in terms of their papers and grants awarded (RIN and RLUK, 2011) or research outputs (Noh, 2012).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 97

somErVIllE & KloDA | AcADEmIc lIBrArIEs

97

Evidence sources for practice Sources of evidence cited in academic library scholarship reveal considerable variation in what is deemed authoritative, especially given the diversity of circumstances within local contexts. Resources include traditional methods of scholarly communication such as journals and conferences (including published proceedings) as well as pertinent research reports in the field of library and information practice and, more broadly, in related disciplines such as the fields of education, management and communications. Academic librarians and other professionals working in academic libraries also use other sources of evidence for decision making, such as internal reports, annual reports, institutional statistics, assessment data, usability results and staff expertise, as well as anecdotal evidence gathered from users through internal feedback mechanisms and social media. Such varied, nuanced and multifaceted sources of evidence acknowledge the changing nature of learning, teaching and research in the contemporary university. In response to today’s rapidly changing circumstances, library practitioners and other researchers have produced abundant sources of evidence for evidence-based decision making in contemporary academic libraries (Turcios, Agarwal and Watkins, 2014), although the extent to which these are used is still not well understood. Research syntheses, such as systematic reviews, summarize the quantity and quality of published research on a variety of topics pertinent to librarianship (Koufogiannakis and Brettle, 2015). In characterizing the professional information landscape, the Library and Information Research Group (LIRG), a Special Interest Group of CILIP in the UK, conducted a scoping review to map the practitioner literature. Findings noted that a ‘significant portion’ of the papers analysed were case reports or qualitative in nature, with a noticeable number of studies employing bibliometrics (Woods and Booth, 2014). Across the Atlantic, a study of journal publications authored by faculty from Canadian LIS departments reported that a minority of the 142 research articles published between 2008 and 2012 were co-authored by practitioners (Koufogiannakis, Wilson and Kloda, 2015), which may influence the perceived relevance to library settings and therefore impede ‘transferring evidence into practice’ (Kloda, Koufogiannakis and Mallan, 2011, n.p.). A 2008 study found little use of assessment data by large research libraries, noting that many staff members preferred to ‘rely on their own assumptions and past practices to make decisions’ (Hiller, Kyrillidou and Self, 2008, 228). In contrast, another study found that the directors of three libraries used evidence as part of their decision making, particularly in relation to usage and service quality, and that this practice was also mirrored by staff members at other levels of the organization. In addition to maintaining local data, managers at the institutions studied also sought out supplementary information via surveys, interviews and informal conversations (Casey,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 98

98

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

2011). As the trend for assessment in libraries grows, it can be expected that use of local assessment data to complement published research will grow as well. A seminal article published in 2000, titled ‘Academic librarians as practitionerresearchers’ (Watson-Boone, 2000), introduced the notion of the practitionerresearcher and practice-based problem solving into library discourse (for more on this see Chapter 8). ree years later, a paper titled ‘Leadership competencies and the importance of research methods and statistical analysis in decision making and research and publication: A study of citation patterns’ (Williams and Winston, 2003) corroborated the use of statistical analysis and analytical abilities by academic librarians and administrators. As further explained in an article on integrating research into practice, ‘In a rapidly changing world where continuous learning and adapting is an inescapable fact of professional life, research is no longer an exclusive privilege held by the domain of the academy, but is a part of the working world’ (Luo, 2011). It follows that in the 21st century, research is viewed as essential to organizational effectiveness and work practice – i.e., ‘from practice to research to practice’ (IMLS, 2015, 9–10). is recognition has led to more practitioners consuming and producing research-generated evidence for decision making, action taking, professional development and current awareness, among other uses. ese varying applications, situated within local circumstances, require ‘information related skills’ (Marcum, 2015, 3) which are oen best exercised within multi-disciplinary teams. Academic librarians are therefore required to engage in conversations with colleagues inside and outside the library in order to encourage the use of published research, as well as other forms of evidence, into decision making for the institution. Examples of such cross-functional innovations include Warren’s (2015) paper on designing an evidence-based intranet, and Browning’s (2015) analysis of e-resource access problems. Since contemporary evidence-based learning initiatives typically require expertise from multiple disciplines, library professionals regularly engage – and publish – with other academic professionals. In this spirit, an especially promising school of thought at the Queensland University of Technology iSchool advances the study of ‘using information to learn’, known as Informed Learning (Bruce, 2008), across a broad range of disciplines and industries. Recent studies explore the information experience of web professionals (Sayyad Abdi, Partridge and Bruce, 2013) and university students (Maybee, 2014; Maybee et al., 2013). Often employing qualitative methods such as phenomenography and grounded theory (Hughes, 2014), a growing network of information experience researchers around the world draw insights from sources of evidence that serve to complement research publications, local assessment, evaluation projects, ‘best practices’ and professional anecdotes as evidence in applied settings. A ground-breaking study on academic librarians’ conceptions of evidence revealed

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 99

somErVIllE & KloDA | AcADEmIc lIBrArIEs

99

nine perceived types, organized into two broader categories: hard evidence and so evidence (Koufogiannakis, 2012a). Hard evidence is typically thought of as research evidence in the scientific sense, takes the form of a publication and is ‘oen vetted through an outside body’ (p. 10). Five types of hard evidence include: published literature, statistics, local research and evaluation, other documents (such as websites and blogs) and facts. So evidence is non-scientific in nature and ‘focus[es] on experience and accumulated knowledge, opinion, instinct, and what other libraries or librarians do’ (p. 11). e four types of so evidence identified were: input from colleagues, tacit knowledge, feedback from users and anecdotal evidence. Koufogiannakis’ categorization has been reworked and used as the basis for Chapter 4 of this book. e rich variation in possible data sources offers multiple viewpoints, in many cases formulated both with and for the user constituencies served, including ‘learning from others about research evidence’ (Brettle, 2012a, 1). For instance, as the purpose of library space in the university has shied away from being a place to store print collections and toward flexible environments for individual and collaborative learning, research has focused on uncovering ‘everything we can learn right now about the work practices of the people who already use them [i.e. library spaces]’(Foster, 2014a, 2). Illustrative of this trend are reports on participatory action research (Somerville and Brown-Sica, 2011), and other studies incorporating library users as partners in the research process (Ojennus and Watts, 2016; Tevaniemi, Poutanen and Lähdemäki, 2015; Yoo-Lee, Lee and Valez, 2013). ese examples illustrate the efficacy of engaging users in the design process as co-creators of their learning spaces.

Finding and using evidence Just as the times call for greater use of evidence, so too are librarians expressing more sophisticated means of conceptualizing and incorporating evidence into professional work. A doctoral study found that academic librarians demonstrated the need to evaluate all sources of available evidence before selecting the evidence on which to base their decisions (Koufogiannakis, 2013b). ey also employed multiple means to find evidence. Proactive methods for finding evidence include pulling (i.e., searching the literature), creating (e.g., conducting an evaluation study) and reflecting (e.g., drawing on prior experience and knowledge). Passive methods for finding evidence, according to the study, include pushing (e.g., social media feeds) and serendipitous discovery (i.e., accidentally coming across a relevant publication) (Koufogiannakis, 2013b). e same study also found that academic librarians primarily use evidence in order to convince themselves and others (Koufogiannakis, 2013a). In the first instance, librarians obtain evidence in order to confirm their current way of thinking, or a

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 100

100

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

decision. In the second instance, librarians obtain evidence in order to influence their colleagues and other stakeholders and in order to influence decision making at the organizational level. EBLIP in this context can therefore assist in reaching consensus among various interested parties, as decision making in academic libraries typically involves consultation with both professional and support staff. e ways in which academic librarians actually use evidence are mediated by determinants (Koufogiannakis, 2015) that behave either as enablers to EBP or as barriers. Factors include the dynamics of the organization, the amount of time available to the librarian, a librarian’s own personal outlook, as well as their education and training. In an academic setting, librarians can control some of the more intrinsic determinants, such as personal outlook and training. Other determinants, such as organizational dynamics, are less amenable to change in the short term in large institutions such as university libraries.

The climate for being evidence based ‘While finding and appraising the evidence base for information practice carry their own challenges, it is implementation that poses a greater challenge to the evidencebased practice movement’ (Booth, 2003, 13). In other words, simply having evidence is not enough. Librarians also need to consider strategies to diffuse research-generated ideas into organizations for adoption and adaption by individual practitioners (Dalrymple, 2010). Ultimately, in order to make sustainable changes, evidence-based practices must be integrated into day-to-day workflows (Booth, 2009c). Such a fundamental transformation in workplace culture requires that, over time and with practice, as co-workers design and enact information-focused and evidence-based learning experiences, they learn the way to decision making and action taking (Somerville, 2015a). Amid considerable variation within academic libraries, some ‘lessons learned’ have emerged about conditions that foster evidence-based practices. e ‘structure and function of an organization, including the behaviour of individuals and groups’ (Koufogiannakis, 2013b, 143) that determine the organizational dynamics consistently emerge as a factor in organizational barriers and facilitators (Booth, 2011) in EBP. EBLIP flourishes ‘when the culture of the organization is generally felt to be positive and one that is open-minded with respect to decision making’ (Koufogiannakis, 2013b, 143). Positive determinants of effective decision making and evidence use in turn depend on leadership to ensure that ‘the culture of the organization is one which allows open discussion, input, and values the use of evidence in decision-making,’ (Koufogiannakis, 2013b,146). Enabling the conditions for thought leadership and workplace learning also requires enabling internal communication and professional

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 101

somErVIllE & KloDA | AcADEmIc lIBrArIEs

101

practices that intentionally foster and support collegial enquiry. en, with intentionality, co-workers can co-create information experiences and organizational knowledge through EBP. Collective capacity is enlivened, as evidence-based activities inform decisions, produce improvements and sustain relationships (Mirijamdotter, 2010; Somerville, 2015b; Somerville and Chatzipanagiotou, 2015). Research in recent years has elevated recognition of the importance of organizationwide conditions for learning: Understanding that librarians use evidence to convince, allows an entire organization to look more completely at what the pertinent forms of evidence contribute to the decision, to weigh those pieces of evidence, and to make a decision that is more transparent. e use of evidence for convincing illustrates the complexity of decision making, particularly within academic libraries, and points to the fact that evidence sources do not stand alone, and are not enough in and of themselves. e EBLIP process must account for the human interactions and organisational complexity within which decisions are made. (Koufogiannakis, 2013a, 11)

Local evidence practices and processes vary considerably because ‘what makes sense in one setting can make a different sense in another’ (Davies, Nutley and Walter, 2008, 190). erefore, organizational decision making and action taking require leadership oversight of interactions between new knowledge and shiing contexts, supported by workplace practices that guide and move forward collective thinking. Over time and with practice, academic librarians and support staff learn, both formally and informally, to engage with evidence, incorporate it into their decision making and, ultimately, create evidence (Somerville, 2015b). ‘Knowledge and understanding are thereby learned through the active function of practice by an individual, within the larger body of practice’ (Koufogiannakis, 2013b, 166) which can exist within the workplace, where local context is very important, or at a broader level among colleagues at other institutions.

EBLIP in action As the following examples reveal, rich illustrations from the international academic library literature around the world support the customization of EBLIP principles and practices to local circumstances. Examples range in scope from project-based initiatives to holistic organizational transformation from Finland, Australia and the USA.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 102

102

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Case study 9.1 Library redesign At the tampere University of technology in finland, librarians employed an innovative approach to redesigning facility spaces in 2014, using a collaborative model of decision making and implementation (tevaniemi, poutanen and lähdemäki, 2015). the aim was to transition library space from an ‘information commons’ to a multi-functional ‘learning commons’. their collaborative design process was informed by research on academic library spaces and architectural design principles. In addition, they invited architecture students’ expertise, library staff expertise and library users’ preferences, with these intentions: the co-design approach enabled the library staff to collaborate in the university’s teaching process and with the patrons of the library. Although collaborative design can be interpreted in various ways, in this case it was seen as staff and patrons constructing knowledge together with the architects. the idea was that all parties are essential parts of the outcome, rather than commenters on ready-made designs. (p. 6)

project success was defined as enabling participants to co-create new spaces and evaluate their effectiveness for library users at the tampere University of technology. In addition, participants gained new knowledge (or evidence) about the use of the library’s spaces, and experience in redesigning library space on a reduced budget and tight schedule.

Case study 9.2 Change management and professional development since 2008 the royal melbourne Institute of technology (rmIt) University library has produced strategic and evidence-based cultural change that enables positive organizational responses to the demands of a changing environment (leong and Anderson, 2012). A holistic approach to professional development provides training throughout a library employee’s career, to produce a unified learning culture at all library sites. this intentional workplace learning encourages cross-unit collaboration and interdisciplinary work experiences, fosters leadership skills and group work and enables technology innovation and knowledge sharing (leong, 2014). learning aspirations in the rmIt library occur within the larger university ‘behavioural capacity framework’, which, since 2011, values resilience, connectedness, commitment to excellence (continuous improvement), innovation, focus on outcomes and open thinking. the alignment of training and education opportunities with the university’s goals and the library’s goals is ensured through routinely collected evidence, including participants’ reaction, learning and behaviour feedback. results are assessed through client surveys that recognize that ‘probably the most important strategy for inspiring and motivating an entire organization to move quickly and empathetically toward

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 103

somErVIllE & KloDA | AcADEmIc lIBrArIEs

103

becoming a learning organization is to link increased learning with increased organizational success’ (marquardt, 2011).

Case study 9.3 Informed systems approach for an evidence-based workplace Across the pacific ocean, in Denver, colorado, UsA, an informed systems approach offers an information-focused and systems-enabled approach for ‘working together’ (somerville, 2009) in contemporary organizations. With a focus on evidence-based activities to make decisions and take actions, an Informed systems leadership model and collaborative Evidence-Based Information process model guide co-workers as they learn to make informed decisions by identifying the decisions to be made and the information required for those decisions. this is accomplished through collaborative design and iterative evaluation (somerville, rogers, mirijamdotter and partridge, 2007) of workplace systems, relationships and practices, in development for over a decade (somerville et al., 2015b). over time, increasingly effective and efficient structures and processes for using information lead to further organizational renewal and advance nimble responsiveness (somerville and chatzipanagiotou, 2015). practical outcomes include customization of discovery layers (somerville, 2013), reorganization of technical services (pan and Howard, 2009), holistic facility co-design (somerville and Brown-sica, 2011) and revitalization of the organizational culture (pan and Howard, 2010). Informed systems thereby enable and enliven workplace possibilities. Inclusive participatory design principles create organizational communication, decision-making and planning systems with associated professional practices that further information exchange to inform ‘action to improve’ (somerville and Howard, 2010). High-level theory guides processes for intuiting, interpreting, integrating and institutionalizing knowledge in individuals and among groups. An intentional culture of collaborative, evidence-based information practice is grounded in workplace processes for the collaborative design of organizational elements that ensure sustainable communication and, hence, collective learning through information exchange, reflective dialogue and knowledge creation for ‘learning in action’ (somerville, 2015b).

Conclusion: being evidence based in academic librarianship So what does being evidence based mean for today’s academic librarians working in higher education institutions across the world that are dealing with huge changes in the way information is delivered and used? To remain relevant, libraries must provide services that are responsive to various users with differing information-seeking needs and behaviours. As illustrated by the vast literature surveyed above, an abundance of resources exist from which to draw in reframing problem domains for ‘learning in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 104

104

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

action’ (Somerville, 2015b) and, in the spirit of continuous improvement, ‘assessment in action’ (American Library Association, 2012). is necessarily requires heightened levels of engagement and learning with and for the users served. EBLIP ranges from researcher-practitioners conducting studies to better understand their situation to organizational leaders creating conditions for workplace learning and, therein, building capacity. roughout this continuum, research-to-practice strategies (Wilson, 2010) are required for enabling librarians and support staff who are committed to using evidence for informed decision making. Organizations that adopt evidence-based processes can create transformative results. ‘Using information to learn’ (Bruce, 2008) can ‘situate research, knowledge, production, and information sharing as ways to engage not simply with isolated bits of information or abstracted ideas, but also with relationships between sources, ideas, and the individuals who create, exchange, and interact with those ideas’ (Baer, 2015, n.p.). Academic libraries, located within the academy, are positioned for both the use and production of evidence, and librarians have capitalized on this opportunity, which aligns well with higher education’s mission of knowledge creation.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 105

10 Public libraries Pam Ryan and Becky Cole

e 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 shi 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

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 106

106

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

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). e 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). On an international level, public librarians are spearheading an unprecedented diversification of the sector as libraries become centres for those seeking a vast and multitudinous range of services: from welfare support and employability skills, to digital training, film and code clubs, makerspaces, business and intellectual property centres and exhibition and installation venues. For many practitioners and commentators (Brophy, 2003; Doherty, 2014; Macdonald, 2012), the sector is at a ‘turning point’ which offers both challenge and opportunity: Libraries have become important community hubs, cultural centers, community destinations, resources for self-directed lifelong learning, and creative incubators. Beyond collections, they provide media, exhibition space, theatres, cafes, spaces for collaborative activities, makerspaces, a place for public events, spaces for teaching and tutoring, and genealogy and local history research areas. (Demers et al., 2014, 117–118)

EBLIP in the field In this shiing environment where practitioners are constantly challenged to ‘demonstrate their value and relevance’ (Irwin and St-Pierre, 2014, 1), knowledge of the sectoral evidence base and the need for public librarians to embed ‘evidence based approaches into…[their] working lives’ is ever more crucial (Brettle, 2012b, 2). Such evidence, in its various forms, enables library professionals to demonstrate their own impact and that of the services they deliver. Rich, qualitative data enriches bids for external funding, which in turn secure the capital needed to sustain and develop innovative services. Demonstrating the types of support being sought in public libraries builds a picture of their evolving social functions and proves their economic value as services experiencing increasing demand. Evidence of use informs decision

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 107

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

107

making and assists the judicious allocation of scant resources in alignment with customer need. It helps to prove an organization’s worth to local and national stakeholders and supports external accreditations which elevate the profile and reputation of the service. Yet, if we seek to measure public librarian participation in EBP against early definitions of EBP and evidence-based librarianship (EBL) as a practice which involves ‘critically appraising and incorporating research evidence from library science (and other disciplines) into daily practice...and encouraging librarians to conduct high quality qualitative and quantitative research’ (Crumley and Koufogiannakis, 2002, 62), then active engagement appears relatively low. is is evident in low rates of research and publication by public librarians, as well as the small overall percentage of LIS research articles about public library practice. e results of a content-analysis study undertaken in 2005 (Penta and McKenzie, 2005) showed that over a four-year period just 3% of article authors in North American LIS journals were employed in public libraries. Even in Public Library Quarterly, only 14% of the authors were public librarians (Penta and McKenzie, 2005). A more recent commentary on EBLIP in Australia (Rundle, 2013) highlights both the international dearth of dedicated public library journals and the under-representation of the public sector at national library conferences. In March 2015, a review of the evidence base for the social impacts of sport and culture in the UK noted that museums, libraries and archives ‘are lagging considerably behind other sectors in both the quantity and quality of evidence on their social impacts’, being ‘particularly deficient in hard evidence’ (Taylor et al., 2015, 9), and this despite the efforts of Arts Council England to remedy this imbalance (Arts Council England, 2014; Fujiwara, Lawton and Mourato, 2015). In 2012, a special issue of Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) (Ryan, 2012) sought to redress the situation by featuring research articles from LIS faculty and public library practitioners, as well as evidence summaries that focused on public library issues. Yet despite their welcome inclusion in EBLIP, submissions to the journal by public librarians remain notably low. Gillespie (2014) acknowledges this shortfall in relation to both the school and public library sectors when discussing her empirically derived EBP model based on the experiences of Australian teacherlibrarians: ‘Research is the foundation of evidence-based practice...yet very little exists that can support teacher-librarians in being evidence-based practitioners’ (p. 3).is lack of published data makes it difficult to gauge the extent to which public library practitioners are engaging in evidence-based approaches to their work, or how public library administrators are applying evidence to the assessment and evaluation of their libraries. Work by Stenstrom on the decision-making models of public library chief executive officers (CEOs) (2015) provides a first study that reveals the variety of

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 108

108

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

decision-making frameworks in use, yet there is still much to do in terms of building a picture of the actualities of daily practice. In preparation for this chapter, practitioners’ opinions on the use and understanding of EBP within the public library sector were sought from over 1,000 subscribers to the LIS-PUB-LIBS JiscMail List (UK) (Cole, 2015), from the readers of Public Libraries News (UK) and from members of CILIP’s Public and Mobile Libraries Group. One respondent, Ian Anstice, author and editor of Public Libraries News, suggested that a traditional absence of ‘rigour’ and external scrutiny of the public library sector might be potential reasons for the lack of EBP (I. Anstice, personal communication, 13 July 2015), while others working in the field cited operational responsibilities and the pressures of general management, outreach and public relations as decisive factors. Some followed Irwin and St-Pierre (2014, 6–8) in pointing to the wider ‘organizational culture’: the local or state government’s attitude (or lack of it) towards EBP; while others highlighted a growing tendency to prioritize customer service, management and IT skills over a qualification in librarianship when appointing to public library positions. Responding to a 2013 blog post (Rundle), one practitioner raised the issue of communication controls exerted on public servants by their employing organizations as a strong disincentive to participation in published research (Fiona, 2013). e Carnegie Trust’s Evidence Exchange Project (2014–15) identifies a lack of access to research by those working in non-academic sectors as a defining factor: ‘ere is a significant gap between the trustworthiness of academic research (which is very high) and its accessibility, with many who responded unable to access academic evidence’ (Carnegie UK Trust, 2015). e authors’ preparatory research also revealed varying degrees of knowledge and understanding within the sector as to what is meant by EBP: from a practice based purely on peer-reviewed research, to learning via informal channels and (particularly from the perspective of the large charitable/research bodies that are active in publishing such evidence) to the undertaking and compilation of data and research reports without particular attention to how these translate into practice. ere was, however, a strong consensus that something approximating to EBP does take place within the sector, but oen in a low-level, semi-informal capacity where evidence is shared via JiscMail discussion lists and personal e-mails, at regional steering groups, conferences and AGMs, or on more open platforms such as Public Libraries News. Respondents also voiced a belief that this form of EBP was unlikely to be recognized or taken seriously by ‘academics’: offering a telling insight into attitudes towards EBP within the public sector. Such opinions suggest that although EBP is used by public library practitioners, it is not always acknowledged, or indeed known to be such, and that inter-sectoral prejudices need to be overcome if the evidence base is to prosper. One area in which public librarians might be encouraged to conduct further research is in understanding how public library organizational structures either

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 109

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

109

encourage or discourage practitioners to engage in research or organizational assessment activities. Edmonton Public Library (EPL) has a Manager, Assessment and Research position reporting to the Executive Director, Strategy & Innovation with a staff of 1.5 FTE dedicated to internal assessment and service evaluation activities. EPL also supports two professional librarian internships each year with the mandate to conduct original research to inform service directions in previously unexamined areas. Such research reports and the outcomes of these internships are outlined in a call to action for public libraries and librarians to engage in research activities (Ryan, 2015). However, as there exists only an anecdotal understanding of how other international public libraries organize their internal assessment and evaluation positions to inform service, it is currently unknown how unique this structure is within the field.

Wider research e vast majority of published research relating to the public library sector in the last few years has been commissioned or produced by large public bodies, library associations or external interest groups, rather than by individual library practitioners. In the UK, this research has focused on pertinent contemporary issues such as the role of volunteers, income generation, health and well-being, and digital skills. Key exponents are e Reading Agency, Arts Council England, the Society of Chief Librarians (SCL), the Carnegie Trust and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), which conducts an annual Public Library Users Survey (PLUS). Recent publications include Digital Leadership Skills (Society of Chief Librarians, 2014): a study designed to support the advocacy of public libraries as hubs for digital knowledge and opportunities, and Speaking Volumes (Carnegie UK Trust, 2014), which seeks to demonstrate the ways in which public libraries affect well-being and which ‘is based on hundreds of examples of practice throughout the UK and Ireland, as well as published evidence of impact’. e Canadian Library Association’s (CLA) 2012 report, National Statistical and Values Profile of Canadian Libraries, has the goal of producing ‘a Canadian snapshot of library data and library meaning for use in CLA’s national advocacy role’ (Schrader and Brundin, 2012, 1). Yet the report itself relies solely on secondary sources of data already collected by other agencies and notes with concern that ‘no national statistical profile of library investments and activities has been assembled since the National Core Library Statistics Program (NCLSP) was abandoned in the early 2000’s’ (Schrader and Brundin, 2012, 3). Also of note in the Canadian context is the 2014 Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel’s report on Canada’s libraries. Its recommendations for the country’s public libraries called for increased sharing of research and statistics to support EBP and included recommendations that:

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 110

110

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

32. public libraries make their work visible by posting evidence-based studies and economic impact studies on library websites for the benefit of the entire library community. 33. public libraries continue to share statistical data freely with CULC [Canadian Urban Libraries Council] and other similar organizations. 34. library associations and organizations undertake and publish research into common issues facing the public library community. (Demers et al., 2014, 120)

e latest international evidence gathering has tended to focus on horizon scanning and future trends, with examples including the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)’s 1001 Libraries to See Before You Die, an online initiative which aims to bring together best practice examples of public library buildings and spaces from around the world (IFLA, 2014); e Future of Dutch Public Libraries, a 10-year study revisited in 2008 and based on trends data (Huysmans and Hillebrink, 2009); e State of America’s Libraries, a review of public libraries across America in light of increased demand for digital material, reduced budgets and debates about book censorship (American Library Association, 2015); and the IFLA Trend Report (IFLA, 2015a).

Demonstrating value Demonstrating value has been a key theme for international research efforts. As Rooney-Browne notes, there is no general consensus on the ideal model for measuring public library value (Rooney-Browne, 2011) and, as such, research in this area covers a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches with no standardized measures and uses various economic and social value lenses to define value. Huysmans and Oomes’ work (2012) highlights a few major studies that exemplify the growing body of research seeking to measure the value of public libraries. Examples include the U.S. Impact Study (USA) (Becker et al., 2010); Enriching Communities: the value of libraries in New South Wales (Australia)(Library Council of New South Wales, 2008); Libraries and Return on Investment (ROI) (Norway) (Aabø, 2009); and Outcomes in Everyday Life (Finland) (Vakkari and Serola, 2010). In the UK this trend is reflected in Income Generation for Public Libraries: a practical guide for library service commissioners and providers in England (Locality, 2014) and A Review of the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport (Taylor et al., 2015).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 111

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

111

Types of evidence e examples cited above – which fall primarily into the ‘open access’ category of evidence outlined on the EBLIP8 Conference website (EBLIP8, 2015) – are arguably those which public librarians are most commonly encouraged by managers and advocacy groups to consult. e types of evidence they use in their daily practice, however, are multifaceted and dependent on local factors– the organizational and financial strictures which uniquely affect the sector and the wider societal and informational zeitgeist. Traditional metrics such as visits, circulation figures (issues, renewals, reservations, inter-library loan requests); collections data (hits on in-house and remote access services such as online journals and databases and e-book usage); user and non-user demographics; reading group memberships; audiences for adult learning classes, author events and children’s activities; and registrations for national and local literacy initiatives, are all still in active use. Statistics on library usage, expenditures and operational data are collated and made available by national library associations to provide public libraries with useful comparative benchmarks. Examples include the CULC’s Key Performance Indicators (Canadian Urban Libraries Council, 2013); the CIPFA’s annual publication of Public Library Statistics in the UK, and the Metropolitan Libraries division of the IFLA’s programme to include statistical data from its membership of large urban libraries. Yet traditional metrics are now increasingly supplemented by ‘rich’, qualitative forms of evidence which capture thoughts, feelings towards and perceptions of the service and the way it impacts on the well-being and aspirations of its users. is type of data can be captured using formal mechanisms such as surveys and focus groups; in photographic or digital records; using discretionary methods such as comment cards, feedback boards and social media; or using unsolicited sources such as observed behaviour. In the public sector, such data gathering is commonly driven by three key factors. Firstly, the need to demonstrate value and worth for, as in the school library sector, ‘a focus on evidence of outcomes and impacts of services in relation to the goals of the...environment’ (Todd, 2009, 88) and ‘[t]he move to use evidence for accountability and performance’ (Gillespie, 2014, 6) continue to steer the concept of EBP. Secondly, the challenging informational and technological environment means that public libraries rely on such data sources to discover, understand and adapt to the changing needs of their patrons. irdly, in a competitive and straitened environment, public librarians and public library managers must consistently produce evidence that they are offering value for money, and use data to determine where and how to allocate limited funds. e impact of this final factor on strategic decision making may also affect practitioners’ ability to engage in original research. Andrew McDonald, a project manager at De Montfort University who at the time of writing was leading a strategic review of library services, believes that ‘the funding issue’ is paramount, and that in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 112

112

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

his experience pragmatism (adopting an approach that ‘is known to work’ or one that ‘is possible on a tight budget’) is oen a key concern (A. McDonald, personal communication, 14 July 2015). One development which may help to overcome the constraints of resource and time management that can prohibit engagement with EBP has been the development of national frameworks, complete with standardized tools, training and performance measures, which public libraries can use to evaluate and benchmark their services, with the collective results being used to determine overall national progress. Four projects of note in this area are reviewed below.

Project Outcome: measuring the true impact of public libraries (United States) e Public Libraries Association, a division of the American Library Association, launched Project Outcome in June 2015. A key goal of the project is to provide standardized evaluation measures which public libraries can use to enhance their service data with outcome data in seven core service areas: civic/community engagement, digital inclusion, early childhood literacy, economic development, education and lifelong learning, job skills and summer reading. Library patrons are provided with standardized, six-question surveys following participation in relevant library programmes. is is a three-year project to help develop and implement new, standardized public library outcome measures and to help libraries to apply their findings (Public Library Association, 2015).

The Edge Initiative (USA) e Edge Initiative is a suite of standards and benchmarks developed to evaluate public library computing and technology services. e three key benefits of participation for public libraries are: to assess public computers and their use; to identify ways to strengthen public technology; and to communicate the value of the library’s computers to stakeholders and funders. It was developed by a coalition of 12 US library and government associations, including the Urban Libraries Council, the American Library Association and the Public Library Association and is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Since its 2014 launch, 20% of US public libraries have completed the Assessment portion of the Edge Toolkit (Edge, 2015).

The Impact Survey (USA and Canada) e Impact Survey is a standardized survey tool that is the result of a successful research project from the University of Washington Information School and is

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 113

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

113

supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. US and Canadian public libraries can currently pay to use the online survey, available in English and Spanish, which contains detailed questions about the benefits and outcomes of using technology services. e questions address the use of library-provided technology in the following areas: employment; education; e-business; e-commerce; e-government; civic engagement; health and wellness; and social inclusion. Library patrons complete the 15-minute survey and participating libraries are able to download the survey report results (Impact Survey, n.d.).

How good is our public library service? A public library improvement model for Scotland is ambitious project from Scotland is a revision of the Scottish Library and Information Council’s 2007 Public Library Quality Improvement Matrix (PLQIM), itself the inspiration and catalyst for an Australian self-evaluation framework and toolkit entitled Being the Best We Can (State Library of Victoria and Public Libraries Victoria Network, n.d.). e standardized tools in this new framework are designed to help public libraries in Scotland to demonstrate their service quality and define their community impact. e framework includes five key quality indicators: access to information; readers’ experience; learning culture; individual and community engagement; and vision, strategy and continuous improvement. e toolkit provides public libraries with a self-assessment toolkit to measure their standing and progress (Scottish Library and Information Council, 2014).

EBLIP in action e following three case studies have been chosen to exemplify EBLIP in action in the public library sector: one from Canada, one from Australia and one from the UK.

Case study 10.1 So much more: the economic impact of the Toronto Public Library on the City of Toronto In 2013, the martin prosperity Institute, part of the rotman school of management at the University of toronto, published the results of its economic impact study of the toronto public library (tpl), the largest public library system in canada, with over 100 branches. tpl commissioned the report, the first of its kind in canada, to measure the library’s economic impact on the city of toronto. the valuation methodologies used sought to measure the economic value, and roI on public money invested in library operations, of the direct tangible benefits, such as use of the library’s collections and

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 114

114

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

services, as well as the indirect tangible benefits such as the impact of library, capital and staff salary spending in the local toronto economy. the big-number results of the study are that tpl creates over canadian $1 billion in total economic impact; for every dollar invested in tpl, torontonians receive $5.63; and the total direct benefit is as much as $500 per tpl member. the results of toronto public library’s economic impact study clearly demonstrate that toronto public library delivers a strong return on Investment, through the delivery of library services that enhance toronto’s competitiveness and prosperity and contribute to a better quality of life for all. this study is the first canadian public library study to measure in concrete economic terms the return on Investment for library service. (martin prosperity Institute, 2013, 1)

this study is important for its ground-breaking work to measure the economic return of dollars invested in the public library: an increasingly important measure in today’s international climate of austerity, where publically funded bodies are required to both minimize the cost and optimize the outputs of the resources they use. yet while economic impact studies help to demonstrate the value of libraries, they are but one measure of their worth.

Case study 10.2 The Library Dividend Summary Report: a guide to the socio-economic value of Queensland’s public libraries Where the tpl study focused solely on economic measures, the library Dividend study widened its focus to encompass the social value of the public library and the value of the library as perceived by the community. the library Board of Queensland commissioned an independent Australian firm, sgs Economics & planning, to produce the report, it having carried out similar earlier reports for the state library of Victoria and public libraries Victoria network (library Board of Queensland, 2012). the research on economic value showed a library dividend of 2.3 dollars for every dollar invested by state and local government, meaning that the government investment of Australian $207 million in Queensland public libraries in 2010–11 resulted in nearly half a billion dollars’ worth of value. the community focused questions revealed strong perceptions from both library users and non-users of the value of public libraries in providing equitable access to resources and technology, and in supporting literacy and lifelong learning. this research resulted in the following invaluable evidence-based summary statements, useful for supporting advocacy efforts: public libraries return between $230 and $410 for every $100 invested; they are highly valued by library users; they are also valued by nonlibrary users; close to half of all Queenslanders are library members; and public libraries

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 115

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

115

are a vital community asset and provide an exceptional return on investment for state and local government.

Case study 10.3 The MLA’s Inspiring Learning Framework (GLOs and GSOs) In 2008, the UK’s museums, libraries and Archives council (mlA) launched the national Inspiring learning for All (IlfA) framework. this collection of tools and templates was designed as ‘An improvement framework for the arts and culture’ which ‘promotes best practice, and helps organizations to assess and evidence the impact of their activities’, thus enabling the sector to define its social value in direct relation to local and national political strategy (Arts council England, n.d.). A key element of the framework is ‘measuring outcomes’, which comprises five generic learning outcomes (glos), three generic social outcomes (gsos) and ‘collecting Evidence’. Although widely recognized as a useful advocacy tool which enables policy makers and practitioners to use a shared language (rankin, 2012), this framework remains, arguably, under-used. two examples of its practical implementation are outlined below. In 2008, researchers at leeds Beckett University (then leeds metropolitan University) utilized the gsos to develop a theoretical framework for assessing the impact of activities connected with the national year of reading (nyr) in yorkshire (UK).this longitudinal study of two contrasting local authorities (one rural, one urban) employed data-analysis software to code the data and extract evidence of both ‘tier 1’ and ‘tier 2’ social outcomes. By focusing on social value rather than statistics or the activities themselves, the study was able to ‘show considerable evidence of nyr related activities in supporting the three first-tier social outcomes: “stronger and safer communities”, “Health and Well-Being” and “strengthening public life”’ and related second-tier themes. Quotes from the ‘practitioner voice’ were used to present the evidence and ‘demonstrate how public libraries contribute to diverse agendas and show their value to the community’ (rankin, 2012, 7–15). In 2010, Becky cole applied the IlfA framework in the creation of an Evaluation toolkit to enable newcastle libraries (UK) to capture and utilize qualitative evidence of impact (cole, 2014a, 2014b). the gsos and glos provided guidance on how to identify social return on investment, or the educational, social and economic benefits of services for library users, and to generate data that aligned with the parent organization’s ‘Vision, Values and priorities’. the resulting tools linked to local and national agendas; collected data for future planning and assessed the effectiveness of marketing techniques. staff training focused on the rationale behind the data capture and its use in daily practice (as evidence for funding bids, development etc.). the toolkit became a key element in newcastle libraries’ service Improvement plan, as it enabled the service to capture, evidence and respond to customer need.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 116

116

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Future directions and needs In 2007, the report Worth eir Weight: an assessment of the evolving field of library valuation (USA) recommended that to strengthen library advocacy efforts and help ‘make the case’ for public libraries in evidence-based, quantitative terms, the sector must: Develop a comprehensive research agenda that promotes systematic valuation of libraries’ contribution to education, civic participation, and improved quality of life. e library research community should accelerate efforts to develop the conceptual models, research methods, and analytical tools required to make a unified and full case for public libraries. (Americans for Libraries Council, 2007, 9)

Seven years later, former head of Birmingham Libraries (UK) John Dolan called for public libraries to actively market their services via a centralized initiative ‘that gathers and collates research for easy access, re-use and application by communities, librarians, staff, leaders and the media…to inform service development and innovation and, importantly, to create a culture of progress and improvement within the sector’ (Dolan, 2014). In July 2015, the chief executive of CILIP, Nick Poole, echoed this sentiment, calling for ‘clearer, more robust evidence around UK public libraries’ and ‘a consistent approach to defining and measuring not only the number of libraries, but the impact of the services they provide’ (CILIP, 2015). Yet, despite such recurrent, prominent and public calls to arms, the international public library sector appears unwilling, or perhaps unable, to embrace the EBP championed by its advocates. While this situation might be regarded as unfortunate for those who wish to study, work or pursue a particular interest in the sector, of greater concern is the suggestion by Poole that this persistent ‘lack of reliable and meaningful data is having a negative impact on informed decision making’, and thus actively damaging the status and longterm prospects of the sector as a whole: ‘e picture of the public library service nationally is limited and open to misinterpretation…with the evolution of services and greater complexity in delivery and staffing, it is more important than ever that the facts are understood and that we have a relevant, accurate and robust evidence base to inform key decisions’ (CILIP, 2015). Given the current economic and societal pressures being faced by public libraries, it is an increasing concern that public librarians are not more actively involved in becoming the architects of the evidence base in their own field of work. So, from where and from whom will this evidence base come? Not (at least predominantly) from peer-reviewed articles, for public librarians’ contributions to such are currently not significant enough ‘to justify our own journals’ (Rundle, 2013). Some of the reasons for this are discussed above, and it is a topic which elicits strong

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 117

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

117

opinion. In 2008, the editor of the Journal of Web Librarianship asked his readers ‘how to increase the amount of published research related to public library settings’, and cited Margaret Hazel, Principal Librarian for Technology at Eugene Public Library, who suggested that ‘the formality of many library journals limits interest’ and that ‘public librarians don’t have time for formal studies and data gathering, much as they need it’ (Fagan, 2008, 1). John Vincent, a long-standing library practitioner and coordinator of UK information and best-practice sharing body e Network, extends this point, arguing that peer-review and EBP are different beasts, and that the laborious nature of the former places it at odds with the modern, agile project management methods now regularly employed within the sector: ‘e danger with the “academic”, peer-reviewed approach is…that there are overlays of “research methods” which may simply not suit the reporting and sharing of good practice in public libraries’ (J. Vincent, personal communication, 27 July 2015). e presence of fewer degreequalified and research-active librarians; the growing responsibilities of general management; practitioners’ disengagement from professional groups (leading to reductions in memberships, conference attendance and journal readership); and the continual pressures of fewer staff and ever-tightening budgets are other potential reasons why traditional academic/health sector approaches to EBLIP have never taken hold in the public sector. For both Vincent and Gillespie, the key question is ‘What is EBP for?’, as ‘knowing or defining the purpose of evidence gathering places EBP at the centre of evidence gathering activities’ (Gillespie, personal communication, 14 October 2015). If the answer is the sharing and spreading of good practice, then this can be achieved simply and informally, and is already taking place. e challenge, perhaps, is to recognize it as such: to engage public librarians with EBP and to develop an accepted definition and understanding which acknowledges that open access data and ‘so’ sources are legitimate forms of evidence, while instilling an awareness of the standardized tools and techniques that can be used to address existing deficiencies in the evidence base (Taylor et al., 2015). For Gillespie, this also means overturning traditional hierarchies and ensuring that ‘professional knowledge’ is valued as evidence: ‘to term data as being hard or so I feel serves to devalue the experiential, and incidental or unexpected data that is part of day to day practice...there is a difficulty to overcoming this hurdle and accepting many types of evidence’ (Gillespie, personal communication, 14 October 2015). Furthermore, if an evidence-based approach is to become a standard and integrated practice within worldwide public libraries, the sector will require wider organizational buy-in, at a practical as well as at a purely representational level: In order for new and effective evidence-based models of outcome evaluation and decision making to take firm root within public libraries, existing organizational cultures need to

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 118

118

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

be acknowledged, understood, and addressed simultaneously with the introduction of new evaluation systems. (Irwin and St-Pierre, 2014, 8)

Positive developments ere are, however, some encouraging indications that practical efforts are being made to increase the assessment and evaluation skills of public library practitioners. A three-day Research Institute for Public Libraries was held in July 2015, sponsored by the Colorado State Library and the Colorado Library Consortium. Another is planned for September 2016 in Denver. e vision of the Institute is to: ‘create a culture shi in public libraries to be purposeful in gathering, analyzing, and using data for decision making, strategic planning, and to prove library impact. is institute will educate change agents who return to their libraries with the tools, competencies, and commitment to lead evidence-based practice’ (Research Institute for Public Libraries, 2015). Another positive strand of work is the Carnegie UK Trust’s Evidence Exchange Project (Carnegie UK Trust, 2015) and the resulting What Works Network for sharing best practice among decision makers in public services (Cabinet Office, 2014). is concept of creating national repositories, central and searchable databases of evidence, has the potential to vastly enhance communication, reduce duplication and better deploy resources throughout the sector. In Scotland, the external funding officer at the City of Edinburgh Council is seeking to establish Edinburgh public library as a research hub in which to develop, nurture and study evidence-based practices and projects.

Conclusion In general, the current state of EBP and research on, and to inform, public library practice lags significantly behind that of other library sectors and, indeed, other cultural sectors (Taylor et al., 2015). ere is some encouraging leadership from national associations in defining frameworks and developing standardized tools for public libraries to use to evaluate services and define value. However, work remains to generate awareness and action from public library administrators and from public librarians to share local evaluation and research findings to build the evidence base for public library practice. In these times of rapid change and competition for public funds and the need for evidence to support our work, a greater understanding of the need for a shared contribution to building the evidence base is required. If EBLIP is to become an established practice in the public library sector, then its purpose within

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 119

ryAn & colE | pUBlIc lIBrArIEs

119

the field must also be recognized. For, ‘when the purpose is defined, EBP becomes an embedded practice and with heightened awareness on the part of the library practitioner, EBP becomes part of their being, or everyday work practices. It becomes something that they do. Gathering, collating or documenting and sharing evidence becomes second nature’ (Gillespie, personal communication, 14 October 2015). is must be our goal.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 120

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 121

11 Health libraries Jonathan D. Eldredge, Joanne Gard Marshall, Alison Brettle, Heather N. Holmes, Lotta Haglund and Rick Wallace

Introduction e 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. is 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 oen 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

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 122

122

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

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. e 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. e 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. Health librarians, whether located in hospitals or in academic institutions, play an important collaborative role in health professional education at the undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as providing continuing education for both health librarians and healthcare providers. Some oen provide enhanced support for health professionals and researchers, including expert search services. e changes in the context of librarians’ work are also being prompted by the availability of computers in clinical settings and the rapid adoption of the electronic patient record. Convenient access to technology and the continuing emphasis on evidence-based practice has provided librarians with the opportunity to provide evidence-based information resources at the point of care (Eldredge et al., 2016; Connor, 2007; Alper et al., 2005; Oak and Gegg, 2008). New systems are being created to allow health professionals to access evidence-based resources both inside and outside their institutional settings. Librarians are also playing an important role in linking evidence-based resources to the electronic patient record, with the support of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.1 Health librarians have taken advantage of the changing context of healthcare provision by forging new roles in varied settings (Brettle and Urquhart, 2012). ese include new roles in healthcare quality improvement; as ‘embedded librarians’ or information specialists in particular areas of clinical practice or healthcare research; in collaborations with health professionals and researchers in fields that use information technology to transform healthcare; and in research such as medical informatics, nursing informatics, public health informatics and genomics. Librarians working as subject and technology specialists in particular areas are oen called ‘informationists’ or ‘informaticians’. One of the common characteristics of these new roles and settings for librarians is that they all require the librarian to make their own practice decisions, either individually or in groups in an evidence-based manner.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 123

ElDrEDgE Et Al. | HEAltH lIBrArIEs

123

Health librarians and EBLIP Health librarians are influenced heavily by their context and they have integrated many of the norms, values and standards held by their health professional colleagues, such as EBP, into their practice. Health librarians hold the distinct position among librarians that they not only engage in their own variation of EBP but also provide the evidence sources and the services to make EBP possible for the health professions. As noted in Chapter 1, EBLIP began in health libraries, and a brief, four-page article was published in 1997 in the journal Hypothesis (Eldredge, 1997). Much of the early debate regarding EBLIP and what it was (or wasn’t) was driven forward by health librarians such as Eldredge, who proposed a framework (2000), and Booth, who proposed a definition (2000). As noted in Chapter 5, the framework was heavily modelled on EBM, which is not surprising, given the health-sciences experience of the author of the 1997 article. A later adaptation of the framework sought to help librarians to select the best type of evidence to use, depending on the questions asked (Eldredge, 2002a), and described three research methods employed by health librarians that overlap with most of the other health professions’ higher forms of evidence: cohort studies, RCTs and systematic reviews. As well as pioneering the notion of EBLIP, health librarians have been key in moving debates about EBLIP forward (although not just in the health field). In the Health Information and Libraries Journal, Booth (2009b) proposed an adaptation of the EBLIP model to one that incorporates wider types of evidence for decision making, and also noted that librarians oen make decisions in groups, a model that was taken forward by Koufogiannakis (2013a) and subsequently has been used throughout this book. In her Janet Doe Lecture presented at the 2013 MLA meeting, Joanne Gard Marshall used this model to note the differences between the practice of medicine and librarianship and how EBP is evolving (Marshall, 2014). e research knowledge base in librarianship is smaller with fewer replicated studies than in medicine, making it difficult to apply the same levels of evidence criteria. e nature of the research questions differs as well (Eldredge, 2002a; Eldredge, 2008a). Whereas individual clinicians are using evidence to care for a specific patient, librarians are oen dealing with the broader challenges of providing information and library services. Eldredge continued to contribute to the conversation about EBLIP by exploring the deeper potential purposes of EBLIP beyond the obvious one of decision making (Eldredge, 2013a). He also explored how EBLIP can play a key role in renewing librarians’ professional identity (Eldredge, 2014). Brettle examined the roles that health librarians play both within EBP, supporting health professionals, and as evidence-based library and information practitioners (Brettle, 2009a; 2012c; 2013). She expressed disappointment that, despite over 10 years of the evidence-based movement, the majority of health librarians were still focused on supporting EBP within healthcare

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 124

124

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

(through searching and training), rather than on developing their own evidence base for practice or expanding their role into the health domain by using their professional skills among teams of healthcare professionals (Brettle, 2013). An explanation for this was put forward by Spring (2013), who found that when health librarians were asked about their barriers to doing research they reported that they did not know what research questions to ask. Alternatively, if they had research questions, they did not think to engage with the literature or believed that there was no evidence to answer them (Spring, 2013). e examination of the evidence base in the next section, however, suggests that this may be changing. e EBLIP movement has been supported and is being driven forward by key English-language journals aimed at health librarians. Most appear to have increased their methodological rigour and are emphasizing applied research to support practitioners. For example, the new editor of the Journal of the Medical Library Association recently changed the categories of published articles to enable readers to more quickly assess the kinds of evidence that they need (Cooper, 2015). Previously, she had introduced an explicit peer-review process for both research methods articles and brief research reports for Hypothesis (Cooper, 2014). Health Information and Libraries Journal also has a long history of publishing research articles and has regular columns for systematic reviews and promoting EBLIP. A 2013 editorial celebrated EBLIP by linking it to practice (Wilson and Grant, 2013). e Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/Journal de l’Association des Bibliothèques de la Santé du Canada (JCHLA/JABSC) has also begun to categorize its content into ‘Research Articles’, ‘Program Descriptions’ or ‘Review Articles’, which helps practitioners to quickly assess the kinds of evidence provided by each genre of article. Finally, editions of the Journal of the European Association of Health Information and Libraries have begun to emphasize and promote applied research (Napolitani, 2015). For many years the more specialized journal Medical Reference Services Quarterly has emphasized applied research that practitioners can use in their everyday work. is recent trend of greater amounts of applied rigorous research reports certainly sets the stage for health library literature, providing greater support for EBLIP as well as suggesting that health librarians are becoming more active in the creation of evidence, rather than playing a supportive role (Brettle, 2009a; 2012a). In the USA, the MLA has long been a supporter of research and EBP by promoting professional competencies (Medical Library Association, 2005a, 2005b), research policies (Grefsheim et al., 2008), research agendas (Eldredge, Harris and Ascher, 2009; Eldredge et al., 2012) and research training. Its research papers and posters are posted online, since many of these projects remain in the realm of grey literature, due to a lack of incentives to publish (Alberani and Pietrangeli, 1995; Chesniak, 2015; Harvey and Wandersee, 2010). In the UK, the Health Libraries Group and CILIP have widely

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 125

ElDrEDgE Et Al. | HEAltH lIBrArIEs

125

promoted and supported EBLIP, and EAHIL (European Association for Health Information and Libraries) has supported the movement throughout Europe as well. Sweden hosted the fih EBLIP conference, and EBLIP has developed within other Nordic countries (Haglund 2010; Haglund et al., 2012), although it has been noted that there may be language barriers preventing a wider spread across Europe (Declève, 2010). EBLIP has also spread to developing countries, including Asia (Eldredge and Ye, 2000; Sakai et al., 2014) and Latin America (Anonymous, 2001; Booth, 2008; Booth and Eldredge, 2010).

The evidence base in health librarianship While EBP was initially promoted as an opportunity for health librarians to demonstrate their expertise (Medical Library Association, 2005b) and expand their role (Falzon and Booth, 2001; Harris, 2005; McGowan and Sampson, 2005; Palmer, 1996; Scherrer and Dorsch, 1999), through EBLIP, health librarians have developed a strong evidence base to support their own library practice.

Training, literature searches and library services Systematic reviews by Brettle (2003; 2007) identified the effectiveness of providing training to clinicians, while highlighting a need for more rigorous methods of evaluating the effectiveness of training, such as those later conducted by Gardois et al. (2011), Eldredge et al. (2013a) and Eldredge et al. (2016). Ayre et al. (2015) demonstrated the continued effectiveness and impact of training provision on clinician knowledge and patient care, using post-test surveys across 60 hospital sites in England. A significant body of evidence exists to support the effectiveness, impact and value of performing searches and providing library services to clinicians. is includes systematic reviews (Brettle et al., 2011; Perrier et al., 2014; Wagner and Byrd, 2004; Weightman and Williamson, 2005; Winning and Beverley, 2003), RCTs (McGowan et al., 2008; Mulvaney et al., 2008; and Eldredge et al. 2016) and mixed methods studies (Bartlett and Marshall, 2013; Brettle et al., 2006; Brettle et al., 2007; Marshall et al., 2013; 2014a; 2014b; Urquhart and Hepworth, 1995; Wallace et al., 2014). A systematic scoping review suggests that health librarians impact on clinical decision making by improving patient-centred care, the quality of patient care, risk management and safety, health service development and delivery and the costs and continuing professional development of clinicians (Brettle and Maden, 2015a).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 126

126

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Searching within systematic reviews Although health librarians may conduct systematic reviews to inform their own practice, more commonly they conduct the searches within systematic reviews for healthcare. Health librarians have been keen to develop the evidence base in this area so that the searching within systematic reviews is built on a strong evidence base. Earlier studies focused on using quantitative techniques to develop and test search filters (Boynton et al., 1998; Brettle et al., 1998; Haynes et al., 1994; Jenkins, 2004; McKibbon et al., 2008; White et al., 2001), while later studies used simple statistical techniques to examine optimum sources to search for systematic reviews (Brettle and Long, 2001; Golder et al., 2008; McDonald, Taylor and Adams, 1999; McNally and Alborz, 2004; Ogilvie et al., 2005a and 2005b). ese studies provide an example of health librarians performing a dual role within EBP, where they engage in EBLIP to provide evidence about their practice in EBP.

Types of evidence Among library sectors, health librarians perhaps retain the closest links with an evidence hierarchy, possibly due to the need to provide evidence in a way accepted by the professionals with whom they work. Health librarians have certainly embraced and are leading the way in conducting systematic reviews. In a review of systematic reviews across LIS, Koufogiannakis and Brettle (2015) identified that 50 out of the total of 82 systematic reviews found were related to health topics, suggesting that health librarians are increasingly undertaking systematic reviews of their own practice. Furthermore, as noted in Case Study 11.1 below, there are a large number of additional health library-related systematic reviews under development (Eldredge et al., 2015b). A systematic scoping review which looked at the impact and effectiveness of health librarians found eight systematic reviews on the topic, so there are some areas where a critical mass of research is being achieved (Brettle and Maden, 2015a). Use of quantitative study designs goes back much further than the beginning of EBLIP. Health librarians pioneered the cohort study for librarianship, beginning in the 1940s (Postell, 1946), and it became more common among health librarians as a research method for generating needed evidence (Eldredge, 2002b; Eldredge, 2008b). Marshall and Neufeld (1981) pioneered the RCT for librarianship over 35 years ago. A review by Perrier et al. (2014) found 12 RCTs demonstrating the effects of services provided by health libraries, suggesting that this method is becoming increasingly common for providing health librarians with evidence for answering certain types of questions. Other study designs used by health librarians include cohort design, economic analysis, rapid review, content analysis, prospective observational study, longitudinal studies, surveys, and mixed methods (Eldredge, 2004; Brettle and Maden, 2015a).

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 127

ElDrEDgE Et Al. | HEAltH lIBrArIEs

127

Mixed methods are increasingly being used (as shown in Case Study 11.2 below) to provide evidence not only of the impact of health library services, but of how the impact is actually made (Brettle, Maden and Payne, 2016). Once the impact has been demonstrated on a wide scale, health librarians are beginning to use the tools developed to collect local evidence routinely for ongoing quality assurance, benchmarking and advocacy (Dalton, 2012; Dunne et al., 2013; Edwards and Ferguson, 2015). e use of quantitative designs and an increasing number of systematic reviews in the health library field is due to the health context in which health librarians operate, where experimental studies are considered the gold standard. However, quantitative designs are not always appropriate to answer the question at hand (or provide the evidence needed). e critical incident technique (CIT) has been widely used in impact studies (Brettle, Maden and Payne, 2016; Marshall, 1992; Marshall et al., 2013; Urquhart et al., 2010), as it can provide specific evidence on how information is being used. Weightman and Urquhart (2008) recommended the use of the CIT in interviews to provide more in-depth evidence on how clinicians were using information that had been provided by the library. More recently, Bradley, Getrich and Hannigan (2015) conducted a qualitative study on rural practitioners’ use of clinical information resources and an action research study was conducted on library instruction (Eldredge et al., 2013b).

EBLIP in action e following case studies demonstrate how EBLIP continues to develop and push new boundaries within health librarianship.

Case study 11.1 Enhancing the evidence base through systematic reviews systematic reviews are an essential tool for bridging the gap between research and practice and, as shown above, health librarians play a key part in systematic reviews for other health professionals. one way that systematic reviews have been taken forward among health librarians is by using a ‘hive’ approach, where a review is led by an expert who shares the knowledge and skills to build capacity among the remainder of the review team (Woods and Booth, 2014). this approach was first used in the UK to further develop the evidence base and research and critical appraisal skills of a group of clinical librarians (Brettle et al., 2011; Brettle and maden, 2015b), and then developed into an impact project (Brettle, maden and payne, 2016) to ensure that the evaluations conducted by the clinical librarian group continued to be evidence based. Under the auspices of the mlA, health librarians in the UsA (and internationally) have significantly up-scaled the hive approach to developing systematic reviews. the initial step

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 128

128

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

was the employment during 2008 of the Delphi method for identifying the most important and answerable EBlIp questions facing the profession. the Us team surveyed the mlA leadership and researchers through multiple iterations to identify the top-ranked questions (Eldredge, Harris and Ascher, 2009; Eldredge et al., 2012). In 2012, Ascher, Holmes and Eldredge organized over 200 volunteers into 15 teams charged with conducting systematic reviews on the best available evidence on answering those top-ranked 15 questions (Eldridge, Ascher and Holmes, 2015a; 2015b). the teams have reached various points of completion, ranging from publication or reporting results at mlA annual meetings (Anderson et al., 2014; Eldredge, Ascher and Holmes, 2015a; 2015b,; glynn et al., 2014; swanberg et al., 2016) to earlier formative stages (Holmes, Ascher and Eldredge, 2015). the questions included the following: • • • • • • • •

What is the evidence that health librarians make a difference to patient care? What is the role of the health librarian in improving health literacy? What are the information needs of practising physicians? What is libraries’ role in informatics? How is it best to objectively document impact on the bottom line? What is the impact of the health librarian on long-term information-seeking behaviours? What are effective teaching methods for evidence-based practice? What skills and knowledge do health librarians need for data mining?

most systematic reviews are still ongoing, but their publication should significantly facilitate use of the evidence base for health librarians.

Case study 11.2 The Value of Library and Information Services in Patient Care study Examining the value and impact of health library and information services on patient care has long been one of the top research questions for health librarians, who need to demonstrate their value to their clientele and the administrators who fund library services. While many small-scale value and impact studies had been conducted in single institutions or with specific groups of health professionals, we did not have evidence from a multi-site study that demonstrated more widespread impact. the ‘Value study’ (Dunnet al., 2009; marshall et al., 2013; marshall et al., 2014a; marshall et al., 2014b), as it has been called, reflects a general trend in health research towards largescale, multi-site studies that involve many collaborators. computerized data collection and analysis are making it possible for researchers to collect large amounts of data and to employ multivariate statistical analysis to compare groups within larger datasets. previously, the time and costs of such data collection and analysis were prohibitive.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 129

ElDrEDgE Et Al. | HEAltH lIBrArIEs

129

funded in part by the Us national library of medicine, the Value study used a web-based survey and a critical incident methodology to gather information about library resource use by physicians, residents and nurses at 56 library sites serving 118 hospitals in the UsA and canada. Value and impact measures were based on an earlier study on the value and impact of the hospital librarian on patient care conducted in the rochester, new york area (marshall, 1992). over 16,000 health professionals responded to the survey and reported positive changes in patient care outcomes as a result of using the library resources. the changes included: the advice given to patients, choice of drugs or other treatments, as well as diagnosis or choice of tests. three-quarters of the respondents said that they definitely or probably handled some aspect of the patient care situation differently as a result of the information obtained through the library. the Value study research team followed up by giving guidance on how health librarians could use the Value study results for library advocacy. powerpoint presentations and downloadable data for the full study, particular groups such as nurses, physicians and residents, and geographical areas continue to be available on the study website.2 since a wide range of types and sizes of libraries in different geographic settings participated in the study, the evidence was valid for both participating and non-participating libraries. the participating sites were able to use their own ‘stories’ from users to frame their own quantitative results or the results for the full study. Ways in which libraries used the study results included the following: • • •

• •

making presentations to the institution’s leadership team, or at strategic planning sessions publicizing the results in an institutional newsletter or research day sending a message to patient safety officers in the institution highlighting the avoidance-of-adverse-events data, which included a reduction in patient length of stay in hospital Assisting a regional library council to make a strong case against a hospital library closure calculating dollar value of time saved, based on the study results. Annual estimates ranged from Us$466,420 in a smaller library to almost Us$2 million.

the large amount of data from the study also led to additional analyses and use at national and local levels. this has included: •

An examination of the specific impact of using the library, librarian and libraryprovided databases on changes made to patient care and avoidance of adverse events (marshall et al., 2014a; marshall et al., 2014b) and the role of pubmed/medline in the health information infrastructure (in progress)

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 130

130

• • •

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Availability of the full dataset, survey questions and instructions on the study website3 and in a public social science data archive known as the Dataverse4 Distribution to each of the 56 participating sites of a copy of their own data for further analysis and access to the full study date for benchmarking creation of an online guide to data curation for library and information researchers.

In summary, the project has provided evidence of the value of health libraries for patient care on a large scale, as well as providing local resources for advocacy and the means to continue collecting evidence in a standardized way in the future. A replicable model for conducting further value study research in the future has been established.

Future directions In the future, librarian researchers and practitioners will be likely to employ a variety of methodologies and approaches as they continue to build a culture of creating and using evidence in their professional practice. This continuing emphasis on seeking, creating and using the best possible external evidence will help health librarians to meet the needs of their users as well their own needs and increase the size and quality of their library research base. This ongoing activity will also allow health librarians to play and further develop important roles in their institutions in critical appraisal and quality filtering of the literature (Beaven and Lane, 2012; Booth, 2012; Eldredge, 2008a); in leading EBP teaching; in fully participating in systematic reviews in health and social care (Brettle, 2012a; Jerome et al., 2012); and in managing and co-ordinating research projects for effective and efficient health services (Seeley, 2012). Health librarians can also play important roles in creating standards for EBP and quality improvement at the national and international levels as policies and standards are created. In order to fulfil their potential, health librarians need to continually improve their research skills, particularly in research design, implementation, statistics and analysis. Higher and continuing education opportunities that develop research skills at national, local and regional levels will become even more important in helping to meet these needs. Finding ways to acknowledge health librarians for their efforts in research and EBP at the institutional and national levels will also be important. Professional associations and licensing bodies need to play a strong role in these endeavours. As our research expertise grows, it will be important to conduct research that includes both smaller-scale and larger-scale studies that have greater generalizability. The collaborative approach taken by the Value Study, and its methods (Marshall et al., 2013) and by Brettle, Maden and Payne (2016) should be replicated. This will ensure that institutions have access to useful,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 131

ElDrEDgE Et Al. | HEAltH lIBrArIEs

131

.

unbiased local-level data and standardized methodology and data collection instruments as well as access to datasets. Health librarians need to develop and pursue these approaches in their own research and share their expertise with librarians in other branches of the profession. In this way, health librarians will continue to be at the forefront of EBLIP, since their roles in healthcare, with its rigorous research standards, will continue to be reflected in the research activities of the health library profession.

Conclusion EBLIP continues to play a prominent role in health librarianship that appears likely to continue into the future. Health librarians began their own EBP by trying to adopt the levels (Eldredge, 2002a) of evidence approach used in EBM; however, the types of evidence used by health librarians are developing, as in other library sectors. Other allied health professions such as nursing and occupational therapy have faced similar challenges. Over time, modified versions of the original EBM model have emerged that are more diverse and flexible about the types of evidence that can be used to make decisions and what constitutes acceptable evidence. Furthermore, EBM itself now has re-emphasized the integration of the individual clinical expertise of physicians and the best external evidence to make decisions that are suitable for the particular patient and situation (Greenhalgh et al., 2014). Health librarians have actively encouraged practitioners in other types of information practice settings to adopt an evidence-based approach. There has long been an interest in linking research to practice in the library profession as a whole. The EBLIP movement has helped to move research and its application into the practice realm. Research has become more accepted as an activity that is appropriate and relevant to practitioners. Health librarians will, no doubt, continue to pursue EBP in a way that includes the priorities and approaches common to the health settings in which they work.

Acknowledgements e authors appreciate the review and insights contributed by Sara Janzen, librarian, Karolinska Institutet University Library, Stockholm, Sweden and Ola Pilerot, Senior Lecturer, University of Borås, Sweden, in preparing this chapter.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 132

132

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Notes 1 2 3 4

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/queries/ehr.html. https://nnlm.gov/mar/about/value. https://nnlm.gov/mar/about/value. http://www.odum.unc.edu/odum/contentSubpage.jsp?nodeid=581.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 133

12 School libraries Carol A. Gordon

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. e school library is oen 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. is 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. e 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. e curriculum is guided by a definition of information literacy that includes

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 134

134

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

critical reading and thinking. e 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. is 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. is kind of evidence-based approach to instruction has significant implications for the school library and the work of the teacher-librarian.

School library trends e School Library Manifesto (IFLA/UNESCO, 1999) is a seminal international document that articulates a mission for school libraries as providers of information, ideas and lifelong learning skills fundamental to living and working in today’s information- and knowledge-based society. IFLA School Library Guidelines, 2nd Edition (IFLA, 2015b) draws from this document, placing teaching and learning at the centre of school library functions (Figure 12.1). e centricity of learning outcomes creates a need for a new language for school library programming and services. A library facility becomes a physical and virtual learning environment (Figure 12.1) enhanced by face-to-face, online and blended instruction. A Learning Commons supports collaborative learning, fostering new relationships between learners and new technologies and re-inventing school library form and function so that ‘students and educators … learn new ways to learn’ (Ontario Library Association, 2010). Makerspaces, a coding language called Scratch, and Google Hang-outs enable learners to connect with personal interests, create and share coded stories and animations and ‘geek-out’ as they gain competencies in media, visual, digital, critical, cultural and multi-modal literacies. Conceived as a Learning Commons, the library’s print and digital library collections are consistent with the school curriculum and national, ethnic and cultural identities

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 135

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

Information sources [collection input]

135

Instructional team [staff input]

Learning environment [facility input]

Funding [Budget input] Learning outcomes

Figure 12.1 The learning-centric school library

of school communities. Cataloguing, curation and resource sharing enable librarians to organize digital content through dashboards or launch-pads. Playlists sequence learning resources across media types and facilitate retrieval in an embedded and shared platform. Personal learning environment systems help users to access content and tools to manage their communications, productivity and workflow. Personalized learning and digital citizenship have implications for all library staff, whether professional, paraprofessional or voluntary, to be an instructional team (Figure 12.1). ‘All members of the school community are expected to become critical thinkers and effective users of information in all formats and media’ (IFLA/UNESCO, 1999). New technologies require staff to update their digital skills to support instruction in digital citizenship, literacy and ethics, as well as online safety and security and legal rights and responsibilities. IFLA’s most recent recommendations (IFLA, 2015b, 10) stress the need for ‘a professional teacher librarian with formal education in school librarianship and classroom teaching’. While this is not a new trend, it is seminal to the teacher-librarian’s core instructional activities, such as literacy and reading promotion, media and information-literacy instruction, enquiry-based teaching, technology integration and professional development of teachers. Teacher-librarians are expected to work with principals, curriculum leaders, members of other library groups and cultural, linguistic, indigenous and other unique populations. An organic library infrastructure that supports teaching and learning requires an expansion of the concept of ‘budget’ from a fixed allocation to include external funding sources (Figure 12.1) such as grants, awards and donations. Implicit in the

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 136

136

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Learning Commons concept is an agenda for EBP that focuses on learning outcomes as the measure of library effectiveness and redefines library inputs as means, rather than ends.

Areas of growth Equity of access is the antidote to a worldwide digital divide across socio-economic, gender and cultural lines. e school library Manifesto recognizes the political consequences of a constituency that is not educated to be information and technology literate. Access ‘should not be subject to any form of ideological, political or religious censorship, or to commercial pressures’ (IFLA/UNESCO, 1999). Rapid expansion in online education resources and the value placed on lifelong learning may generate cheaper and more accessible learning opportunities. However, for those living without an adequate technological infrastructure in their schools and homes there is no access. In addition, implementing the digital literacy and citizenship curriculum is problematic, even in schools with strong technological infrastructures. Most primary schools operate on fixed schedules where children visit the library weekly. Fixed schedules do not support the sustained and continuous instruction that is needed to integrate information and technology with curriculum-based enquiry. In secondary grades that operate on a flexible schedule, collaboration with librarians is not mandated for teachers and classrooms are not equipped to teach digital literacy and citizenship. Additionally, digital youth culture has a false sense of information competency. Youth are comfortable online, but their information skills are rudimentary. Excessive reliance on Google and Wikipedia undermines concepts of information ownership, authorship and scholarship and many cannot read deeply and critically. Despite these obstacles, equity is a viable area of growth. An important trend, acknowledged in the IFLA Trend Report, 2013, is the higher value placed on information-literacy skills in an ever-expanding digital universe. Information skills now include a broader spectrum of skills that could determine inclusion, or who can access, share and learn from information. We know that reading digital text is different from reading print, but research has not yet established how digital literacy is best taught. Teacher-librarians and teachers are expected to work collaboratively so that ‘… students achieve higher levels of literacy, reading, learning, problem-solving and information and communication technology skills’ (IFLA/UNESCO, 1999). In addition, digital text is less likely than print media to be vetted by teacher-librarians for age-appropriateness, reading ability and personal interests. When young readers self-select digital content it is inevitable that even good readers will confront reading material that is challenging in terms of difficulty. Equity of information and technology access and education is essential because

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 137

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

137

digital literacy is the new literacy. e economic, political and cultural health of nations depends upon it. e IFLA Trends Report, 2013 predicts that online education will democratize and disrupt global learning. Online instruction, or e-learning, is an important area of growth because it is a venue for digital literacy and citizenship instruction. However, online instruction has not yet reached its potential for asynchronous instruction in and outside of school. It is important for the sustainability of school libraries that virtual learning becomes part of mainstream education. e trend toward virtual high schools and, inevitably, virtual classrooms offers promise for providing universal school library programming and services.

Likely future changes e IFLA School Library Guidelines, 2nd edition (2015b, 10) recommend that ‘Monitoring and evaluating school library services and programs, as well as the work of the school library staff, should be conducted on a regular basis to ensure that the school library is meeting the changing needs of the school community’, so that evaluation guides ‘the services and programs of a school library and provides the data needed for improvement of professional practice and for ensuring that the services and programs of a school library make a positive contribution to teaching and learning in the school’. For decades, professional library associations have developed and revised programme standards, performance standards and standards for the 21st-century learner. It is likely that the convergence of programme and performance evaluation (Gordon, 2014) will empower librarians to self-evaluate through EBLIP that generates evidence from library inputs (Figure 12.1) and learning outcomes. Sykes and Koechlin (2014) take a significant step in this direction. emes in their evaluation plan are entry points for schools to introduce, develop and sustain the Learning Commons concept. It includes a ‘Leading Learning Framework’ of standards charts, themes and growth indicators for each programme standard, with illustrations for each indicator. e ‘Moving Forward’ component has steps, charts, additional resources and a glossary to guide school leaders. Evaluative ratings designate ‘Exploring’ a baseline, pre-standards level. ‘Emerging’ indicates commitment to the school library as a Learning Commons. ‘Evolving’ indicates progress in teaching and learning, as evidenced by disruptions in staffing and scheduling. ‘Established’ denotes a culture of collaboration and participatory learning. ‘Leading into the Future’ presents exemplary programming and leadership in building learning communities. Growth indicators and scaffolding levels recognize the value of continuing improvement through the use of evidence. ‘Sustainability: Implementation Supports Future Action’ creates a vision for implementation strategies and benchmarks. e school library is evaluated over time, with clear goals to guide growth with accountability for the

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 138

138

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

librarian’s decision making and problem solving, guided by a growth continuum rather than a rubric. is evaluation scheme enables teacher-librarians to respond to challenges while building their capacity as leaders of a community of learners. Such an evaluation tool has implications for the nature of evidence. It changes how teacherlibrarians are assessed, with a growing trend toward self-evaluation and goals attainment based on evidence generated by EBLIP models of practice, such as strategic planning and action research.

How EBLIP connects with school libraries Ross Todd addressed the nature and value of evidence in a keynote address to the International Association of School Libraries, ‘Transitions for preferred futures for school libraries’, in 2001. He notes, ‘e hallmark of a school library in the 21st century is not its collections, its systems, its technology, its staffing, its buildings, but its actions and evidence that show that it makes a real difference to student learning, that it contributes in tangible and significant ways to the development of meaning making and constructing knowledge’ (Todd, 2001). He challenged librarians to make datadriven decisions based on three kinds of evidence (Figure 12.2). Evidence for practice

Evidence in practice

EVIDEncE-BAsED prActIcE

Evidence for practice

Evidence of practice

Figure 12.2 Evidence-based practice in school librarianship

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 139

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

139

uses empirical research to inform practice with a clear vision of best practice. Teacherlibrarians think about evidence as they begin to make connections between research findings and what they observe in everyday practice. Evidence in practice, or the practitioner’s experience, colours professional judgements. Evidence of practice is evidence embedded in students’ work and learning outcomes. is kind of evidence is derived not only from completed student projects but from information and learning processes that are tracked. A heightened awareness of local evidence changes the conversation between practitioners and researchers as they share their perspectives. While any aspect of school librarianship can benefit from EBLIP, school libraries have concentrated on instruction as the primary area for improvement. e high profile of evidence in school library practice creates a demand for tools to facilitate evidence collection and analysis. School library research is establishing the usefulness of applying action research to school library practice (Gordon, 2006). For example, students use concept or mind maps to track their knowledge before and aer instruction through the stages of the information search process (ISP), so as to inform the teacher-librarian’s provision of help and intervention. is dynamic combination of professional knowledge, expertise and evidence emboldens the teacher-librarian to challenge traditional teaching conventions that do not meet the needs of digital youth in an information-age school. Advocacy for school libraries is elevated by an EBLIP approach. What may seem like self-serving promotion reaches the level of evidence-based advocacy, enabling teacher-librarians to defend their claims about the importance of information and digital literacies. e Manifesto addresses sustainability by establishing the school library as essential ‘to every long-term strategy for literacy, education, information provision and economic, social and cultural development’ (IFLA/UNESCO, 1999). is global perspective underscores the responsibility of local, regional and national authorities to support school libraries through legislative, financial and policy decisions. Evidence-based advocacy allows librarians to effectively communicate the value and relevance of school libraries to their elected representatives, policy makers and external stakeholders.

Research in school librarianship e first and most prolific source of EBLIP in school library literature emerged from an advocacy mindset for justifying school libraries. Gaver (1963) compared the standardized test scores of 271 schools in 13 states of the USA and found that students in schools with centralized libraries managed by qualified librarians scored higher than students in schools without centralized libraries or qualified librarians. is study created an enduring research tradition that correlated school libraries with student

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 140

140

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

achievement in over 60 library impact studies in more than 22 US states. e variables that correlated with student achievement, as measured by standardized test scores, across this body of literature included access to the library in terms of school schedules, extended library hours and a welcoming school library environment that mitigates the effects of poverty and the gap between privileged and at-risk students. Adequate funding, measured by expenditures per student, emerged as a predictor of higher standardized test scores. Some studies examined the relationship between improved scores and adequate resources and collections that reflect the ethnicity of the student population. Other variables, such as increased and better school library–teacher collaboration, an information literacy curriculum and instruction in literacy and integrated technology highlighted the importance of the school library’s instructional programme. e presence of a full-time certified teacher-librarian who promotes learning and motivation and outreach to the community also correlated with better test results. While they are not yet a trend, it is likely that macro impact studies, as well as local EBLIP, will use a variety of learning outcomes to demonstrate ‘student achievement.’ A New York impact study (Small, Shanahan and Stasak, 2010) defined ‘student achievement’ in terms of learning and motivation, reading skills development, librarian–teacher collaboration, technology use, inclusion, administrative support, outreach and library environment. A study of New Jersey’s school libraries and the work of teacher-librarians examined quality school libraries and the dynamics that inhibit and enable school libraries to contribute to educational agendas (Todd, 2012). A library impact study in two rural Ugandan schools, one with a library and one without (Dent, 2006), focused on the effect of a one-room library on scholastic performance, reading habits, study habits and library use patterns. Students reported that the library helped them to complete their assignments on time, to work more efficiently and to think more about their surrounding world, and took the stress out of learning. In Oyo State, Nigeria, a study of primary school libraries evaluated library space, resources, student activities, mobile library services and challenges in library usage to determine the adequacy of these library inputs for Universal Basic Education (Gbadamosi, 2011). e perceptions of the staff confirmed the inadequacy of programming and services and noted their need for further training, especially in information literacy and technology. It is likely that budget constraints and evidence-based advocacy will continue to drive impact studies. However, the evidence base is shiing from strictly quantitative to qualitative data that use learning outcomes as evidence. A growing body of research targets the teaching role of teacher-librarians and the challenge of EBLIP to emphasize learning outcomes. ‘Evidence-based practice is not just assessment of student learning… It involves critically analyzing the accumulated data and deriving

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 141

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

141

statements about student learning outcomes … the instructional role of the teacher librarian is a significant leadership role’ (Todd, 2002b). emes in school library research that address the librarian’s instructional role include collaboration, enquiry learning, professional development, school library education and leadership. A study of the effects of a practice-based model of teaching and collaborative practice for nine teams of librarians and teachers who created and implemented enquiry learning took place in a year-long course (Yukawa and Harada, 2009). Analysis of evidence guided the team in formative and summative evaluations of professional development outcomes. Findings indicated that continual modification of course design and individualized mentoring and feedback were needed. e summative evaluation identified significant changes in the practice of teachers and librarians in three areas: (1) the design of enquiry-focused learning; (2) the roles of the teacher and librarian in collaborative development of instruction; and (3) the impact on student performance. Two years aer the course, the participants reported that they continued to incorporate enquiry-based approaches in their teaching. A case study in the integration of EBP and information practice into school library education (Cahill and Richey, 2012) explored LIS students’ understandings of, experiences with and potential applications of EBLIP within the context of a school library management course. e findings suggest that students had limited experience with EBLIP in school libraries. Study of EBLIP increased students’ understanding of EBLIP as they recognized its importance for the development, improvement and sustainability of school library programmes. However, application of EBLIP in an assignment revealed a gap between students’ understandings and use of EBLIP. A more widespread integration of EBLIP into the LIS curriculum would strengthen students’ ability to apply EBLIP to school library programmes. Following on their earlier work, Richey and Cahill (2014) investigated how practising teacher-librarians use EBLIP by surveying 111 public school librarians to find out how they applied EBLIP to practice and shared data, and the extent to which their LIS education supported their use of EBLIP. e findings indicate that the majority of respondents engaged in some form of EBLIP, including referencing professional journals, standards and guidelines, informally collecting evidence from stakeholders and writing mission statements. However, few respondents engaged in the complete process. ey were most likely to share goals and data with administrators and teachers and expressed the belief that their LIS programmes contributed to their understanding of EBLIP. Teacher-librarians as leaders can be drivers of EBLIP. is is explored by establishing a current interpretation of leadership as ‘leading from the middle’ (AASL and AECT, 1998) through transformational leadership (Ballard, March and Sand, 2009; Belisle, 2004; DiScala and Subramaniam, 2011; Smith, 2009; 2010). ‘School librarianship is

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 142

142

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

shiing with its growing emphasis on the leadership role of teacher-librarians and the collection of data on student outcomes … ese two movements do not exist separately and together can have a powerful impact on student achievement’ (DiScala and Subramaniam, 2011, 67). A body of research examines the training of teacherlibrarians to be leaders. Smith studied the Project Lead programme at Florida State University and concluded that teacher-librarians emerged with an increased selfperception of their abilities to model the way and enable others to act (Smith, 2009). Pre-service students in the first graduating cohort believed that they were prepared to lead through collaboration (Smith, 2009) and technology integration (Smith, 2010). Contradictory findings reveal that teacher-librarians continue to rank programme administration as the most important area of leadership (Martin, 2011). Robins (2015) describes her study of 156 action research projects conducted by 39 teacher-librarians to determine whether teacher-librarians view their action as research feasible, valuable and empowering. Aggregate data from their project reports indicate that partnerships between the university mentor and teacher-librarians led to the completion of all projects. Mentoring by a university professor was needed for planning the projects, providing advice on data collection and interpretation, and for evaluating the results. Eighty-nine percent of projects had positive results, resulting in improving library services, which was the focus of 55% of the projects. Almost 31% of the projects involved promoting the use of technology to students and teachers. All the teacher-librarians felt competent as action researchers and confident about sharing their results, showing the feasibility of action research. e value of the action research is indicated by 89% who felt that other teachers should conduct action research, and two-thirds talked about action research with other educators. Since leaving the masters programme, 69% of respondents have conducted action research and 89% of respondents have experienced empowerment. Seventy-nine percent felt that they gained credibility in their schools and two-thirds felt that they gained prestige with school administrators. A study of a training model examined the impact of action research on the practice of teacher-librarians (Gordon, 2006). e researcher operated as mentor in the third dimension, simultaneously collecting data for the study and supporting the teacherlibrarians. Teacher-librarians functioned in the first dimension, as designers and implementers of authentic learning tasks and assessments, and in the second dimension, as practitioner-researchers who developed and implemented their own action research projects. e findings indicate that the model raises the quality of EBLIP by helping teacher-librarians to develop ownership and confidence in the collaboration process and a perception of themselves as leaders. e library director and two librarians who participated in this study published an article in an issue of the peer-reviewed journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice dedicated

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 143

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

143

to school librarianship. ey describe the creation of a research community in their K-12 school district through two action research projects (Ballard, March and Sand, 2009). eir article won the American Library Association Library Instructional Round Table award for one of 20 top school library articles on instruction. Eleven years later, the library director, Susan Ballard, published an article in Knowledge Quest in which she concluded, ‘Action research and evidence-based practice set the course, mapped the journey, and helped me to see my practice through a lens of reflection fuelled by theory and data collection skills. I can’t wait to see where the journey takes me next!’ (Ballard, 2015). Action researchers are creating a new genre of research literature that closes the research-to-practice gap by acknowledging that action researchers can produce high-quality research using local evidence to improve local practice.

EBLIP in action e following two case studies have been selected to demonstrate EBLIP in action across international school libraries.

Case study 12.1 Building a culture of literacy in primary schools, Shanghai, China: the case of Stone Soup Happy Reading Alliance Evidence for practice is the dimension of EBlIp that connects research to practice as teacherlibrarians read and apply research findings to their everyday work. teacher-librarians in shanghai province, china are using EBlIp to improve instruction by translating the findings of reading research to their everyday work through an ‘evidence for practice’ initiative. seven elementary schools in urban shanghai and the rural area of Hefei developed the stone soup Happy reading Alliance (ssHrA), funded by the chen yet-sen family foundation, to develop children’s reading motivation and attitudes. the culture of reading that they developed is based on stephen Krashen’s reading Hypothesis (Krashen, 2004). In-school reading and selfreported reading constitute free Voluntary reading (fVr), resulting in improved comprehension, writing style, grammar, and vocabulary. research reports that fVr is as effective, or more effective than direct reading instruction (Krashen, 2004). Western educators resist fVr, favouring direct instruction aimed at raising test scores, which leads to controlling children’s reading and inhibiting free choice. ssHrA principals and teachers know that free reading choice correlates with increased motivation, engagement (guthrie and Davis, 2003) and breadth and depth of reading (Wigfield and guthrie, 1997). ssHrA rests on three pillars that illustrate how the research translates into action. the first and second pillars are: (1) a collaborative infrastructure of principals, teachers and parents; and (2) time allocated to reading. ssHrA schools do not have reading specialists.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 144

144

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Every educator is responsible for developing positive reading attitudes and behaviours. principals read aloud to children in all-school assemblies. teachers dedicate class time for read-alouds and silent reading and create workshops for parents who become part of the school community that supports reading aloud at home. the third pillar, access to reading materials, is supported by the installation of school libraries, which are central to the reading initiative. the librarian replenishes book carts positioned outside every classroom. library books, as well as comfortable seating and natural lighting, fill every nook and cranny of these schools. library visits begin with a ‘reading lesson’ that uses research-based reading strategies (Harvey and goudvis, 2000) such as predicting and questioning the author. student work, or evidence of practice, is observed in children’s weekly dramatizations of their favorite stories. called ‘talking Books’, these colorful re-enactments are part of school assemblies, book fairs and other reading celebrations. children’s colourful drawings that represent their reading responses are displayed throughout the school. these practices, informed by research, lead to the development of educators’ expertise, or evidence in practice. this case study indicates important guidelines for EBlIp that bridge the gap between research and practice: 1. An interdisciplinary approach that includes research from lIs as well as education and literacy and eclectic theoretical concepts is critical for teacher-librarians to connect research findings with instructional practice. 2. research findings facilitate the development of new practices because they are generalizable, or transferable, to all contexts. Despite the restrictions of chinese society and education, educators were able to use Western research to create a culture of literacy in their schools. 3. EBlIp is facilitated by a participatory culture of community composed of educators and parents who can change educational practice.

Case study 12.2 Equity of information access and instruction, Lincoln Hubbard Elementary School, Summit, New Jersey, USA A primary school teacher-librarian knew that 30 minute lessons on using a library catalogue or encyclopedia were not best practice, but she was locked into a fixed schedule. she decided to use action research (figure 12.3) to observe and reflect on the problem. she concluded that the constraints of time and space prevented common planning time for teacherlibrarian teams to design a curriculum-based unit of enquiry. she formulated the question, ‘How can digital technology overcome the constraints of time and space of a fixed schedule to provide a collaborative and sustained information- and enquiry-based learning environment?’ she decided to collaborate with a grade 5 teacher and the instructional facilitator to plan a unit on the American civil

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 145

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

145

1 Reflect on practice; identify problem

5 Create and implement action plan for cycle 2

4 Analyse evidence; state findings

2 Formulate research question and action plan

3 Collect evidence from student work and research methods

Figure 12.3 The action research cycle

War, structured by a spiral of collaboration (figure12.4) that alternated the place of instruction between classroom and library. collaboration typically occurs at fixed points in time in the school library, while classroom instruction is unrelated to the enquiry in most cases. classroom time and space is not operationalized, inhibiting collaboration between teacher and librarian. A spiralling co-teaching model generates a continuous stream of instruction in the classroom and library as teaching moves between the two venues. the Isp (figure 12.5), a research-validated model of information processing, is the backbone of the collaboration and its clearly defined stages can take place in the classroom or the library, in real time and space or asynchronously in digital space.

Figure 12.4 The collaboration spiral

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 146

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

146

Tasks

Initiation Selection Exploration

Formulation Collection

Feelings uncertainty optimism confusion/frustration/ clarity (affective) doubt Thoughts (cognitive) Actions (physical)

vague

Presentation

sense of direction/ satisfaction or confidence disappointment focused increased interest

seeking relevant information exploring

seeking pertinent information documenting

Figure 12.5 Model of the information search process (Kuhlthau, 2004, 82, used with permission of the author) for example, the teacher may introduce Initiation in the library, using visuals for students to share and talk as they activate their prior knowledge about the war. the next day selection takes place in the classroom as the teacher reviews the civil War unit and brainstorms topics with the class. on the third day students enter Exploration, participating in a library gallery walk to examine facsimiles of civil War artefacts assembled by the librarian to generate questions about slavery and civil War battles. the instructional team created 3D library learning (figure 12.6), a digital environment that supported learning in the classroom, in the library and on the website, located at https://sites.google.com/a/summit.k12.nj.us/3dlibrarylearning/. Edmodo, represented by the letter ‘e’, is a free, online blogging tool with an interface that looks like facebook but is not openly accessed from the web. It facilitates and archives collaboration and communication between teachers and students, functioning as a repository for student work. the educators also used Edmodo to archive evidence collected from teachers’ work (educators’ meeting notes, observations and next steps) and the work of students who respond to discussion prompts, post questions and submit assignments.

Figure 12.6 The 3D library learning site (used with permission from Lincoln-Hubbard Elementary School)

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 147

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

147

the librarian provided support for students to work at home or in the classroom in the menu on the left side of figure 12.6, where she inserted designations for the Isp stages and linked the Isp stages to interventions, help and resources. the librarian in this case learned important lessons from the action research: 1. It is possible for teachers and teacher-librarians to collaborate and overcome the constraints of a fixed schedule by using the stages of the Isp, or guided Inquiry (Kuhlthau, maniotes and caspari, 2007), and digital technology. 2. Digital technology can solve logistical problems of equitable access to information and instruction while generating high levels of student engagement throughout the unit. It also created a rich repository for evidence, including student work, instructional materials, communication among students, among educators and between students and educators. 3. collaboration among educators makes a difference in their practice, not only for their students but for all students. the librarian noted: ‘the idea of using a virtual library site and incorporating Edmodo (or some other online tool) to collect student responses and data within a guided Inquiry unit can be used by any team of teachers and librarians willing to give it a try. the 3D library learning website has potential for teaching sustained inquiry units for any content area and can easily be modified to work with other grade levels’ (stubeck, 2015, 34). 4. Action research is a viable and powerful tool for integrating EBlIp with the practice of teacher-librarians. It facilitates co-teaching by teacher-librarians and classroom teachers, providing a structure for reflective practice and context for evidence collection. students probe primary and secondary historical sources, for example, and learn how to think as historians by analysing text and forming inferences about what really happened in the past. At the same time, educators are collecting evidence of student learning and analysing this evidence in the context of their teaching. In so doing, these educators can make informed decisions about revising their teaching methods based on students’ progress, or lack of it. As a consequence, their students benefit by receiving substantive feedback from their teachers in order to revise and improve their work. the instructional team can also benefit from gathering evidence from their students at the end of the instructional unit about the effectiveness of the teaching methods and materials they used so that they can revise the enquiry unit in a new cycle of action when they teach the unit again. the librarian involved with this project published an article about it in Knowledge Quest, a practitioner journal published by the American Association of school librarians. the issue was one dedicated to EBlIp in which researchers and practitioners, including a classroom teacher and teacher-librarians, contributed articles. ‘the subtext of these articles poses

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 148

148

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

interesting questions such as: What do school library researchers and school library practitioners have in common? And, what can they learn and accomplish together?’ (gordon, 2015, 6).

Future directions and conclusions School librarianship is evolving to reflect the impact of a digital revolution in information. LIS education is beginning to interpret the role of the teacher-librarian as instructional leader, as illustrated by Project Lead conducted at the PALM Center (Partnerships for Advancing Library Media) of Florida State University, which resulted in a leadership curriculum for teacher-librarians1 and a master’s degree programme at Granite State College, University System of New Hampshire2 to train pre-service teacher-librarians as school leaders. is post-graduate curriculum creates crosswalks between the pre-service librarians and the courses for the master’s programmes for principals and for technology directors. EBLIP is a major component in supporting a new leadership role for teacher-librarians by building a body of professional knowledge and expertise as they push forward an agenda of collaborative teaching, action research, research-based literacy education, integrated digital technology and Guided Inquiry. Implicit in these reforms is the role of the teacher-librarian as teacher-ofteachers. A dynamic digital landscape calls for the continual professional development of educators, with the teacher-librarian as an advocate for elevating information in the information and communications technology (ICT) concept so that digital literacy and digital citizenship are viewed as the cornerstones of a contemporary education. ese pedagogies have the potential to elevate the teacher-librarian to a position of transformational leadership. Development of the role of the teacher-librarian and the nature of the work supports educational reforms that change the conversation about what digital youth need to know and how youth are best taught and assessed. Personalized learning and other new ways of learning are emerging as the theme song for best practice. In the wake of new ideas and new technologies, the teacher-librarian can bring stability and continuity through EBLIP so that evidence-based decisions are made about teaching and learning. Equity issues of access to information and technology, as well as access to an ICT curriculum, will become increasingly important to political stability and economic prosperity around the globe. ere may be a solution to the digital divide in an emerging technology called Li-Fi (Haag, 2014), which uses light rather than radio waves to deliver networked, mobile, high-speed communication at low cost. e trends for school librarianship point to a shi in the evaluation of teacher-librarians that empowers them to self-assess, diagnose and improve their practice. EBLIP is critical to developing new evaluation schemes and providing mechanisms for the

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 149

gorDon | scHool lIBrArIEs

149

sustainability of a self-directed profession that can model new ways of working, as well as learning, in the digital age. Evidence-based advocacy and sustainability issues are also supported via EBLIP. Beneath the surface of these changes in school libraries and the work of teacherlibrarians is a paradigm shi that brings research and practice together in a common quest for evidence that improves practice. Critical to developing these understandings is a knowledge of information and learning theory that lies beneath the surface of best practice. It is important that teacher-librarians know and operationalize theory, as well as research findings, so that they understand why they do what they do. A growing body of literature on action research and other EBLIP tools is demonstrating that teacher-librarians can apply theory to their everyday evidence-based work. Mentoring partnerships between researchers and practitioners is a key factor in building the competency and confidence of teacher-librarians to weave EBLIP into their work every day. As they engage with evidence in the context of enquiry, they join with their students in the difficult task of reflection. Reflective thinking is always more or less troublesome because it involves overcoming the inertia that inclines one to accept suggestions at their face value; it involves willingness to endure a condition of mental unrest and disturbance. Reflective thinking … means judgment suspended during further inquiry; and suspense is likely to be somewhat painful… To maintain the state of doubt and to carry on systematic and protracted inquiry – these are the essentials of thinking. (Dewey, 1910, 13)

Notes 1 http://angelaaustin.host-ed.me./portfolio/PALMCenterBrochure ed.me/portfolio/ PALMCenterBrochure.pdf. 2 www.granite.edu/academics/degrees/masters/sl_lms.php.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 150

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 151

13 Special libraries Bill Fisher

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. Aer 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). is 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. ere 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

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 152

152

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

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.

EBLIP in special libraries EBLIP within the context of a special library occurs in three ways. e first is the influence of EBLIP on the collection and services that the library offers to its customers. e second is the influence of evidence-based management within the special library itself; this involves decisions made about how the special library is to be managed as a unit rather than decisions about what the collection consists of or the services the library provides. e third is the influence of EBP as practised by the organization as a whole (or perhaps just by the sub-unit or division of the larger organization of which the special library is a part).e first two examples of EBLIP would be in the purview of the library staff (and for some special libraries that could be just one person), while the latter type of EBLIP would be the result of decisions made outside the library – by the special library practitioner’s manager or even higher within the parent organization’s hierarchy. So, how are special libraries utilizing EBLIP, if at all? On first glance the ‘evidence’ is neither plentiful nor overwhelming. Some 20 years ago, Dimitroff (1995) analysed the state of professional literature as it related to research for special libraries. She cast a fairly wide net, gathering material dealing with all types of special libraries, with no restriction on the affiliation of the authors writing the articles she reviewed or on the type of article – just that they dealt with special libraries. It is not too surprising that some 55% of those authors had some kind of academic affiliation – medical librarians, law librarians and departmental (engineering, business etc.) librarians. Of the 227 articles included in the study, only 53 (19%) were reporting on research activities. Of this group of research-focused articles, over half (64%) used a survey to gather the data and most of these research articles used descriptive, quantitative techniques to analyse the data gathered: not a particularly solid foundation for EBP. But before we draw too many conclusions from what might appear to be a lack of interest in EBLIP on the part of special libraries, let us use our professional judgement as we’ve been advised to do when we analyse the ‘best available evidence’ on a particular topic (Chapters 4 and 5). While it is true that the professional literature is somewhat sparse regarding special libraries and EBLIP as a topic or indexing term, our professional judgement tells us that special libraries have needed to demonstrate

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 153

fIsHEr | spEcIAl lIBrArIEs

153

their value/justify their existence to their parent organization for years, and they’ve been doing this with various kinds of evidence that will be understood and appreciated by those within their organizations who will make the decision to continue to support the special library. As such, special libraries have been focused on methods such as intangible valuation, ROI, benchmarking and other types of evidence (not typically used by other libraries until recently) to demonstrate the value that they bring to their parent organizations. In her above-cited article, Dimitroff (1995) did indicate that the lack of a research base related to special libraries was being addressed by our professional associations, and chief among those is the Special Libraries Association (SLA). In 2003, Marshall discussed the SLA’s current Research Statement and how it sought to help to develop a culture of EBP among special library practitioners. Additionally, early work by Shera (1944) and Wasserman (1958), writing for the SLA community, stressed the need for special library practitioners to demonstrate their value to upper management. If we place the start of the evidence-based ‘movement’ in medicine in the early 1990s, then EBP for special libraries (in the form of value determination) pre-dates this by some 40 years or more.

What is evidence? A persistent question in any evidence-based environment is what constitutes ‘evidence’, and for the special library world the answer to this question will be as unique as each library involved. We typically think of special libraries as existing within the for-profit sector, so evidence that is highly regarded will be quantitative and financial in nature. Certainly, solid numbers demonstrating a positive contribution to the organization’s bottom line are valuable; however, they may not provide a complete picture of how the special library serves its parent organization. Most of the professional community, special library practitioners included, turn first to the professional literature to identify evidence from previously conducted research, although, as we saw from Dimitroff ’s (1995) work above, there has been a scarcity of research specific to the special library environment. e alternative to utilizing existing research literature to identify relevant evidence is for the special library practitioner to conduct a research effort themselves so as to discover evidence specific to their problem and/or location. is may appear to be an overwhelming task; however, many resources exist which provide assistance to someone in this kind of situation. Wheeler (2009) provides a good overview of why an organization would want to conduct its own research to capture evidence in support of change/improvement within the organization. One of the fundamental decisions that needs to be addressed fairly early in the research process is what format the evidence should take. is usually deals with the ‘design’ of the research/study, and

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 154

154

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

the traditional options are a quantitative design (typically resulting in numeric data), a qualitative design (typically resulting in text-based data) or a mixed methods design (typically resulting in a combination of both numeric and text-based data). Lorenzetti (2007) and Given (2006, 2007), respectively, provide overviews of quantitative and qualitative research designs to help distinguish between the two and when each might be used. Once the decision is made to seek quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods data, identifying an appropriate method to gather the evidence becomes crucial. In 2004, Eldredge surveyed the various research methods that had been used in a LIS context. His article provides a citation to an example of how each method has been used, although these examples are all taken from the health sciences LIS literature, so a special library practitioner in a non-health/medical environment would need to determine if a particular method would be applicable to the environment in question. It is not the intent of this chapter to cover the research process in any detail; however, one more aspect of doing original research should be addressed. e special library practitioner has the option of working with original evidence without having to actively conduct the research him- or herself. is usually means hiring a consultant or researcher to do the work, but in certain conditions other options are available. Brown-Sica (2013) describes how the Auraria Library, an academic library in Denver, Colorado utilized classes in architecture, human factors engineering (from the Psychology Department) and civil engineering to help the library to redesign/ reimagine itself internally, externally and structurally. Of course, in such a case having access to the needed expertise in the form of an instructor and a group of students is a must, so the special library practitioner would need to be aware of what resources were available. While a major redesign like that done in Colorado may not be applicable, assistance with less grandiose space planning or rearranging could prove beneficial, as would finding a design class to assist with a website redesign. Proponents of EBP have advocated for a broad view of the form that acceptable evidence might take (for more information see Chapter 4). A study of special library practitioners (Howlett and Howard, 2015) reinforces this expanded view of evidence and considers how the day-to-day practice of delivering information services in an organizational setting can provide the astute special library practitioner with evidence which can be used to enhance services and inform decision making. e five participants in the study represented a variety of work environments – two from medical or health-related libraries and one each from the legal sector, the corporate sector and an information consultancy. ey did, however, find common ground in a few key areas. First, there was a practice-oriented view of what constitutes acceptable evidence, including options ranging from the individual’s own experience and knowledge, to professional networks, to published research. Particular emphasis was placed on utilizing the expertise of colleagues and other contacts from the same type

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 155

fIsHEr | spEcIAl lIBrArIEs

155

of work environment. Extending this idea a bit further, one participant saw finding relevant information via a literature search as another way to benefit from the knowledge of other professionals. Second, there was agreement on certain organizational factors that influence the evidence these special library practitioners might use. Two factors, time and money, impact on any information professional in any environment. e amount of time one has in which to find the appropriate evidence will either expand or limit the resources to be used. Additionally, the funds available for these resources – those previously acquired and already on hand, or for the acquisition of resources specific to the evidence needed– will have an impact on what might be considered as evidence. Another factor that is more overt in a special library setting is who needs the evidence. It is reasonable to expect that more time, effort and money will be committed to gathering evidence for the CEO or other senior administrators of the organization than for a junior analyst. A third area of commonality was the practice of identifying possible evidence before it is actually needed and saving it for later use. ese special library practitioners appear to be taking full advantage of the many ways that are now available to store, organize and retrieve information, and to be combining that with a reliance on their professional knowledge and judgement to recognize information that may have little value today, but might be helpful at some point in the future. It is worth noting that, for a special library, the need to determine what kind of evidence will be seen as credible (or, even better, actionable) by the library’s parent organization is vital. It is the special library practitioner’s responsibility to determine what evidence will be valuable and by what method(s) should it be captured and assessed. Rarely does the special library practitioner report to anyone with any kind of library background or knowledge. e special library practitioner needs to do some combination of: (a) asking his/her manager what they’d like to have as evidence (although they should be ready for the manager not to know or to have unrealistic expectations because of their lack of any library knowledge); (b) determining what other units report to the same manager and finding out what kind of evidence they submit; and c) utilizing their network of professional contacts and find out what their colleagues are doing, what’s working for them and what they would do differently. And, of course, the special library practitioner needs to do this on a regular basis as conditions within the parent organization change.

Gathering the evidence Since special library practitioners rarely report to anyone with substantive knowledge about what the library does and why it is valuable to the organization, one of their

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 156

156

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

biggest challenges is to demonstrate that value in a way that will be understood and appreciated within the organization. is may be done by utilizing commonly accepted practices to demonstrate value. ese include ROI, benchmarking, the Balanced Scorecard and others.

ROI (return on investment) In the corporate world (and increasingly in the non-profit arena) one of the most accepted metrics is ROI. In essence, an ROI calculation demonstrates to the organization that for each dollar spent/invested on a particular function or unit the organization sees a certain dollar amount returned (Strouse, 2003). ROI is typically presented as either a percentage or ratio of return for each dollar (in the USA) the organization spends. is amount, especially if it shows a positive return, may also be presented simply as a dollar amount. So a special library could demonstrate its value to its parent organization by indicating its ROI is 4.5%; 4.5:1; or $4.50 – each showing that for every $1 spent to operate the special library, the parent organization receives $4.50 worth of value in return. On the surface this all seems rather straightforward, which makes one wonder why we haven’t seen more ROI studies from special libraries (corporate or otherwise), especially when ROI studies have been proved to be effective in the public library arena (Aabø, 2009). As we delve further into how the ROI for a special library can be determined, things become a bit more complex (Kelly, Hamasu and Jones, 2012). e economic benefits of a special library, as seen either from an organization-wide perspective or from an individual customer’s perspective, can be viewed as either a direct use benefit, an indirect use benefit or even a non-use benefit (Matthews, 2011). A direct use benefit, as the name implies, results in a tangible benefit that can be measured directly. is type of benefit is typically demonstrated with quantitative evidence and results in an ROI calculation that is positive and hard to ignore or dismiss. An example of a direct use benefit would be if the special library has a subscription/site licence to some publication (let’s say the Wall Street Journal – WSJ) and is able to distribute the paper electronically throughout the organization. If everyone in the organization who read the WSJ had an individual subscription, it would cost the organization significantly more. Additionally, if the head of the organization wanted everyone (or everyone at a certain level/rank within the organization) to read a specific book, the special library manager, working with the library’s book vendor, could obtain the needed number of copies in the shortest amount of time for $2.00–$3.00 less per copy than buying those copies from a bookstore or other source – another tangible, direct benefit. Determining the indirect benefit of a special library is trickier, as these benefits may

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 157

fIsHEr | spEcIAl lIBrArIEs

157

be less tangible, so it is harder to gather quantitative evidence in order to place an economic value on them. An example of this type of ROI calculation would be to assign an economic value to the time someone in the organization would save by having the special library staff find needed information more quickly and more efficiently. You make a reasonable ‘guesstimate’ as to how long it would take this individual (or perhaps you can base it on a previous experience) to find the needed information and then, based on his/her salary, express it as a dollar amount versus the known amount of time that it took the library staff person at his/her salary. e special library practitioner needs to know if this would be acceptable evidence to demonstrate this indirect benefit. What may be even harder to monetize and get acceptance for is what the non-library person did with the time that was not spent looking for information. is is an intangible benefit that might be better captured as qualitative evidence in the form of a comment or story from the person involved. Finally, there is the possibility of a non-use benefit that can be attributed to the special library. is is another example of an intangible benefit that would be identified through qualitative evidence. We might find an example of a non-use benefit in a law firm’s library. Simply by having a library or perhaps a library with better resources and staffing than a competing law firm could make the difference in getting a new client, a sought-aer ‘new hire’ or maybe a better selection of summer associates or interns. e evidence to substantiate this kind of value would be anecdotal for the most part and might not come to light until sometime later. e savvy special library practitioner should always be on the alert to discover this kind of evidence and record, because it can be a very powerful tool in the library’s never-ending job of justifying its existence. As we have seen, determining the organization’s ROI for its special library can help the library to demonstrate the value it brings to the organization and thus help to ensure that the library remains a vital part of the organization’s structure. In this regard, the evidence from the ROI analysis is typically used in the decision making to keep the library functioning. ROI can also provide the special library practitioner with evidence for internal decision making about which resources, services and so on will give the library the best return for how its budget is spent. Here one is looking at the anticipated ROI from selecting one option among a range of possibilities. is type of calculation (typically expressed quantitatively) may also be called a cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, the idea behind either method being to allow the decision maker to compare different resources and services on the basis of their projected costs and anticipated benefits.

Benchmarking Benchmarking is another method that can be employed by special libraries to identify

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 158

158

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

evidence of the value they bring to their respective organizations. Benchmarking is essentially a process of identifying, understanding and adapting best practices and/or processes, with a goal for the organization (or sub-unit of that organization) to improve the quality of the goods produced, services delivered and the like (Simon, 2011). To a large extent, benchmarking is what EBP is all about, especially the new framework for EBP identified in the first part of this book. In the special library context, the library articulates which aspect(s) of its operation to benchmark. is can range from an evaluation of the library as a whole to looking at very specific aspects of the operation – how does the library deliver needed information resources to its clients and how can it improve upon the status quo? e next step is to assemble the sources of evidence, and in benchmarking this means deciding to which other libraries the special library will compare itself. If the special library is seeking to benchmark its entire operation, then other special libraries similar in nature need to be found. If the library is focused on specific aspects of its operation, then the other organizations used in the benchmarking need to be similar enough that upper management will regard the results of the benchmarking as valid. Once an appropriate group of cognate organizations and the types of evidence to be reviewed have been identified, the next step in the benchmarking process is to assess the evidence gathered. e specific assessments made will be determined by the evidence at hand and whether that evidence is quantitative, qualitative or a combination of the two. As the evidence from the other organizations is assessed, gaps in service quality, resource quality and such will be identified, which leads to the agreement step in the process. Depending on how many people are involved in the decisions to be made as a result of the benchmarking, this step can be rather straightforward or highly complex. An additional factor to consider at this stage is exactly what is being benchmarked – the entire operation of the special library, with many individual functions to be reviewed, or just a single function of the library, but comprised of a number of discrete steps or factors. In almost any situation multiple decisions will need to be made, so a few questions need to be addressed. Is the identified gap real or is it the result of collecting the wrong evidence? Has an error been made in the analysis of the evidence? If the gap is real, does the response require a one-step solution or does it require a series of steps? And if it is the latter, are those steps sequential, with step C following step B, which has to follow step A, or can multiple steps be taken simultaneously? How much time should be allowed for the gap to be closed and a noticeable improvement in quality to be identified? Once these questions have been asked, decisions are made and agreement is reached on those decisions by the various stakeholders. ose decisions then need to be implemented and the adapt stage of the benchmarking process is reached. is is the stage where the special library thinks about whether the organization is adapting to the changes that have been introduced to reduce or remove the gap between where

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 159

fIsHEr | spEcIAl lIBrArIEs

159

things stand now and where the special library wants to be. At this point the special library may realize unforeseen or unintended consequences that may cause a reconsideration of the entire process or some specific aspect of the process. And if the changes are going well, additional aspects of the special library’s operation may be identified as another facet where benchmarking could be applied. Benchmarking provides the organization with a number of options to gather evidence and assess the operation of the special library. To benchmark the entire operation of the library at one time would be a time-consuming process, especially if the library is not prepared (or funded) to bring in a consultant or other type of additional support to conduct the benchmarking. One alternative is to focus on specific functions on a rotating basis, so that every X number of months (or years) the entire library is benchmarked. Taking things in smaller – and hopefully more manageable – pieces may also allow the library’s staff to do the benchmarking without outside help. e benchmarking may be done internally or externally (Wilson and Strouse, 2005).With internal benchmarking, the special library or specific sub-unit is compared with other units/sub-units within the larger parent organization, looking for best practices within the overall operation of the larger organization, so that those units with any kind of customer service function might be benchmarked against each other; or, if the organization operates out of multiple locations, then the different locations may be benchmarked against one another. External benchmarking looks for best practices from outside the parent organization. e process described above can be used in both internal and external benchmarking. A geographical dimension can also be added to the benchmarking process. e internal geographical aspect has already been mentioned; in external benchmarking, the organization might want to focus on the best practices found in other organizations within a certain region, a certain country or internationally. e latter approach can become complex, due to differences in laws, regulations and/or customs from one country to another that might impact on certain aspects of the special library’s operation. Finally, the benchmarking may be done informally, by gathering evidence on an ad hoc basis from wherever it may be available; or it can be done formally (as described above), by obtaining specific evidence from specific organizations.

Other methods e special library practitioner is by no means limited to ROI or benchmarking as the only methods available to gather evidence, so we’ll take a brief look at three further methods: contingent valuation, the Balanced Scorecard and measuring intangible assets. Contingent valuation is really a sub-set of a technique used by economists and called

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 160

160

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

Stated Preference. e essential question that a contingent valuation study would ask an organization or an individual is: if the library did not exist, how much would someone be willing to pay for the information services they get from the library (Hider, 2008). Much like ROI evidence, this method seeks to place a monetary value on the special library. e Balanced Scorecard (Bielavitz, 2010) was developed in the early 1990s as a method to go beyond using just financial data as evidence for how an organization was performing. e ‘balance’ comes in as the scorecard measures customer satisfaction, internal business processes, learning and growth as well as financial data to assess an organization’s overall performance. With its emphasis on using more than financial data to evaluate an organization, gathering evidence via the Balanced Scorecard should find favour with those who want to expand what ‘acceptable’ evidence is. To some extent, the idea of measuring intangible assets is an oxymoron because, by definition, something intangible has no material being or intrinsic value and cannot be measured. On the other hand, when an organization seeks to determine a bottomline value for the organization as a whole, or even for certain components or sub-divisions of the organization, it understands that these intangible assets must be accounted for and measured somehow (Portugal, 2000). Intangible assets can take a number of different forms. One of the overarching intangibles is the concept of ‘good will’ and how that enhances the organization’s standing or reputation on a local, regional, national or even international level. Is someone more likely to do business with or to contribute to an organization that is seen as socially responsible, eco-friendly or, today, specifically climate friendly? From a special library point of view, the fact that the library exists could provide an intangible benefit, as we saw in the example above of the law firm leveraging the special library to help with recruiting new employees. Additionally, within the organization itself, if people had previous positive experiences with libraries (of any type) that ‘good will’ should make them more inclined to use the special library than if they had not had much interaction with libraries in the past or had negative interactions. What is important to remember is that these methods of gathering evidence to help determine value are not mutually exclusive. e special library practitioner may need to employ some combination of these methods, as well as others not mentioned here, to provide comprehensive evidence that will be regarded as valid by others in the organization.

Obstacles to EBP Just because the methods discussed above for gathering evidence exist, this does not

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 161

fIsHEr | spEcIAl lIBrArIEs

161

mean that special library practitioners engage in EBP. A number of factors contribute to this state of affairs. As other contributors to this book have indicated, information professionals working in any environment face a similar set of obstacles to utilizing EBP. With specific reference to the special library community, despite the best efforts of organizations like the SLA to champion the benefits of EBP, we may never really know how extensively EBLIP is being used, since there is no reason for special library practitioners to let the wider professional community know what they do in their respective work sites. Focusing more on evidence-based management, Fisher and Robertson (2007) reviewed how special libraries could adopt this practice to enhance their decision making. ey looked at some of the obstacles a special library practitioner might face in using evidence-based management, as well as providing possible strategies to assist a special library practitioner to implement evidence-based management. Many of these strategies would also be applicable to extending evidence-based practice beyond decision making. Unfortunately, we have little evidence that the situation has changed much since that article was published. As alluded to above, the special library practitioner has little incentive to publish and, when they do, depending on the specific environment in which they work, they may be limited in what they can discuss so as not to reveal proprietary or competitive information about their organizations.

EBLIP in action e following two case studies look at how EBP has been used in special library settings.

Case study 13.1 Novartis Knowledge Center the first example comes from novartis, a global pharmaceutical company, and what its library did to reposition itself within the organization. While the library changed its name to the novartis Knowledge center (nKc) and the staff no longer used the term librarian, the Knowledge center found that it was still very internally focused rather than externally or customer focused. It found that it was trying to demonstrate its value by using traditional outcomes measures, which just increased the likelihood that it would be viewed as a cost centre rather than a ‘value’ center. to help the nKc staff gather the evidence needed to demonstrate this value, it developed the Value Assessment on library Use Efficiency (VAlUE) project. the nKc staff wanted to go beyond simply recording their activities as they related to managing information for novartis, and to determine the business impact of those activities. they focused on novartis’ Drug Discovery and Development process (nDDp) – an internally developed matrix showing key business-functional areas and their decision points

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 162

162

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

along a nine-stage timeline from the discovery phase for a new drug to the drug’s becoming a mature product in the marketplace. the nKc staff were able to identify information requests that they received by business area within the organization and to link this to where the request fitted in along the nDDp timeline. from this, the nKc began to produce externally generated evidence showing the monetary value of the information it provided, so as to help demonstrate its value to the overall organization (He, chaudhuri and Juterbock, 2009).

Case study 13.2 National Documentation Centre on Drug Use Another example of a special library demonstrating the value it provides to its parent organization comes from an Irish organization, the national Documentation centre on Drug Use (nDc). the nDc is something of a self-described hybrid library – part national library, special library, academic library, public library, health sciences library and digital library (Dunne et al., 2013). In 2012, to coincide with its tenth year of service, the nDc embarked upon a two-part study to assess both the value of its resources and services and the impact that the nDc has on the work and study of its customers. the nDc is ‘an information resource that supports researchers, policy makers, educators and practitioners working to develop the knowledge base around drug and alcohol use. the nDc is based within the Health research Board, which is the lead agency in Ireland supporting and finding health research’ (Dunne et al., 2013, 42). one of the key elements in nDc’s ability to carry out its study was the thorough review of potential assessment tools to identify the appropriate way to gather the evidence that it hoped to use. As a hybrid library, the nDc reviewed assessment tools from a number of environments including the library quality assessment framework (lQAf) developed by the national Health service for libraries in England, the Acrl standards as they existed at that time, and the recent Iso 16439: methods and procedures for assessing the impact of libraries; as well as other assessment tools of a similar nature. the nDc decided to gather both quantitative evidence, by means of a web-based survey instrument, to assess value and qualitative evidence, using semistructured interviews, to assess impact. the full report of the study (Dunne et al., 2013), both its development and execution, provides significant details that would be helpful to any library wishing to gather similar evidence to demonstrate its value/impact to its parent organization. the survey questions and interview protocol (or topic guide) are also provided in Dunne et al. (2013).

Beyond attempts to demonstrate the value of a single special library, as the two case studies do, other studies have tried to calculate the ROI for groups of libraries. is has been done a number of times for public libraries serving a specific state or region. In 2013, a collaboration of library-related associations in Australia sought to

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 163

fIsHEr | spEcIAl lIBrArIEs

163

determine a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for special libraries in that country. e participating groups included the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), Health Libraries Inc (HLInc), Health Libraries Australia (HLA) and the Australian Law Libraries Association (ALLA). ese associations contracted with SGS Economics and Planning to conduct a survey to gather the evidence needed to calculate the BCR for Australian special libraries. It was estimated that some 2,200 special libraries existed at the time of the survey (including corporate, health, government and law libraries). All of these libraries were contacted and were asked questions about how well they felt that they served their respective customer bases, as well as questions about the costs and benefits of the resources/services they provided. Of the 2,200 special libraries contacted, responses were received from 242 (11%), of which only 78 (4% of the total) provided cost and benefit information, so the results represent a small proportion of the total special library population. No information was provided as to which sector(s) of the Australian special library community the respondents belonged, so it would be difficult to say that the results were indicative of any type (i.e. health, legal, etc.) of special library. at said, the average BCR was found to be a return of $5.43 for each $1.00 invested in a special library (amounts expressed in Australian dollars). While this is a fairly healthy return, the median BCR was found to be more modest, at $1.15 for each $1.00 spent, indicating a significant range in the responses received (Australian Library and Information Association, Health Libraries Inc, ALIA Health Libraries Australia and Australian Law Librarians’ Association, 2014). e average return of $5.43 per dollar spent does seem credible when compared with other library ROI studies in both the UK and the USA. In 2004 it was determined that the British Library returned £4.40 for each £1 spent; while in 2005 public libraries in South Carolina were found to return $4.48 for each $1.00 spent, and in 2004 in Florida the ratio was $6.54 for each $1.00 spent (Missingham, 2005).

Conclusion In conclusion, what can be said about the role of EBLIP in the special library environment? Given the nature of special libraries and the organizations in which they are situated, establishing (re-establishing) the value that the library brings to the organization is an ongoing concern. Accordingly, each special library practitioner must determine what kind of evidence will be recognized as acceptable in demonstrating that value to the decision makers within the organization. Once the type of evidence is known it is then a question of where and how to find it and the best way to present that evidence for maximum impact. Any special library practitioner will tell you that in addition to everything else, the evidence itself, as well as the process used to gather

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 164

164

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

it, must be expressed in a language that the decision makers understand, which may not be the same language that the LIS field understands. Accordingly, special library practitioners have learned to speak the language of benchmarking, ROI, the balanced scorecard, intangible assets and more. e future of EBLIP in special library environments is anyone’s guess. ose special library practitioners who are using some type of EBP because they found it effective in presenting a solid case for their operation’s value to the organization will continue to do so, as long as that evidence is accepted as valid by the decision makers. What these special library practitioners (as well as others in the profession) lack is a repository of examples of EBP from any type of library or information service that they can use as appropriate and from which to generate ideas for their own practice. e development and, more importantly, maintenance of such a repository would be useful to all information professionals in helping them to access examples of appropriate evidence that could be adapted to local circumstances or could provide an impetus to design and implement an original research effort to gather new or updated evidence. Further, special library practitioners in a variety of environments and in a variety of locations are probably utilizing the basic principles of EBP to make decisions and demonstrate their value to their parent organizations but do not recognize what they are doing as EBP, for any one of a number of reasons. While the literature about EBLIP is growing, any attempts to increase the range of publications that give it some coverage could only be an improvement on the current situation. is would include publications aimed at the general special library practitioner, as well as publications with a more specific focus on business libraries, engineering libraries or science libraries, for example. Discussion of the evidence-based process itself and examples of EBP in a range of special library environments would allow those unfamiliar with the concept to gain a sense of what is involved and, hopefully, think about how it could be introduced into their workplace. Until EBLIP becomes more identified with the special library environment, more promotion work needs to be done in this area.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 165

14 Conclusion Denise Koufogiannakis and Alison Brettle

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 shied over the years, developing from roots in EBM into a model that takes the unique context of LIS professionals into account. e 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. e 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. is 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

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 166

166

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

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. You listen to and learn from colleagues, drawing on the whole of the LIS community to improve your professional knowledge and position yourself to make wise decisions, while being aware of your own biases. You may do this as an individual, or you may seek evidence to implement change as part of a group. You may also use this new knowledge or evidence to convince or influence others of the best way forward or to prove the value of your services. e contributed chapters in this book draw on different sectors of librarianship, from health, school, public, special and academic libraries. All share a basic underlying commitment to library service and information dissemination, but, depending upon the sector, they have different focuses. For example, academic librarians focus on the specific needs of faculty and students in higher education, while public librarians focus on the diverse needs of the city or town they serve. As such, the focus of each sector is different in terms of the types of questions it has or the types of services it is looking to grow or improve upon. Each chapter has given us a grounding in some of the issues the particular sector is currently encountering, and the approach of librarians in that field to being evidence based. Here we see some differences in the types of evidence sources being used. In school libraries, action research is paramount, whereas in academic libraries there has been a strong focus on assessment and specific research projects. Public libraries are very involved with local evidence that gives them immediate feedback about users’ needs, and special libraries must be attuned to the needs of their stakeholders and be able to speak the language of their parent organizations. Health librarians may be contributing to the evidence-based practice of the clinicians or organizations they serve as well as creating their own evidence base from which to measure the quality or demonstrate the value of their services. Demonstrating value of library services (or advocacy) is a constant thread through all the contributing chapters, and an aspect of EBLIP which to date has not been considered in the literature. For special libraries, which exist only so long as they continue to provide services needed or valued by the organizations they serve, the need to demonstrate value (even if not known as part of EBLIP) is longstanding. For public libraries, even with a statutory mandate, evidence on the value of the services provided is needed in the face of huge public sector cuts where libraries need to compete for money against services that provide more tangible and immediate impacts, such as waste collection, policing and education. Within schools and higher education, the landscape is changing, with a shi from physical to virtual collections,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 167

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | conclUsIon

167

and the role of a library or the librarian may be hidden or seem remote from the goals of the institution. Making a contribution to education is not enough to convince stakeholders who have to pay for library collections; librarians need to provide evidence of how those library collections contribute and how they can make a difference to what children and students learn. Within healthcare, librarians contribute to the professional development of clinicians; but in order to remain current and visible, they need to demonstrate that they too make a difference to patient care or can help to reduce costs, given the spiralling costs of healthcare. When we look at each sector, despite the different emphases, each fits into the model of EBLIP that we propose. We believe that this is because the model is flexible and not dictated by any specific types of evidence or ways in which evidence can be used. is view of EBLIP is one that is contextual, based on specific circumstances and need. It is a model in which the practitioner, with their professional skills and knowledge, determines how to proceed, which sources of evidence are required, and which sources hold the most weight. erefore, based on specific circumstances within each sector, the model can apply. Any judgement about whether the process of decision making was sufficient or whether the evidence gathered was appropriate will be le to peers within the sector to decide and, more specifically, to those within the specific organization where the decision is being made. In the past, EBLIP was sometimes considered too narrow, trying to impose particular types of evidence that did not necessarily work and ignoring local evidence and professional knowledge. e model presented here promotes that all three facets – research evidence, local evidence and professional knowledge – are important sources of evidence that should be considered. We also acknowledge the specific models that have grown within the sectors, such as the work done by Todd and Gordon in school librarianship, and believe that they nicely complement what we have proposed, at a more direct level. This book provides plenty of opportunities to learn from different library sectors. Throughout the first part of the book we have tried to draw on examples from across library sectors to show the wide applicability of each aspect of the model. However, given our academic and health library backgrounds, we hope that we will be forgiven if there has been a tendency to lean towards what we know best. Nevertheless, we can all learn from and share evidence with each other. Librarianship has a history of adopting methods and tools from other areas, and EBLIP doesn’t need to be any different, particularly where something is well established. The case studies in Chapter 10, on public libraries, show the development of toolkits to help public libraries collect evidence on their services; this approach is beginning to be seen in the health sector and could well be adapted to help libraries in other sectors collect local evidence based on larger-scale research projects. The use of the ROI approach is discussed in Chapter 13, on special libraries; this approach has also been used in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 168

168

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

public libraries but perhaps may be of value to demonstrate wider impacts in other sectors. The critical incident technique (Chapter 11) has been used to collect data on the impact of literature searches in health; this approach may well be of use to demonstrate the value of services provided in special libraries. These are just examples, but hopefully sufficient to convince you that there is value in reading what is happening in other sectors and to influence what you do in yours. is book has brought together the current thinking about EBLIP, but it also prompts us to think about areas where more research and development needs to be done in order for EBLIP to continue to grow and enable librarians to be evidence based. We see a need for more work to be done in the following broad areas: 1 Weighing different evidence sources and considering the whole of the evidence. As was detailed in Chapter 5 (Assess), significant work has been done on the critical appraisal of research. From this librarians have developed critical appraisal tools, created evidence summaries which are regularly published in the EBLIP journal and are starting to contribute more systematic reviews to the literature than ever before. Such tools and resources help librarians to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the research they are reading, and help them to make better judgements regarding the weight of that research. It is now time to look at similar tools to help with overall judgement regarding evidence sources in general, or for specific forms of evidence. We have noted the TAPUPAS framework as one potential tool, but certainly research could be undertaken to ascertain this tool’s usefulness in LIS. In general, further thought could be given to this part of the process and any tools that might help to guide librarians. 2 Systematic reviews are growing in LIS, but there are still only a small number overall. e value of systematic reviews is that they bring together the existing research that answers a question. If you are lucky enough to find a systematic review that relates to your question, a large part of your work will be done. As a profession, we need to pay attention to what these systematic reviews are telling us. And we need to do more systematic reviews in areas where none currently exist. Efforts like those of the MLA to undertake systematic reviews in areas of importance are a boon to developing our body of knowledge; however, as more than half of all LIS systematic reviews that have been published to date are in the health field, clearly we need similar efforts in other sectors. We also need to pay attention to the quality of the systematic reviews produced. As librarians, we should be skilled in finding the evidence to go into the review; however, we also need to develop ways to ensure that the whole systematic review process in LIS is of a high quality and to ensure that the reviews we produce are credible and reliable.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 169

KoUfogIAnnAKIs & BrEttlE | conclUsIon

169

3 e areas of Agree and Adapt have long been under-explored in EBLIP. We believe that there is much room for further development of some of the concepts that we have detailed in Chapters 6 and 7. Case studies on group decision making using an evidence-based approach would be beneficial to understanding what works and what doesn’t and would provide concrete examples to learn from. Some work has been done in the librarianship field on reflection in practice; however, having more concrete examples and tools for doing this, would be beneficial to others wanting to be more reflective in their practice. And finally, more work on change management and using evidence in advocacy efforts would be beneficial in this area. Booth and Brice’s (2004b) book concluded by highlighting a number of priorities and goals for the future. ese included incorporating more library sectors rather than just health, revising the definition of EBLIP, a call for more systematic reviews and a database of high-quality research articles. is book has striven to be all inclusive, highlighting and promoting examples of EBLIP across library sectors. Rather than redefine EBLIP, we have chosen to refocus the approach and ensure that all the elements of the EBLIP definition are considered as appropriate. We have shown that systematic reviews are increasing, but more research needs to be done. Although there is no database of high-quality research articles, journal editors have been promoting more rigorous approaches to research, and with the changing face of resource discovery there may well be no need for a specific database. International strategies and collaborations were also called for. is book is a true example of international collaboration: as editors from the two sides of the Atlantic, we have successfully collaborated on EBLIP projects for many years (including the journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice). Using our networks in the field we have drawn on contributors for chapters in the second part of the book, oen bringing together authors who had not previously worked together but who have successfully written chapters representing a myriad of perspectives. While the book has primarily a UK and North American focus, more still needs to be done to incorporate perspectives from other parts of the world. ere is still no formal association for EBLIP; however, the practice continues to thrive, the EBLIP journal continues to flourish and the conference series is fully established as a biennial event with both loyal and new advocates at each event. Professional bodies have continued to focus their policy towards incorporating research as well as the value of evidence for advocacy. As the EBLIP field continues to reflect on and adapt its own model, as well as the context, perhaps there is no need for more formal structures, which might stifle development. We have both been involved with the EBLIP movement from its very early days. It is remarkable to look back and see how far EBLIP has come since 1997 and to reflect

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 170

170

pArt 2 | EBlIp In ActIon

on the ways in which it has changed. Where there have been criticisms about the model’s being narrow or only focusing on research evidence, those criticisms have led to evolution and change. It has been wonderful to be part of a community that is evolving before one’s eyes and open to the voices of many. EBLIP is not the same as it was envisioned in 1997, and that is a good thing. It has grown to fit the profession and become open to the evidence that is most appropriate to the field. It is beginning to consider the other factors that impact on evidence-based decision making and, in doing so, is enabling greater insight and self-awareness. Being evidence based is not a simple thing. It is a challenging and ongoing process that fits with a lifetime of professional growth that makes sense. We question and doubt and learn and have successes and failures and are never perfect, but we change and grow alongside our profession and the users whose changing needs move us into the future. Wisdom means acting with knowledge while doubting what you know. (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006)

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 171

References

Aabø, S. (2009) Libraries and return on investment (ROI): A meta‐analysis. New Library World, 110 (7/8), 311–324. AASL and AECT (American Association of School Librarians and Association for Educational Communications and Technology) (1998) Information Power: Guidelines for school library media programs. Chicago, IL: Author. AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) (2002) Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No 47. AHRQ Pub. No. 02-E015. http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/strenfact.pdf. Alberani, V. and Pietrangeli, D. (1995) Grey literature in information science: Production, circulation, and use. INSPEL: International Journal of Special Libraries, 29, 240–249. Alcock J. (2014) CILIP Revalidation Hints and Tips – Writing your supporting statement. Available from www.joeyanne.co.uk/2014/08/20/cilip-revalidation-hints-tips-writingyour-supporting-statement/. Alper, B. S., White, D. S. and Ge, B. (2005) Physicians answer more clinical questions and change clinical decisions more often with synthesized evidence: A randomized trial in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 3 (6), 507–13. American Library Association (2012) Academic Libraries and Student Success: Assessment in action. www.ala.org/acrl/AiA. American Library Association (2015) State of America’s Libraries Report 2015. www.ala.org/news/sites/ala.org.news/files/content/0415_StateAmLib_0.pdf. Americans for Libraries Council (2007) Worth Their Weight: An assessment of the evolving

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 172

172

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

field of library valuation. www.ala.org/research/sites/ala.org.research/files/content/ librarystats/worththeirweight.pdf. Anderson, F., Bickett, S., Doucette, J., Herring, R., Kammerer, J., Kepsel, A., Lyons, T., McLachlan, S., Tonnison, I. and Wu, L. (2014) Future technological practices: Medical librarians’ skills and information structures for continued effectiveness in a changing environment. Paper presented at Medical Library Association Annual Meeting, 16–21 May, Chicago, IL. Ankem, K. (2008) Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in LIS. Library and Information Research, 32 (101), 91–104. Anonymous (2001) Medicina basada en la evidencia: un nuevo reto al professional de la información en salud. Acimed, 9 (1), 5–11. Anstice, I. (2015) Public Libraries News. www.publiclibrariesnews.com/. ARL (Association of Research Libraries) (2016) Assessment Community. www.arl.org/focusareas/statistics-assessment/assessment-community#.V5OKt7iAOkb. Arts Council England (2014) Evidence Review of the Economic Contribution of Libraries. www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/Evidence_review_economic_contribution_ libraries.pdf. Arts Council England (n.d.) About ILFA. www.artscouncil.org.uk/about-ilfa/. Asher, A. D., Duke, L. M. and Wilson, S. (2013) Paths of discovery: Comparing the search effectiveness of EBSCO Discovery Service, Summon, Google Scholar, and conventional library resources. College & Research Libraries, 74 (5), 464–488. http://crl.acrl.org/content/74/5/464.full.pdf+html. Austin, M. J., Dal Santo, T. S. and Lee, C. (2012) Building organizational supports for research-minded practitioners. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 9 (1–2), 174–211. doi:10.1080/15433714.2012.636327. Australian Library and Information Association, Health Libraries Inc, ALIA Health Libraries Australia and Australian Law Librarians’ Association (2014) Putting a Value on ‘Priceless’: An independent assessment on the return on investment of special libraries in Australia. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Library and Information Association. Ayre, S., Barbrook, J., Engel, C., Lacey, P., Phul, A., Stevenson, P. and Toft, S. (2015) Measuring the impact of information skills training: A survey of health libraries in England. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 32 (1), 50–60. doi:10.1111/hir.12079. Baer, A. (2015) Keeping Up with … Digital Writing in the College Classroom. Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries. www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_ with/digital_writing. Ballard, S. D. (2015) Action research: A personal epiphany and journey with evidence-based practice. Knowledge Quest, 43 (3), 44–48. Ballard, S. D., March, G. and Sand, J. K. (2009) Creation of a research community in a K-12 school system using action research and evidence based practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (2), 8–36.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 173

rEfErEncEs

173

Balslev, J. (1989) A working librarian’s experience with library research. Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly, 4, 4–9. Banks, M. (2008) Friendly skepticism about evidence based library and information practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 3 (3), 86–90. Barksey, E. (2009) Library Journal Club as a tool for current awareness and open communication: University of British Columbia case study. Partnership, 4 (2). https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/1000/1557#.Vquf08d4Tkg. Bartlett, J. C. and Marshall, J. G. (2013) The value of library and information services in patient care: Canadian results from an international multisite study. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (JCHLA), 34 (3), 138–146. doi:10.5596/c13–063. Beaven, O. and Lane, A. (2012) Case study 8.2: Information specialists. In: Brettle, A. and Urquhart, C. (eds), Changing Roles and Contexts for Health Library and Information Professionals, London: Facet Publishing. Becker, S., Crandall, M. D., Fisher, K. E., Kinney, B., Landry, C. and Rocha. A. (2010) Opportunity for All: How the American public benefits from internet access at U. S. libraries. (IMLS-2010-RES-01). Washington, D. C.: Institute of Museum and Library Services. Belise, C. A. H. (2004) The teacher as leader: Transformational leadership and the professional teacher or teacher-librarian. School Libraries in Canada Online, 24 (3), 73–79. Beverley, C. (2004) Searching the literature. In: Booth, A. and Brice, A. (eds) Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook, London, Facet Publishing, 89–103. Bielavitz, T. (2010) The balanced scorecard: A systemic model for evaluation and assessment of learning outcomes? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (2), 35–46. Booth, A. (2000, July) Librarian heal thyself: Evidence based librarianship, useful, practical, desirable? 8th International Congress on Medical Librarianship, London, UK. Booth, A. (2003) Bridging the research–practice gap? The role of evidence based librarianship. The New Review of Information and Library Research, 9 (1), 3–23. doi:10.1080/13614550410001687909. Booth, A. (2004a) Evaluating your performance. In: Booth, A. and Brice, A. (eds), EvidenceBased Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook, London: Facet Publishing, 127–137. Booth, A. (2004b) Formulating answerable questions. In: Booth, A. and Brice, A. (eds), Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook, London: Facet Publishing, 61–70. Booth, A. (2006) Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech, 24 (3), 355–368. Booth, A. (2007) Who will appraise the appraisers? The paper, the instrument and the use. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24 (1), 72–76. Booth, A. (2008) Evidence-based practice and the developing world. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25, 74–77.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 174

174

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Booth, A. (2009) Eleven steps to EBLIP service. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (2), 81–84. doi:10.1111/j.1471–1842.2008.00836. Booth, A. (2009a) A bridge too far? Stepping stones for evidence based practice in an academic context. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15 (1), 3–34. Booth, A. (2009b) EBLIP five-point-zero: Towards a collaborative model of evidence-based practice. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26 (4), 341–344. doi:10.1111/j.1471–1842.2009.00867.x. Booth, A. (2010) Upon reflection: Five mirrors of evidence based practice. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27 (3), 253–256. Booth, A. (2011) Barriers and facilitators to evidence-based library and information practice: An international perspective. Perspectives in International Librarianship,1. doi:10.5339/pil.2011.1. Booth, A. (2012) Case study 8.1: Reader in evidence based information practice. In: Changing Roles and Contexts for Health Library and Information Professionals, London: Facet Publishing. Booth, A. and Brice, A. (2003) CriSTAL – clear-cut? Facilitating health librarians to use information research in practice. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20 (suppl. 1), 45–52. Booth, A. and Brice, A. (2004a) Appraising the Evidence. In: Booth, A. and Brice, A. (eds), Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook, London: Facet Publishing, 104–118. Booth, A. and Brice, A. (eds) (2004b) Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook, London: Facet Publishing. Booth, A. and Brice, A. (2007) Prediction is difficult, especially the future. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2 (1), 89–106. Booth, A. and Eldredge, J. D. (2010) A voyage of discovery: Identifying barriers to EBLIP in the Caribbean. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (3), 68–72. Booth, C., Lowe, M. S., Tagge, N. and Stone, S. M. (2015) Degrees of impact: Analyzing the effects of progressive librarian course collaborations on student performance. College & Research Libraries, 76 (7), 623–651. http://crl.acrl.org/content/76/5/623.full.pdf+html. Bowles-Terry, M. (2012) Library instruction and academic success: A mixed-methods assessment of a library instruction program. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (1), 82–95. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/ view/12373. Boynton, J., Glanville, J., McDaid, D. and Lefebvre, C. (1998) Identifying systematic reviews in MEDLINE: Developing an objective approach to search strategy design, Journal of Information Science, 24 (3), 137. Bradley, C. (2006) The E in EBL: Finding the evidence to support your practice. Feliciter, 53 (1), 22–24. Bradley, J. and Marshall, J. G. (1995) Using scientific evidence to improve information

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 175

rEfErEncEs

175

practice. Health Libraries Review, 12 (3), 147–57. Bradley, P. V., Getrich, C. M. and Hannigan, G. G. (2015) New Mexico practitioners’ access to and satisfaction with online clinical information resources: An interview study using qualitative data analysis software. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103 (1), January, 31–35. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.006. Brettle, A. (2003) Information skills training: A systematic review of the literature. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 20 (Suppl. 1), 3–9. Brettle, A. (2007) Evaluating information skills training in health libraries: A systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24 (Suppl. 1), 18–37. Brettle, A. (2009a) Exploring the roles and impact of health information professionals within evidence based practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Salford. Brettle, A. (2009b) Systematic reviews and evidence based library and information practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (1), 43–50. Brettle, A. (2012a) Learning from others about research evidence. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (2), 1–3. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/ article/view/17388/14056. Brettle, A. (2012b) Looking forwards and looking back, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (1), 1–3. Brettle, A. (2012c) The librarian within research and evidence based practice. In: Brettle, A. and Urquhart, C. (eds), Changing Roles and Contexts for Health Library and Information Professionals, London: Facet Publishing, 135–160. Brettle, A. (2013) Evidence based practice: An opportunity? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8 (4), 1–2. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/21022. Brettle, A. J. and Long, A. F. (2001) Comparison of bibliographic databases for information on the rehabilitation of people with severe mental illness. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89 (4), 353–362. Brettle, A. and Maden, M. (2015a) What Evidence Is there to Support the Employment of Professionally Trained Library, Information and Knowledge Workers? A systematic scoping review of the evidence, London: CILIP, www.cilip.org.uk/about/projects-reviews/valuetrained-information-professionals. Brettle, A. and Maden, M. (2015b) A hive approach to EBLIP: results and reflections. Poster presentation, 8th International Conference of Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, Brisbane, Australia, July. Brettle, A. and Raynor, M. (2013) Developing information literacy skills in re-registration nurses: An experimental study of teaching methods. Nurse Education Today, 33 (2), 103– 109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.12.003. Brettle, A. and Urquhart, C. (eds) (2012) Changing Roles and Contexts for Health Library and Information Professionals, London: Facet Publishing.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 176

176

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Brettle, A., Hulme, C. and Ormandy, P. (2006) The costs and effectiveness of information skills training and mediated searching: Quantitative results from the EMPIRIC project. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23 (4), 239–247. Brettle, A., Hulme, C. and Ormandy, P. (2007) Effectiveness of information skills training and mediated searching: Qualitative results from the EMPIRIC project. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24 (1), 24–33. Brettle, A., Maden, M. and Payne, C. (2016) The impact of clinical librarian services on patients and health care organisations. Health Information and Libraries Journal. doi:10.1111/hir.12136. Brettle, A., Maden-Jenkins, M., Anderson, L., McNally, R., Pratchett, T., Tancock, J., Thornton, D. and Webb, A. (2011) Evaluating clinical librarian services: A systematic review, Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28 (1), 2–32. Brettle, A. J., Long, A. F., Grant, M. J. and Greenhalgh, J. (1998) Searching for information on outcomes: Do you need to be comprehensive? Quality in Health Care, 7 (3), 163–167. Brophy, P. (2003) The People’s Network: A turning point for public libraries, Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries. www.slainte.org.uk/SLIC/peoplesnet/pn_a_turning_point_2002.pdf. Brophy, P. (2008) Telling the story: Qualitative approaches to measuring the performance of emerging library services. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9 (1), 7–17. Browning, S. (2015) Data, data, everywhere, nor any time to think: DIY analysis of e-resource access problems. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 27 (1), 26–34. doi:10.1080/1941126X.2015.999521. Brown-Sica, M. (2013) Using academic courses to generate data for use in evidence based library planning. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39, 275–287. Brown-Sica, M., Sobel, K. and Rogers, E. (2010) Participatory action research in learning commons design planning. New Library World, 111 (7), 302–319. Bruce, C. S. (2008) Informed Learning. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries/American Library Association. Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th edn, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bury, T. J. and Mead, J. M. (1998) Evidence Based Healthcare: A practical guide for therapists, Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Buttlar, L. J. (1991) Analyzing the library periodical literature: Content and authorship. College & Research Libraries, 52 (1), 38–53. Cabinet Office (2014) What Works? Evidence for decision makers. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-works-evidence-for-decision-makers. Cahill, M. and Richey, J. (2012) Integration of evidence-based library and information practice into school library education: A case study. School Libraries Worldwide, 18 (2), 95–105. Caldwell, G., Bilandzic, M. and Foth, M. (2012) Towards visualising people’s ecology of

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 177

rEfErEncEs

177

hybrid personal learning environments. In: Brynskov, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the Media Architecture Biennale 2012, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Aarhus, Denmark, 13–22. doi:10.1145/2421076.2421080. Canadian Urban Libraries Council (2013) Key Performance Indicators. www.culc.ca/kpis/. Carnegie UK Trust (2014) Speaking Volumes. www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/changingminds/knowledge—-culture/the-future-of-libraries/speaking-volumes. Carnegie UK Trust (2015) Evidence Exchange. http://carnegieuktrust.org.uk/changingminds/knowledge—-culture/evidence-exchange. Carter, K. (2010) Evidence based cataloguing: Moving beyond the rules. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (4), 115–120. Casey, A. M. (2011) Strategic priorities and change in academic libraries. Doctoral dissertation, Simmons College Graduate School of Library and Information Science. http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/doc/883918467.html. CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) (2013) CASP Checklists. www.casp-uk.net/ #!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8. Cavanagh, M. (2006) Re-conceptualizing the reference transaction: The case for interaction and information relationships at the public library reference desk. The Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 30 (1/2), 1–19. Chesniak, S. (2015) Abstracts from MLA Annual Meetings 2010–2015. www.mlanet.org/p/do/sd/topic=571&sid=972. Choo, C. W. (2006) The Knowing Organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press. CILIP (2014) Professional Knowledge and Skills Base. www.cilip.org.uk/jobs-careers/ professional-knowledge-skills-base. CILIP (2015) CILIP Calls for Robust and Transparent Public Library Evidence Base. www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/cilip-calls-robust-transparent-public-library-evidence-base. Civallero, L. E. (2007) Action-research application in evidence-based practice for libraries. 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, Durban, South Africa. http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/154-Civallero-en.pdf. Clapton, J. (2010) Library and information science practitioners writing for publication: Motivations, barriers and supports. Library and Information Research, 34 (106), 7–21. Clarkson, J., Harrison, J. E., Ismail, A., Needleman, I. and Worthington, H. V. (eds) (2003) Evidence Based Dentistry for Effective Practice, London: Martin Dunitz. Clyde, L. A. (2004) Evaluating the quality of research publications: A pilot study of school librarianship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55 (13), 1119–1130. Clyde, L. A. (2006) The basis for evidence-based practice: Evaluating the research evidence. New Library World, 107 (5/6), 180–192. Cole, B. (2014a) Newcastle Libraries’ evaluation strategy: evidence based practice in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 178

178

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

challenging times. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9 (4), 92–96. Cole, B. (2014b) Rich, emotive evidence of impact. CILIP Update. 42–44. Cole, B. (2015) Evidence based practice in public libraries [Electronic mailing list message.], 13 July. https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1507&L=LIS-PUBLIBS&F=&S=&P=25605. Connor, E. (2007) Interview with Brian S. Alper of DynaMed. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 4 (1/2), 127–43. Conrad, L. Y. and Somerville, M. M. (2013) Blazing new paths: Charting advanced researcher patterns. Proceedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries Conference (ACRL 2013), Indianapolis, Indiana. www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/ confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/ConradSomerville_Blazing.pdf. Conrad, L. Y., Leonard, E. and Somerville, M. M. (2015) New pathways in scholarly discovery: Understanding the next generation of researcher tools. Proceedings of the Association of College & Research Libraries Conference (ACRL 2015), Portland, Oregon. www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2015/ Conrad_Leonard_Somerville.pdf. Cooke, A., Smith, D. and Booth, A. (2012) Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22 (10), 1435–1443. Cooper, I. D. (2014) Hypothesis’ role in library research. Hypothesis, 26 (1), 3–4. Cooper, I. D. (2015) Research articles, labels, and prestige. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103 (3), 117–118. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.001. Corcoran, J. (2000) Evidence-Based Social Work Practice with Families: A lifespan approach, New York: Springer. Core Comptencies (2013) Core Competencies for University of Saskatchewan Librarians http://library.usask.ca/info/index.php [accessed December 21, 2015]. Crandall, M. and Becker, S. (2016) Cumulative Report of Impact Survey Results. https://impactsurvey.org/sites/impactsurvey.org/files/cumulative_report.pdf. CRD (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) (2009) Systematic Reviews: CRD’s guidance for reviews in health care. www.york.ac.uk/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm. Crumley, E. and Koufogiannakis, D. (2001) Developing evidence based librarianship in Canada: Six aspects for consideration. Hypothesis: The Newsletter of the Research Section of MLA, 15 (3), 9–10. Crumley, E. and Koufogiannakis, D. (2002) Developing evidence-based librarianship: Practical steps for implementation. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 19, 61–70. Curry, A. (2005) Action research in action: Involving students and professionals. World Library and Information Congress: 71st IFLA General Conference and Council, Oslo, Norway. http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla71/papers/046e-Curry.pdf. Dahl, R. A. (1957) The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2 (3), 201–215. Dalrymple, P. W. (2010) Applying evidence in practice: What we can learn from healthcare.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 179

rEfErEncEs

179

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (1), 43–47. Dalrymple, P. W., Bastille, J. D., Bradley, J., Dee, C. R., Humphreys, B. L., Marshall, J. G., Weller, A. C. and Webb, R. E. (1995) Using Scientific Evidence to Improve Information Practice, Chicago, IL, Medical Library Association. Dalton, M. (2012) Key performance indicators in Irish hospital libraries: Developing outcome-based metrics to support advocacy and service delivery. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (4), 82–95. Davies, H., Nutley, S. and Walter, I. (2008) Why ‘knowledge transfer’ is misconceived for applied social research. Journal of Health Services Research, 13 (3), 188–190. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2008.008055. Davies, J. E. (2007) Culture, capability and character in applying evidence to service enhancement and development: An exploration. World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, 19–23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. http://archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla73/papers/154-Davies-en.pdf. Davies, K. S. (2011) Formulating the evidence based practice question: A review of frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6 (2), 75–80. Declève, G. (2010) EBLIP: Bridging the language barrier. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27, 332–337. Deenadayalan, Y., Grimmer-Sommers, K., Prior, M. and Kumar, S. (2008) How to run an effective journal club: A systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 14 (5), 898–911. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01050.x. Demers, P., Beaudry, G., Bjornson, P., Carroll, M., Couture, C., Gray, C., Hare, J., Ingles, E., Ketelaar, G., McMaster, G. and Roberts, K. (2014) Expert Panel Report on The Future Now: Canada’s libraries, archives, and public memory. Ottawa, ON: Royal Society of Canada. https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/L%26A_Report_EN_FINAL_Web.pdf. Dent, V. (2006) Observations of school library impact at two rural Ugandan schools. New Library World, 107 (9/10), 403–421. https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/23853/. Deschenes, A. (2014) Improving the library homepage through user research – without a total redesign. Weave: Journal of Library User Experience, 1 (1). http://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/weave/12535642.0001.102/—improving-the-libraryhomepage-through-user-research-without?rgn=main;view=fulltext. Dewey, J. (1910) How We Think, Boston, MA: D. C. Heath. Dimitroff, A. (1995) Research for special libraries: A quantitative analysis of the literature. Special Libraries, 86 (4), 256+. DiScala, J. and Subramaniam, M. (2011) Evidence-based practice: A practice towards leadership credibility among school librarians. School Libraries Worldwide, 17 (2), 59–70. Doherty, T. (2014, September 19) Why do we still need public libraries in the digital age? [Blog post]. www.britishcouncil.org/blog/why-still-need-public-libraries-digital-age.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 180

180

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Dolan, J. (2014, February 28) Re: Qualitative impact performance [Electronic mailing list message]. https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1402&L= LIS-PUB-LIBS&F=&S=&P=97192. Dozier, M. and Webber, S. (2015) 2015 workshop report: Running a journal club. Journal of EAHIL, 11(3), 22–24. http://eahil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/22–24-Dozier.pdf. Dunn, K., Brewer, K., Marshall, J. G. and Sollenberger, J. (2009) Measuring the value and impact of health sciences libraries: planning an update and replication of the Rochester study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97 (4), 308–12. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.4.016. Dunne, M., Nelson, M., Dillon, L. and Galvin, B. (2013) Library value and impact: Taking the step from knowing it to showing it. Library and Information Research, 37 (116), 41–61. Dweck, C. (2007) Mindset: The new psychology of success, New York: Ballantine Books, Reprint Edition. EBL2001 (n.d.) Wiki of Andrew Booth. http://andrewbooth.pbworks.com/w/page/27205078/EBL2001. EBLIG Archives (2005, June) [Electronic Mailing List Archive]. http://cliffy.ucs.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0506&L=eblig. EBLIP8 (2015) About EBLIP. http://eblip8.info/about/. EBSCO (n.d.) Flipster. https://flipster.ebsco.com//about. Edge (2015) About Edge. www.libraryedge.org/about-edge. Edwards, C. and Ferguson, L. (2015) Knowledge for healthcare: Quality and impact. CILIP Update, November: 35–37. www.libraryservices.nhs.uk/document_uploads/KfH/Update_11_pp35-37.pdf. Eldredge, J. (1997) Evidence-based librarianship: A commentary for Hypothesis. Hypothesis, 11 (3), 4–7. Eldredge, J. (2000a) EBL Implementation Committee. Hypothesis, 14 (2), 7. Eldredge, J. D. (2000b) Evidence-based librarianship: An overview. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 88 (4), 289–302. Eldredge, J. D. (2000c) Evidence-based librarianship: Formulating EBL questions. Bibliotheca Medica Canadiana, 22 (2), 74–77. Eldredge, J. D. (2000d) Evidence-based librarianship: Searching for the needed EBL evidence. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 19 (3), 1–18. Eldredge, J. (2001) First international Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL) Conference. Hypothesis, 15 (3), 1, 3. Eldredge, J. (2002a) Evidence-based librarianship: levels of evidence. Hypothesis, 16 (3), 10–13. Eldredge, J. (2002b) Cohort studies in health sciences librarianship. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 90 (4), 380–92. Eldredge, J. (2004) Inventory of research methods for librarianship and informatics. Journal

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 181

rEfErEncEs

181

of the Medical Library Association, 92 (1), 83–90. Eldredge, J. (2006) Evidence-based librarianship: The EBL process. Library Hi Tech, 24 (3), 341–354. Eldredge, J. D. (2007) Cognitive biases as obstacles to effective decision making in EBLIP. 4th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference, Chapel Hill, NC. www.eblip4.unc.edu/downloads/eblip4_final_revised_postconference.pdf. Eldredge, J. D. (2008a) Evidence-based practice. In: Wood, M. S. (ed.), Introduction to Health Sciences Librarianship, New York: Haworth Press, 241–269. Eldredge, J. D. (2008b) Predicting future information resource utilization under conditions of scarcity: The first cohort study in health sciences librarianship. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 3 (4), 82–88. Eldredge, J. D. (2010) Virtual peer mentoring (VPM) may facilitate the entire EBLIP process. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (1), 7–16. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/7393/6434. Eldredge, J. (2013a) The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, Part II: The broader professional purpose of eBLIP, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8 (1), 102–110. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8390S. Eldredge, J. D. (2014) The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part 3: revitalizing the profession through EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9 (1), 62–73. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/21258/16208. Eldredge, J. D. and Ye, L. (2000) Evidence-based librarianship: An opportunity for research collaboration [Mandarin]. Journal of Library and Information Science (Taibei), 26 (1), 110–114. Eldredge, J. D., Ascher, M. T. and Holmes, H. N. (2015a) An innovative model of evidencebased practice for other professions. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103 (2), 100–102. Eldredge, J., Ascher, M. and Holmes, H. N. (2015b) MLA research agenda systematic review project team updates. Medical Library Association Annual Meeting. http://repository.unm.edu/handle/1928/27127. Eldredge, J. D., Ascher, M. T., Holmes, H. N. and Harris, M. R. (2012) The new Medical Library Association research agenda: Final results from a three-phase Delphi study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100 (3), 214–218. http://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.012. Eldredge, J. D., Bear, D. G., Wayne S. J. and Perea, P. P. (2013a) Student peer assessment in evidence-based medicine (EBM) Searching Skills Training: an experiment. Journal of the Medical Librarary Association, October, 101 (4), 244–51. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.003. Eldredge, J. D., Harris, M. R. and Ascher, M. T. (2009) Defining the Medical Library Association research agenda: Methodology and final results from a consensus process. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 97 (3), 178–185.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 182

182

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Eldredge, J. D., Hall, L. J., McElfresh, K. R., Warner, T. D., Stromberg, T. L., Trost, J. and Jelinek, D. A. (2016) Rural providers’ access to online resources: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104 (1), 1–9. Eldredge, J. D., Heskett, K. M., Henner, T. and Tan, J. (2013b) Current practices in library/informatics instruction in academic libraries serving medical schools in the western United States: A three-phase action research study, BMC Medical Education, 119, 13. Eng, S. and Stadler, D. (2015) Linking library to student retention: A statistical analysis. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 10 (3), 50–63. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1992) Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278 (17), 2420–2425. Fagan, J. C. (ed.) (2008) Research collaborations between public and academic libraries. Journal of Web Librarianship, 2 (1), 1–2. doi:10.1080/19322900802186611. Falzon, L. and Booth, A. (2001) REALISE-ing their potential? Implementing local library projects to support evidence-based health care. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 18 (2), 65–74. Farmer, L. S. J. (2006) Library media program implementation and student achievement. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 38 (1), 21–32. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000606060957. Farmer, L. S. J. (2009) School library media specialist collaboration with special education personnel in support of student learning. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (2), 37–55. Favaro, S. and Hoadley, C. (2014) The changing role of digital tools and academic libraries in scholarly workflows: A review. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 6 (1), 23–38. doi:10.15845/noril.v6i1.174. 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, 9 (3), 173–185. Fennewald, J. (2008) Research productivity among librarians: Factors leading to publications at Penn State. College and Research Libraries, 69, 104–116. Fiona (2013) What we talk about when we talk about public libraries [Blog comment]. www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2013/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-aboutpublic-libraries/. Fisher, B. and Robertson, D. (2007) Evidence based management as a tool for special libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2 (4), 36–45. Forrest, M. E. S. (2008) On becoming a critically reflective practitioner. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25 (3), 229–232. Foster, N. F. (2014a) Designing a New Academic Library from Scratch, New York: Ithaka S+R.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 183

rEfErEncEs

183

www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SR_Designing_Issue-Brief_20140213.pdf. Foster, N. F. (2014b) Information Literacy and Research Practices. New York, NY: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SR_Briefing_Information_Literacy_ Research_Practices_20141113.pdf. Fox, D. (2007) Finding time for scholarship: A survey of Canadian research university librarians. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7 (4), 451–462. Fujiwara, D., Lawton. R. and Mourato, S. (2015) The Health and Wellbeing Benefits of Public Libraries. [Summary paper]. Arts Council England. www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/Health_and_wellbeing_benefits_of_public_ libraries_summary_paper.pdf. Funk, M. E. (2013) Our words, our story: A textual analysis of articles published in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association/Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1961 to 2010. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101 (1), 12–20. Furnham, A. (2005) The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The individual in the organization, New York: Psychology Press. Gale Cengage Learning (2015) Gale Courses. http://solutions.cengage.com/GaleCourses/. Gardois, P., Colombi, N., Grillo, G. and Villanacci, M. C. (2012) Implementation of Web 2.0 services in academic, medical and research libraries: A scoping review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 29 (2), 90–109. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00984.x. Gardois, P., Calabreset, R., Columbi, N., Deplano, A. M., Lingua, C., Longo, F., Villanacci, M. C., Miniero, R. and Piga, A. (2011) Effectiveness of bibliographic searches performed by pediatric residents and interns assisted by librarians. A randomized controlled trial. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28, 273–284. Gaver, M. (1963) Effectiveness of Centralized Library Service in Elementary Schools, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Gbadamosi, B. O. (2011) A survey of primary school libraries to determine the availability and adequacy of services for universal basic education (UBE) in Oyo State, Nigeria. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 6 (2), 19–33. Gillespie, A. (2013) Untangling the evidence: Teacher librarians and evidence based practice. Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61742/. Gillespie, A. (2014) Untangling the evidence: Introducing an empirical model for evidencebased library and information practice. Information Research, 19 (3), paper 632. http://InformationR.net/ir/19-3/paper632.html. Given, L. (2006) Qualitative research in evidence-based practice: A valuable partnership. Library Hi Tech, 24 (3), 376–386. Given, L. (2007) Evidence-based practice and quantitative research: A primer for library and information professionals. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2 (1), 15–22. Given, L. M. (2008) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Thousand Oaks,

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 184

184

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

CA: Sage Publications. Glasby, J., Walshe, K. and Harvey, G. (2007) Making evidence fit for purpose in decision making: A case study of the hospital discharge of older people. Evidence & Policy, 3 (3), 425–437. Glynn, L. (2006) A critical appraisal tool for library and information research. Library Hi Tech, 24 (3), 387–399. Glynn, L. A., Sakmar, K., Lalla, N. J., Berry, R., Kim, C., Geldenhuys, R., Lawton, A., Siebert, J. L., McClurg, C., Clemans-Taylor, L., Gadd, K. and Ettien, A. L. (2014) The value and impact of health sciences libraries and information services on academic and clinical practice: A systematic review. Paper presented at Medical Library Association Annual Meeting, 16–21 May, Chicago, IL. Golder, S., Mason, A. and Spilsbury, K. (2008) Systematic searches for the effectiveness of respite care. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96 (2), 147–152. Gordon, C. A. (2006) A study of a three-dimensional action research training model for school library programs. School Library Media Research, 9. www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol9/SLMR_ ThreeDimensionalActionResearch_V9.pdf. Gordon, C. A. (2009) An emerging theory for evidence based information literacy instruction in school libraries, part 1: Building a foundation. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (2), 56–77. Gordon, C. A. (2014) The convergence of performance and program assessment: A multidimensional action research model for libraries. Paper presented at Libraries in the Digital Age, Zadar, Croatia, 16–20 June. http://ozk.unizd.hr/lida/files/LIDA_2014_Proceedings.pdf. Gordon, C. A. (2015) Evidence-based stories from school library research and practice: Creating synergy for change. Knowledge Quest, 43 (3), 6–7. Grant, M. J. (2007) The role of reflection in the library and information sector: A systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24 (3), 155–166. Grant, M. J., Sen, B. and Spring, H. (eds) (2013) Research, Evaluation and Audit: Key steps to demonstrating your value, London: Facet Publishing. Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. (2008) Behavior in Organizations, 9th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J. and Maskrey, N. (2014) Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? British Medical Journal, 348, g3725. Grefsheim, S. F., Rankin, J. A., Perry, G. J. and McKibbon, K. A. (2008) Affirming our commitment to research: the Medical Library Association’s research policy statement: the process and findings. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 96 (2), 114–120. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.96.2.114. Guthrie, J. T. and Davis, M. H. (2003) Motivating struggling readers in middle school

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 185

rEfErEncEs

185

through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly,  19 (1), 59–85. Guyatt, G. H. (1991) Evidence-based medicine. ACP Journal Club, 114 (2), A-16. Guyatt, G., Vist, G., Falck-Ytter, Y., Kunz, R., Magrini, N. and Schuneman, H. (2006) An emerging consensus on grading recommendations? Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health, 9, 317–318. Haag, H. (2014) My Li-Fi revolution. Lecture at the University of Edinburgh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRG9iXZbuAc. Haddow, G. (1997) The nature of journals of librarianship: A review. LIBRES: Library and Information Research Electronic Journal, 7(1), www.libres-ejournal.info/wpcontent/uploads/2014/06/Vol07_I1_Haddow.pdf. Haglund, L. (2010) Evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) i Sverige. Dansk Biblioteksforskning, 6 (2/3), 109–113. Haglund, L., Buset, K. J., Kristiansen, H. M., Ovaska, T. and Murphy, J. (2012) International trends in health science librarianship: Part 3 – The Nordic countries. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 29, 247–51. Haines, M. (1995) Librarians and evidence based purchasing. Evidence Based Purchasing, 8. Hakim, C. (1982) Secondary analysis and the relationship between official and academic social research. Sociology, 16 (1), 12–28. Hannigan, G. G. and Eldredge, J. D. (2014) The health sciences environment. In: Wood, M. S. (ed.), Health Sciences Librarianship, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield and the Medical Library Association, 30–56. Harada, V. H. (2003) Building evidence-based practice through action research. In: Loertscher, D. V. and Woolls, B. (eds), Evidence-based Practice and School Library Media Programs, Treasure Mountain Research Retreat #11, October 22–23, Kansas City, MO, Salt Lake City, UT: Hi Willow Research & Publishing, 65–74. www2.hawaii.edu/~vharada/vi-Building%20Evidence-12-03-jav.htm. Harris, M. (2005) The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: A case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), 81–7. Harris, M. R., Holmes, H. N., Ascher, M. T. and Eldredge, J. D. (2013) Inventory of research questions identified by the 2011 MLA research agenda Delphi study. Hypothesis, 24 (2), 5–16. Hartsell-Gundy, A., Braunstein, L. and Golomb, L. (2015) Digital Humanities in the Library: Challenges and opportunities for subject specialists, Chicago: IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. Harvey, S. and Goudvis, A. (2000) Strategies that Work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding, Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Harvey, S. A. and Wandersee, J. R. (2010) Publication rate of abstracts of papers and posters presented at Medical Library Association annual meetings. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 98 (3), 250–255. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.98.3.014.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 186

186

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Haynes, R. B., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J. and Sinclair, J. C. (1994) Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 1 (6), 447–458. He, L., Chaudhuri, B. and Juterbock, D. (2009) Creating and measuring value in a corporate library. Information Outlook, 13 (2), 12–16. Hider, P. (2008) Using the contingent valuation method for dollar valuation of library services. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 78 (4), 437–458. Hiller, S. (June 23, 2008) Effective, sustainable and practical library assessment. http://slideplayer.com/slide/7782998/. Hiller, S., Kyrillidou, M. and Self, J. (2008) When the evidence is not enough: Organizational factors that influence effective and successful library assessment. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9 (3), 223–230. Holmes, H. N., Ascher, M. T. and Eldredge, J. D. (2015) The MLA research agenda systematic review project. Presentation, Medical Library Association Annual Meeting, Austin, TX. Horizon Report (2015) Library Edition, Austin, TX: New Media Consortium. www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2015-library-edition/. Hornikx, J. (2005) A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences, 5 (1), 205–216. Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C. and Wulfson, K. (2013) Ithaka S+R | Jisc | RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012. www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/ithaka-sr-jisc-rluk-uk-survey-of-academics-2012/. Howlett, A. and Howard, Z. (2015) Exploring the use of evidence in practice by Australian special librarians. Information Research, 20 (1), paper 657. http://InformationR.net/ir/20-1/paper657.html. Hughes, H. (2014) Researching information experience: Methodological approaches. In: Bruce, C., Davis, K., Hughes, H., Partridge, H. and Stoodley, I. (eds), Information Experience: Approaches to theory and practice, Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing, 33–50.  http://eprints.qut.edu.au/77895/1/Hughes-Researching-eprint.pdf. Huysmans, F. and Hillebrink, C. (2009) The Future of the Dutch Public Library: Ten years on, Netherlands: Aksant Academic Publishers. Huysmans, F. and Oomes, M. (2012) Measuring the Public Library’s Societal Value: A methodological research program. 78th IFLA World Library and Information Congress, Helsinki. http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/2012/76-huysmans-en.pdf. IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) (2014) 1001 libraries to see before you die. [Blog Post, 2 July]. http://blogs.ifla.org/public-libraries/2014/07/02/1001-libraries-to-see-before-you-die/. IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) (2015a) IFLA Trend Report http://trends.ifla.org.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 187

rEfErEncEs

187

IFLA (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions) (2015b) IFLA School Library Guidelines, 2nd edn. www.ifla.org/publications/node/9512. IFLA/UNESCO (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions/United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization) (1999) School Library Manifesto: The school library in teaching and learning for all. www.ifla.org/publications/iflaunesco-school-library-manifesto-1999. IMLS (Institute of Museum and Library Services (2015) IMLS Focus: Learning in Libraries, Washington, DC: IMLS. https://www.imls.gov/publications/imls-focus-summary-report-learning-libraries. Impact Survey (n.d.) About Us. https://impactsurvey.org/about. Irwin, B. and St-Pierre, G. (2014) Creating a culture of meaningful evaluation in public libraries: moving beyond quantitative metrics. SAGE Open, 1–15. http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/spsgo/4/4/2158244014561214.full.pdf. Jaguszewski, J. M. and Williams, K. (2013) New Roles for New Times: Transforming liaison roles in research libraries, Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. www.arl.org/publications-resources/2893-new-roles-for-new-times-transforming-liaisonroles-in-research-libraries. Janis, I. L. (1982) Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Jarvelin, K. and Vakkari, P. (1990) Content analysis of research articles in library and information science. Library and Information Science Research, 12 (4), 395–421. Jarvis, P. (1999) The Practitioner-Researcher: Developing theory from practice, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jenkins, M. (2004) Evaluation of methodological search filters: A review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 21 (3), 148–163. Jerome, R., Koonce, T. Y., Williams, A. M. and Guise, N. (2012) Case study 8.5: The integration of informationists into advanced roles. In: Brettle, A. and Urquhart, C. (eds), Changing Roles and Contexts for Health Library and Information Professionals, London: Facet Publishing. Jisc (Joint Information Systems Committee) and the British Library (2012) Researchers of Tomorrow: The research behavior of generation Y doctoral students, London: Jisc and the British Library. www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140614040703/http://www. jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2012/researchers-of-tomorrow.aspx. Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J. and Turner, L. A. (2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–113. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224. Jonas, W. B. (ed.) (2005) Mosby’s Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, New York, Elsevier. Kavanagh, A. (2011) The evolution of the embedded information literacy module: Using

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 188

188

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

student feedback and the research literature to improve student performance. Journal of Information Literacy, 5 (1), 5–22. http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/LLC-V5-I1-2011-1. Kelly, B., Hamasu, C. and Jones, B. (2012) Applying return on investment (ROI) in libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 52 (8), 656–671. Kenney, A. R. (2014) Leveraging the Liaison Model: From defining 21st century research libraries to implementing 21st century research universities, New York, NY: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/blog/leveraging-the-liaison-model-from-defining-21st-centuryresearch-libraries-to-implementing-21st-century-research-universities/. Kloda, L. A., Koufogiannakis, D. and Brettle, A. (2014) Assessing the impact of evidence summaries in library and information practice. Library and Information Research, 38 (11). www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/article/view/644. Kloda, L. A., Koufogiannakis, D. and Mallan, K. (2011) Transferring evidence into practice: What evidence summaries of library and information studies research tell practitioners. Information Research, 16 (1), paper 465. www.informationr.net/ir/161/paper465.html. Kneafsey, R. (2007) Nursing contributions to mobility rehabilitation: A systematic review examining the quality and content of the evidence. Journal of Nursing and Healthcare of Chronic Illness, 16 (11C), 325–340. Koufogiannakis, D. (2006) Small steps forward through critical appraisal. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 1 (1), 81–82. Koufogiannakis, D. (2010a) The appropriateness of hierarchies. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (3), 1–3. Koufogiannakis, D. (2010b) Thoughts on reflection. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (2), 1–3. Koufogiannakis, D. (2011) Considering the place of practice-based evidence within evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP). Library and Information Research, 35 (111), 41–58. www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/article/view/486/527. Koufogiannakis, D. (2012a) Academic librarians’ conception and use of evidence sources in practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (4), 5–24. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/18072. Koufogiannakis, D. (2012b) The state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (2), 91–95. Koufogiannakis, D. (2013a) Academic librarians use evidence for convincing. SAGE Open, 3 (2). doi:10.1177/2158244013490708. Koufogiannakis, D. (2013b) How academic librarians use evidence in their decision making: Reconsidering the evidence based practice model. Doctoral dissertation, Aberystwyth University. http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/12963. Koufogiannakis, D. (2013c) What we talk about when we talk about evidence. Evidence Based

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 189

rEfErEncEs

189

Library and Information Practice, 8 (4), 6–17. Koufogiannakis, D. (2015) Determinants of evidence use in academic librarian decision making. College & Research Libraries, 76 (1), 100–114. doi:10.5860/crl.76.1.100. Koufogiannakis, D. and Brettle, A. (2015) Systematic reviews in LIS: Identifying evidence and gaps for practice. Eighth International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference (EBLIP8) – Evidence and Practice: Working Together, 6–8 July, 2015, Brisbane, Australia. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/nk322d79d#.Vkz-J1WrS71. Koufogiannakis, D. and Crumley, E. (2002) Evidence based librarianship. Feliciter, 3 (1), 112–114. Koufogiannakis, D. and Wiebe, N. (2006) Effective methods for teaching information literacy skills to undergraduate students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 1 (3), 3–43. Koufogiannakis, D., Booth, A. and Brettle, A. (2006) ReLIANT: Reader’s guide to the literature on interventions addressing the need for education and training. Library and Information Research, 30 (94), 44–51. Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L. and Crumley, E. (2004) A content analysis of librarianship research. Journal of Information Science, 30 (3), 227–239. Koufogiannakis, D., Wilson, V. and Kloda, L. (2015) Canadian LIS faculty research: Linked to library practice? Eighth International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference (EBLIP8) – Evidence and Practice: Working Together, July 6–8, 2015, Brisbane, Australia. Koufogiannakis, D., Buckingham, J., Alibhai, A. and Rayner, D. (2005) Impact of librarians in first-year medical and dental student problem-based learning (PBL) groups: A controlled study. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22 (3), 189–195. Krashen, S. D. (2004) The Power of Reading: Insights from the research, 2nd edn, Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Kraska, M. (2010) Quantitative research. In: Salkind, N. L. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1167–1172. Kuhlthau, C. C. (2004) Seeking Meaning: A process approach to library and information services, Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Kuhlthau, C., Maniotes, L. and Caspari, A. (2007) Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century, Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Kumpulainen, S. (1991) Library and information science research in 1975: Content analysis of the journal articles. Libri, 41 (1), 59–76. Kwok, J. (2009) Boys and reading: An action research project report. Library Media Connection, 27 (4), 20–22. Kyrillidou, M. (2002) From input and output measures to quality and outcome measures, or, from the user in the life of the library to the library in the life of the user. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28 (1–2), 42–46. Lakos, A. and Phipps, S. E. (2004) Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 190

190

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

organisational change. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4 (3), 345–361. Lance, K. C. and Schwarz, B. (2012) How Pennysylvania Libraries Pay Off: Investments in student achievement and academic standards. http://paschoollibraryproject.org/home. Lankes, R. D. (2012) Expect More. Demanding better libraries for today’s complex world. http://quartz.syr.edu/blog/?page_id=4598. Leong, J. (2014) Purpose-driven learning for library staff. The Australian Library Journal, 63 (2), 108–117. doi:10.1080/00049670.2014.898236. Leong, J. and Anderson, C. (2012) Fostering innovation through cultural change. Library Management, 33(8/9), 490–497. doi:10.1108/01435121211279858. Lerdal, S. N. (2006) Evidence-based librarianship: Opportunity for law librarians? Law Library Journal, 98 (1), 33–60. Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper and Row. Library Board of Queensland (2012) The Library Dividend Summary Report: A guide to the socio-economic value of Queensland’s public libraries. www.slq.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/226143/the-library-dividend-summaryreport.pdf. Library Council of New South Wales (2008) Enriching Communities: The value of libraries in New South Wales, Sydney: Library Council of New South Wales. LIS Systematic Reviews (2015) http://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces.com/Welcome. Locality (2014) Income Generation for Public Libraries: A practical guide for library service commissioners and providers in England. Arts Council England. http://locality.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Income-Generation-for-Public-Libraries.pdf. Long, A. F., Grayson, L. and Boaz, A. (2006) Assessing the quality of knowledge in social care: Exploring the potential of a set of generic standards. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 207–226. Long, A. F., Godfrey, M., Randall, T., Brettle, A. and Grant, M. J. (2002) HCPRDU Evaluation Tool for Mixed Methods Studies, Leeds: University of Leeds, Nuffield Institute for Health. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/13070/. Long, M. and Schonfeld, R. C. (2013) Supporting the Changing Research Practices of Chemists, New York: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/supporting-the-changing-researchpractices-of-chemists/. Lorenzetti, D. (2007) Identifying appropriate quantitative study designs for library research. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2 (1), 3–14. Luo, L. (2011) Fusing research into practice: The role of research methods education. Library & Information Science Research, 33, 191–201. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.12.001. Lynda.com Inc (2015) Lynda.com. www.lynda.com/default.aspx. Macdonald, L. (2012) A New Chapter: Public library services in the 21st century. Carnegie UK Trust. www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/publications/a-new-chapter-discussion-paper. Mačeviciūtė, E. and Wilson, T. D. (2009) A Delphi investigation into the research needs in

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 191

rEfErEncEs

191

Swedish librarianship. Information Research, 14 (4). Maden, M. and Kotas, E. (2016) Evaluating approaches to quality assessment in library and information science LIS systematic reviews: A methodology review, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11 (2), 149–176. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8F650. Maggio, L. A., Durieux, N. and Tannery, N. H. (2015) Librarians in evidence-based medicine curricula: A qualitative study of librarian roles, training, and desires for future development. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 34 (4), 428–40. March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. (1993) Organizations, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Wiley. Marcum, D. (2015) Talent Management for Academic Libraries: Issue brief, New York: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/mig/files/SR_Issue_Brief_Talent_Management_for_ Academic_Libraries090115.pdf. Markless, S. and Streatfield, D. (2006) Gathering and applying evidence of the impact of UK university libraries on student learning and research: A facilitated action research approach. International Journal of Information Management, 26 (1), 3–15. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.10.004. Marquardt, M. J. (2011) Building the Learning Organization: Achieving strategic advantage through a commitment to learning, 3rd edn, Boston, MA: Nicolas Brealey. Marshall, J. G. (1992) The impact of the hospital library on clinical decision making: The Rochester study. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 80 (2), 169–178. Marshall, J. G. (1995) Using evaluation research methods to improve quality. Health Libraries Review, 12, 159–172. Marshall, J. G. (2003) Influencing our professional practice by putting our knowledge to work. Information Outlook, 7 (1), 40–44. Marshall, J. G. (2014) Linking research to practice: The rise of evidence-based health sciences librarianship. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 102 (1), 14–21. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.1.005. Marshall, J. G. and Neufeld, V. R. (1981) A randomized trial of librarian educational participation in clinical settings. Journal of Medical Education, 56 (5), 409–416. Marshall, J. G., Morgan, J. C., Thompson, C. A. and Wells, A. L. (2014a) The impact of library and information services on patient quality. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 27 (8), 672–683. Marshall, J. G., Morgan, J. C., Klem, M. L., Thompson, C. A. and Wells, A. L. (2014b) The value of library and information services in nursing and patient care. OJIN: Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 19 (3). doi:10.3912/OJIN.Vol19No03PPT02. Marshall, J. G., Sollenberger, J., Easterby-Gannett, S., Morgan, L. K., Klem, M. L., Cavanaugh, S. K., Oliver, K. B., Thompson, C.A., Romanosky, N. and Hunter, S. (2013) The value of library and information services in patient care: Results of a multisite study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101 (1), 38–46. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.007.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 192

192

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Martin Prosperity Institute (2013) So Much More: The economic impact of the Toronto Public Library on the City of Toronto. http://martinprosperity.org/media/TPL%20Economic%20Impact_Dec2013_LR_FINAL.pdf. Martin, J. (2006) ‘That’s the way we do things around here’: An overview of organizational culture. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 7 (1). http://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v07n01/martin_m01.htm. Martin, V. D. (2011) Perceptions of school library media specialists regarding the practice of instructional leadership. Advances in Library Administration and Organization, 30, 207–287. Matthews, J. R. (2011) What’s the return on ROI? The benefits and challenges of calculating your library’s return on investment. Library Leadership & Management, 25 (1), 1–14. Maybee, C. (2014) Experiences of informed learning in the undergraduate classroom. In: Bruce, C. S., David, K., Hughes, H., Patridge, H. L. and Stoodley, I. (eds), Information Experience Approaches to Theory and Practice, Barnsley, England: Emerald Group Publishing, 259–271. Maybee, C., Bruce, C. S., Lupton, M. and Rebmann, K. (2013) Using information to learn: Informed learning in the higher education classroom. Library and Information Science Research, 35 (3), 200–206. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=lib_fsdocs. McDonald, S., Taylor, L. and Adams, C. (1999) Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals. Health Libraries Review, 16 (3), 151–156. McGowan, J. and Sampson, M. (2005) Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), 74–80. McGowan, J., Hogg, W., Campbell, C. and Rowan, M. (2008) Just-in-time information improved decision-making in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 3 (11), e3785. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003785. Epub 2008 Nov 21. McKibbon, K. A. (1998) Evidence-based practice. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86 (3), 396–401. McKibbon, K., Wilczynski, N. and Haynes, R. (2008) Retrieving randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE: A comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00827. McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N., Hayward, R. S., Walker-Dilks, C. J. and Haynes, R. B. (1995) The medical literature as a resource for health care practice. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46 (10), 737–742. McNally, R. and Alborz, A.(2004) Developing methods for systematic reviewing in health services delivery and organization: An example from a review of access to health care for people with learning disabilities. Part 1. Identifying the literature. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 21 (3), 182–192. Medical Library Association (2005a) Medical Library Association: Educational policy:

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 193

rEfErEncEs

193

Professional competencies for health sciences librarians, Medical Library Association. http://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=39. Medical Library Association (2005b) Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries: policy statement by the Medical Library Association adopted September 2003. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), 42–44. Mehra, B. and Braquet, D. (2007) Library and information science professionals as community action researchers in an academic setting: Top ten directions to further institutional change for people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. Library Trends, 56 (2), 542–565. Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R. and Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014) PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 579. Midwest Tape (2015) Hoopla Comic Books. https://www.hoopladigital.com/browse/comic#collections. Mirijamdotter, A. (2010) Toward collaborative evidence based information practices: Organization and leadership essentials. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (1), 17–25. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/7221. Missingham, R. (2005) Libraries and economic value: A review of recent studies. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 6 (3), 142–158. Mulvaney, S. A., Bickman, L., Giuse, N. B., Lambert, E. W., Sathe, N. A. and Jerome, R. N. (2008) A randomized effectiveness trial of a clinical informatics consult service: Impact on evidence-based decision-making and knowledge implementation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15 (2), 203–211. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2461. Napolitani, F. (2015) The Edinburgh 2015 workshop. Journal of European Association of Health Information and Libraries, 11 (3), 2. Neck, C. and Moorhead, G. (1995) Groupthink remodeled: The importance of leadership, time pressure, and methodical decision-making procedures. Human Relations, 48 (5), 537–557. Newman, M. and Elbourne, D. (2005) Improving the usability of education research: Guidelines for the reporting of primary empirical research studies in education (The REPOSE Guidelines). Evaluation and Research in Education, 18 (4), 201–212. Noh, Y. (2012) The impact of university library resources on university research achievement outputs. Aslib Proceedings, 64 (2), 109–133. doi:10.1108/LHTN-07-2013-0046. Nour, M. M. (1985) A quantitative analysis of the research articles published in core library journals of 1980. Library and Information Science Research, 7 (3), 261–273. Oak, K. and Gegg, R. (2008) Increasing the rural general practitioners’ use of library and information services through publicity: A randomized controlled trial in Cornwall, UK. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25, 208–17. Oakleaf, M. (2010) Value of Academic Libraries: A comprehensive research review and report.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 194

194

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/val_report.pdf. Ogilvie, D., Hamilton, V., Egan, M. and Petticrew, M. (2005b) Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59 (9), 804–808. Ogilvie, D., Egan, M., Hamilton, V. and Petticrew, M. (2005a) Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59 (10), 886–892. Ojennus, P. and Watts, K. A. (2016) User preferences and library space at Whitworth University Library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, doi:10.1177/0961000615592947. Ontario Library Association (2010) Together for Learning: School libraries and the emergence of the Learning Commons. www.accessola.org/web/Documents/OLA/Divisions/OSLA/TogetherforLearning,pdf. Oxford Dictionary (2010) Evidence. In: Oxford Dictionaries Pro. http://english.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence. Palmer, J. (1996) Effectiveness and efficiency: New roles and new skills for health librarians. Aslib Proceedings, 48 (10), 247–252. Pan, D. and Howard, Z. (2009) Reorganizing a technical services division using collaborative evidence-based information practice at Auraria Library. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (4), 88–94. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/6516/5869. Pan, D. and Howard, Z. (2010) Distributing leadership and cultivating dialogue with collaborative EBLIP. Library Management, 31 (7), 494–504. Partridge, H., Edwards, S. and Thorpe, C. (2010) Evidence-based practice: Information professionals’ experience of information literacy in the workplace. In: Lloyd, A. and Talja, S. (eds), Practising Information Literacy: Bringing theories of learning, practice and information literacy together, Wagga Wagga, NSW: Charles Sturt University. Passonneau, S. and Erickson, S. (2014) Core competencies for assessment in libraries: A review and analysis of job postings. Library Leadership & Management, 28 (4), 1–19. https://journals.tdl.org/llm/index.php/llm/article/view/7080. Pawson, R., Boaz, A., Grayson, L., Long, A. and Barnes, C. (2003) SCIE Knowledge Review 03: Types and quality of knowledge in social care. SCIE. www.scie.org.uk/publications/knowledgereviews/kr03.asp. Pearce-Smith, N. (2006) A journal club is an effective tool for assisting librarians in the practice of evidence-based librarianship: A case study. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23 (1), 32–40. Penta, M. and McKenzie, P. (2005) The big gap remains: Public librarians as authors in LIS journals, 1999–2003. Public Library Quarterly, 24 (1), 33–46.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 195

rEfErEncEs

195

Peritz, B. C. (1980) The methods of library science research: Some results from a bibliometric survey. Library Research, 2 (3), 251–268. Perrier, L., Farrell, A., Ayala, A. P., Lightfoot, D., Kenny, T., Aaronson, E., Allee, N., Brigham, T., Connor, E., Constantinescu, T., Muellenbach, J., Epstein, H. A. and Weiss, A. (2014) Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28 May, pii: amiajnl-2014-002825. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002825. Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A practical guide, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. I. (2006) Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Phelps, S. F. and Campbell, N. (2012) Systematic reviews in theory and practice for library and information studies. Library & Information Research, 36 (112), 6–15. Plutchak, T. S. (2005) Building a Body of Evidence, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (2), 193–5. Pickard, A. (2013) Research Methods in Information, 2nd edn, London: Facet Publishing. Pinto, M. and Sales, D. (2015) Uncovering information literacy’s disciplinary differences through students’ attitudes: An empirical study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 47 (3), 204–215. doi:10.1177/0961000614532675. Portugal, F. H. (2000) Valuating Information Intangibles: Measuring the bottom-line contributions of librarians and information professionals. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association. Postell, W. D. (1946) Further comments on the mathematical analysis of evaluating scientific journals. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 34 (2), 107–109. Public Library Association (2015) Performance Measurement. www.ala.org/pla/performancemeasurement. Rambo, N. (2015) Research Data Management Roles for Libraries, New York: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/research-data-management/. Ramon, S. (2006) Editorial. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 187–188. Rankin, C. (2012) The potential of generic social outcomes in promoting the positive impact of the public library: Evidence from the national year of reading in Yorkshire. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (1), 7–21. Research Institute for Public Libraries (2015) http://ripl.lrs.org/. Recorded Books (2016) www.recordedbooks.com/. Reynolds, R. A. and Reynolds, J. L. (2002) Evidence. In: Dillard, J. and Pfau, M. (eds), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in theory and practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J. and Hayward, R. S. (1995) The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123, A-12. Richey, J. and Cahill, M. (2014) School librarians’ experiences with evidence-based library

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 196

196

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

and information practice. School Library Research, 17. www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/ files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol17/SLR_EvidenceBasedLibrary_V17.pdf. Rieke, R. and Sillars, M. O. (1984) Argumentation and the Decision Making Process, New York: Harper Collins. RIN and RLUK (Research Information Network and Research Libraries UK) (2011) The Value of Libraries for Research and Researchers, London, England: RIN and RLUK. www.rluk.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Value-of-Libraries-report.pdf. Robbins, S. (2005) Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 8th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Robins, J. (2015) Action research empowers school librarians. School Library Research, 16, 1–38. http://www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume18/robins. Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research: A resource for users of social research methods in applied settings, 3rd edn, Chichester: Wiley. Roddham, M. (1995) Responding to the reforms – are we meeting the need? Health Libraries Review, 12 (2), 101–114. Rooney-Browne, C. (2011) Methods for demonstrating value of public libraries in the UK: A literature review. Library and Information Research, 35 (109), 3–39. Rowe, A. J., Boulgarides, J. D. and McGrath, M. R. (1984) Managerial Decision Making, Chicago: Science Research Associates. Rundle, H. (2013) What we talk about when we talk about public libraries. In the Library with the Leadpipe, October. www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2013/what-we-talk-aboutwhen-we-talk-about-public-libraries/. Rutner, J. and Schonfeld, R. C. (2012) Supporting the Changing Research Practices of Historians, New York: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/supporting-thechanging-research-practices-of-historians/. Ryan, P. (2006) EBL and Library Assessment: Two solitudes? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 1 (4), 77–80. Ryan, P. (2012) EBLIP and Public Libraries. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (1), 5–6. Ryan, P. (2015) EBLIP and public librarians: A call to action! Brain-Work: The Centre for Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (C-EBLIP) [Blog]. http://words.usask.ca/ceblipblog/2015/10/27/eblip-and-public-librarians-a-call-to-action/. Ryle, G. (1945) Knowing how and knowing that: The Presidential address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1–16. Sakai, Y., Sato, K., Suwabe, N., Gemba, H., Nozoe, A., Seo, J. W. and Kim, H. Y. (2014) International trends in health science librarianship Part 11: Japan and Korea. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 31, 239–242. Samuels, A. R. and McClure, C. R. (1983) Utilization of information for decision making under varying organisational climate conditions in public libraries. Journal of Library

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 197

rEfErEncEs

197

Administration, 4 (3), 1–20. Savard, D. and Alcock, E. (2007) Research and evidence-based librarianship in the corporate and academic library: Two recent graduates’ perspectives. Feliciter, 53 (1), 18–20. Saxton, M. L. (2006) Meta-analysis in library and information science: method, history and recommendations for reporting research. Library Trends, 55, 158–170. Sayyad Abdi, E., Partridge, H. and Bruce. C. S. (2013) Website designers: How do they experience information literacy? The Australian Library Journal, 62 (1), 40–52. doi:10.1080/00049670.2013.771767. Schein, E. H. (2010) Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th edn, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scherrer, C. and Dorsch, J. (1999) The evolving role of the librarian in evidence based medicine. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 87 (3), 322–328. Schmidt, J. (2000) Library and information research in practice. Paper presented at Survival, improvement, innovation: How research makes good practice; How practice makes good research, Canberra, October 2000. www.library.uq.edu.au/papers/survival_improvement_ innovation.pdf [Accessed July 26, 2006]. Schmidt, N. A. and Brown, J. M. (2012) Evidence-Based Practice for Nurses, 2nd edn, Sudbury MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action, New York: Basic Books. Schonfeld, R. C. (2015) Meeting Researchers Where They Start: Streamlining access to scholarly resources, New York: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/meeting-researcherswhere-they-start-streamlining-access-to-scholarly-resources/. Schonfeld, R. C. and Housewright, R. (2013) US Faculty Survey 2012, New York: Ithaka S+R. www.sr.ithaka.org/publications/us-faculty-survey-2012/. Schrader, A. M., Shiri, A. and Williamson, V. (2014) Assessment of the research learning needs of University of Saskatchewan librarians: A case study. College and Research Libraries, 73 (2), 147–163. Schrader, A. M. and Brundin, M. R. (2012) National Statistical and Values Profile of Canadian Libraries. Report to the Canadian Library Association Executive Council. Schrum, D. (2011) Classifying forms and combinations of evidence: Necessary in a science of evidence. In: Dawid, P., Twining, W. and Vasilaki, M. (eds), Evidence, Inference and Enquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 11–36. Scottish Library and Information Council (2014) How Good is our Public Library Service? A public library improvement model for Scotland. http://scottishlibraries.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/05/SLIC_How_Good_Is_Our_Public_Library_WEB.pdf. Seeley, H. (2012) Case study 8.4: The health information professional in a research setting. In: Brettle, A. and Urquhart, C. (eds), Changing Roles and Contexts for Health Library and Information Professionals, London: Facet Publishing. Seeley, H. M., Urquhart, C., Hutchinson, P. and Pickard, J. (2010) Developing the role of a

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 198

198

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

health information professional in a clinical research setting. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (2), 47–62. Sen, B. A. (2010) Reflective writing: A management skill. Library Management, 31 (1/2), 79–93. Sen, B. and Ford, N. (2009) Reflective writing in the library domain: The SEA-change model of reflection and the reflective dynamic. Education for Information, 27 (4) 181–195. Shaw, I. (2005) Practitioner research: Evidence or critique? British Journal of Social Work, 35 (8) 1231–1248. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch223. Shera, J. (1944) Special library objectives and their relation to administration. Special Libraries, 35 (3), 91–94. Sieberhagen, A. and Cloete, L. (2012) The evaluation of a digital information literacy program. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 20–41. doi:10.7553/80-2-33. Simon, C. (2011) An examination of best practices and benchmarking in corporate libraries. Journal of Management Development, 30 (1), 134–141. SLA (Special Libraries Association) (2001) Putting OUR Knowledge to Work: A new SLA research statement. Small, R. V., Shanahan, K. A. and Stasak, M. (2010) The impact of New York’s school libraries on student achievement and motivation: Phase III. 2010. School Library Research, 13. www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol13/ SLR_ImpactofNewYork.pdf. Smith, D. (2009) Self-Perceptions of Leadership Potential: A study of teacher-leaders educated to be school library media specialists who lead. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Smith, D. (2010) Making the case for the leadership role of school librarians in technology integration. Library High Tech, 28 (4), 617–631. Society of Chief Librarians (2014) Digital Leadership Skills. www.goscl.com/universal-offers/digital-offer/digital-leadership-skills/. Somerville, M. M. (2009) Working Together – Collaborative information practices for organizational learning. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries/American Library Association. Somerville, M. M. (2013) Digital Age discoverability: A collaborative organizational approach. Serials Review, 39 (4), 234–239. doi:10.1016/j.serrev.2013.10.006. Somerville, M. M. (2015a) Adopting informed systems learning theory: How 21st century organizations can move from theory to practice. Strategic Library, 20 (September), 11–15. Somerville, M. M. (2015b) Informed Systems, Oxford: Chandos Publishing. Somerville, M. M. and Brown-Sica, M. (2011) Library space planning: A participatory action research approach. The Electronic Library, 29 (5), 669–681. doi:10.1108/02640471111177099.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 199

rEfErEncEs

199

Somerville, M. M. and Chatzipanagiotou, N. (2015) Informed systems: Enabling collaborative evidence based organizational learning. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 10 (4), 24–39. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/25326. Somerville, M. M. and Conrad, L. Y. (2013) Discoverability challenges and collaboration opportunities within the scholarly communications ecosystem: A SAGE white paper update. Collaborative Librarianship, 5 (1), 29–41. http://collaborativelibrarianship.org/index.php/jocl/article/viewFile/240/181. Somerville, M. M. and Conrad, L. Y. (2014) Collaborative Improvements in the Discoverability of Scholarly Content: Accomplishments, aspirations, and opportunities. A SAGE White Paper. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi:10.4135/wp140116. Somerville, M. M. and Howard, Z. (2010) ‘Information in context’: Co-designing workplace structures and systems for organisational learning. Information Research, 15 (4), paper 446. http://InformationR.net/ir/15-4/paper446.html. Somerville, M. M., Schader, B. J. and Sack, J. R. (2012) Improving the Discoverability of Scholarly Content in the Twenty-First Century: Collaboration opportunities for librarians, publishers, and vendors. A SAGE White Paper. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd. www.sagepub.com/repository/binaries/librarian/DiscoverabilityWhitePaper/. Somerville, M. M., Rogers, E., Mirijamdotter, A. and Partridge, H. (2007) Collaborative evidence-based information practice: The Cal Poly digital learning initiative. In: Connor, E. (ed.), Evidence-Based Librarianship: Case studies and active learning exercises, Oxford: Chandos Publishing, 141–161. Soria, K. M., Fransen, J. and Nackerud, S. (2013) Library use and undergraduate student outcomes: New evidence for students’ retention and academic success. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 13 (2), 147–164. Spring, H. (2013) Barriers to and priorities for research development in health librarianship: the results and recommendations from PhD research. Paper presented at Health Information and Libraries for Evaluation and Research Meeting, York St John University, UK, May. www.libraryservices.nhs.uk/healer/minutes.html. State Library of Victoria and Public Libraries Victoria Network (n.d.) Being the Best We Can. www.libraries.vic.gov.au/downloads/Being_The_Best_We_Can__Launch/btbwc_ frameworktoolkit.doc. Stenstrom, C. (2015) Decision-making experiences of public library CEOs: A study exploring the roles of interpersonal influence and evidence in everyday practice. Library Management, 36, 8/9 , 644–652. Stevens, K. R. and Cassidy, V. R. (1999) Evidence-Based Teaching: Current research in nursing education, Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Stone, G., Pattern, D. and Ramsden, B. (2012) Library impact data project: hit, miss or maybe. In: Proving Value in Challenging Times: Proceedings of the 9th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services, York:

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 200

200

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

University of York, 385–390. Strouse, R. (2003) Demonstrating value and return on investment: The ongoing imperative. Information Outlook, 7 (3), 14–19. Stubeck, C. J. (2015) Enabling inquiry learning in fixed-schedule libraries: An evidence-based approach. Knowledge Quest, 43 (3), 28–34. Swanberg, S. M., Dennison, C. C., Farrell, A., Machel, V., Marton, C., O’Brien, K. K., Pannabecker, V., Thuna, M. and Holyoke, A. N. (2016) Instructional Methods Used by Health Sciences Librarians to Teach Evidence-Based Practice (EBP): a systematic review, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104 (3), 197–208. Swauger, S. and Vision, T. J. (2015) What factors influence where researchers deposit their data? A survey of researcher submissions to data repositories. International Journal of Digital Curation, 10 (1), 68–81. doi:10.2218/ijdc.v10i1.289. Sykes, J. and Koechlin, C. (2014)Transforming School Libraries in Canada: Leading from the Learning Commons. Saskatchewan School Library Association. http://ssla.ca/ckfinder/userfiles/files/transformlibraries.pdf. Tarlier, D. (2004) Mediating the meaning of evidence through epistemological diversity. Nursing Inquiry, 12 (2), 126–134. Taylor, P., Davies, L., Wells, P., Gilbertson, J. and Tayleur, W. (2015) A Review of the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416279/ A_review_of_the_Social_Impacts_of_Culture_and_Sport.pdf. Tenopir, C. (2010) University Investments in the Library, Phase II: An international study of the library’s value to the grants process. Library Connect White Paper, San Diego, CA: Elsevier. http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/university-investment-library-phase-ii-internationalstudy-librarys-value-grants-process-2010. Tenopir, C., Birch, B. and Allard, S. (2012) Academic Libraries and Research Data Services: Current practices and plans for the future, Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries. www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/ Tenopir_Birch_Allard.pdf. Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Christian, L. and Volentine, R. (2015) Scholarly article seeking, reading, and use: A continuing evolution from print to electronic in the sciences and social sciences. Learned Publishing, 28 (2), 93–105. doi:10.1045/november2008-tenopir. Tessler, A. (2013) Economic Valuation of the British Library. www.bl.uk/aboutus/stratpolprog/increasingvalue/index.html. Tevaniemi, J., Poutanen, J. and Lähdemäki, R. (2015) Library as a partner in co-designing learning spaces: A case study at Tampere University of Technology, Finland. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 21 (3), 304–324. doi:10.1080/13614533.2015.1025147. Thorpe, C., Partridge, H. and Edwards, S. L. (2008) Are library and information professionals ready for evidence based practice? Paper presented at the ALIA Biennial Conference:

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 201

rEfErEncEs

201

Dreaming08, Alice Springs, Australia. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/28370. Todd, R. J. (2001) Transitions for Preferred Futures of School Libraries: Knowledge space, not information place; connections, not collections; actions, not positions; evidence, not advocacy, Auckland, New Zealand: International Association of School Libraries. Todd, R. J. (2002a) Evidence-based practice I: The sustainable future for teacher-librarians. Scan, 21 (1), 30–37. Todd, R. J. (2002b) School librarians as teachers: Learning outcomes and evidence-based practice. Paper presented at Libraries for Life: Democracy, Diversity, Delivery. IFLA Council and General Conference. Glasgow, Scotland, 18–24 August, 2002. Todd, R. J. (2009) School librarianship and evidence based practice: Progress, perspectives and challenges. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (2), 78–96. Todd, R. J. (2012) School libraries and the development of intellectual agency: Evidence from New Jersey. School Library Research, 15. www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/ aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol15/SLR_SchoolLibrariesandDevelopment_V15.pdf. Todd, R. J. and Kulthau, C. (2004) Student Learning Through Ohio School Libraries: A summary of the Ohio research study, Ohio Educational Library Media Association. Trinder, L. and Reynolds, S. (2000) Evidence Based Practice: A critical appraisal, Oxford: Blackwell Science. Turcios, M. E., Agarwal, N. K. and Watkins, L. (2014) How much of library and information science literature qualifies as research? The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40 (5), 473–479. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2014.06.003. Twinning, W. (2003) Evidence as a multi-disciplinary subject. Law, Probability &Risk, 2 (2), 91–107. Upshur, R. E., Van Den Kerkhof, E. G. and Goel, V. (2001) Meaning and measurement: An inclusive model of evidence in health care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7 (2), 91–96. Urquhart, C. (2010) Systematic reviewing, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis for evidencebased library and information science. Information Research, 15 (3), colis708. http://InformationR.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis708.html. Urquhart, C., Thomas, R., Ovens, J., Lucking, W. and Villa, J. (2010) Planning changes to health library services on the basis of impact assessment. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27 (4), 277–285. Urquhart, C. J. and Hepworth, J. B. (1995) The Value to Clinical Decision Making of Information Supplied by NHS Library and Information Services. British Library Research and Development Report 6205, London: British Library. USPSTF (US Preventive Services Task Force) (2012) Grade Definitions. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/grade-definitions. Vakkari, P. and Serola, S. (2010) Perceived outcomes of public libraries. Paper presented on the Nordic Conference on Public Library Research, Oslo, 9. December 2010.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 202

202

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

VanScoy, A. and Oakleaf, M. J. (2008) Evidence vs. anecdote: Using syllabi to plan curriculum-integrated information literacy instruction. College & Research Libraries, 69 (6), 566–575. Wagner, K. C. and Byrd, G. D. (2004) Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical medical library programs: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92 (1), 4 suppl. Wallace, R. L., Woodward, N. J. and Wolf, K. M. (2014) A mixed methods analysis of a library based handheld intervention with rural clinicians. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 31 (3), 215–226. Warren, R. (2015) Staff as users: Designing an evidence based intranet. Eighth International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference (EBLIP8) – Evidence and Practice: Working Together, 6–8 July 2015, Brisbane, Australia. Wasserman, P. (1958) Measuring performance in a special library – problems or prospects. Special Libraries, 49 (8), 377–82. Watson-Boone, R. (2000) Academic librarians as practitioner-researchers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26 (2), 85–93. Weightman, A. and Urquhart, C. (2008) Assessing the Impact of a Health Library Service: Best practice guidance, Prifysgol Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth University. http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/648. Weightman, A. L. and Williamson, J. (2005) The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care: A systematic review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 22 (1), 4–25. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2005.00549.x. Weightman, A. L., Farnell, D. J., Morris, D. and Strange, H. (2015) Information literacy teaching in universities: A systematic review of evaluation studies: preliminary findings for online v. traditional methods. Poster presentation at 8th Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference, Brisbane, July 2015. West, K. (2003) The librarianship conference report: Convincing evidence. Information Outlook, 7 (12), 12–14. Wheeler, S. (2009) Using research: Supporting organizational change and improvement. Business Information Review, 26 (2), 112–120. White, V. J., Glanville, J. M., Lefebvre, C. and Sheldon, T. A. (2001) A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews: Objectivity enhances accuracy. Journal of Information Science, 27 (6), 357. Wigfield, A. and Guthrie, J. T. (1997) Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (2), 420–432. doi:0022-0663/97. Wildemuth, B. M. (2006) Evidence-based practice in search interface design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 57 (6), 825–828. Wildemuth, B. M. (2009) Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 203

rEfErEncEs

203

and Library Science. Libraries Unlimited. Wildridge, V. and Bell, L. (2002) How CLIP became ECLIPSE: A mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 19 (2), 113–115. doi:10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x. Williams, D., Wavell, C. and Morrison, K. (2013) Impact of School Libraries on Learning: Critical review of published evidence to inform the Scottish education community; Aberdeen: Robert Gordon University. https://openair.rgu.ac.uk/handle/10059/1093. Williams, J. F. and Winston, M. D. (2003) Leadership competencies and the importance of research methods and statistical analysis in decision making and research and publication: A study of citation patterns. Library & Information Science Research, 25, 387–402. Wilson, K. and Strouse, R. (2005) Benchmarking your information management activities. Information Outlook, 9 (9), 25–31. Wilson, V. (2010) Applicability: What is it? How do you find it? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 5 (2), 111–113. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/8091/6970. Wilson, V. (2013) Formalized curiosity: Reflecting on the librarian practitioner-researcher. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8 (1), 111–117. https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/18901/14819. Wilson, V. (2015) Poking and prying with a purpose: The librarian practitioner-researcher and evidence based library and information practice. 8th International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Wilson, V. and Hall, S. (2007) Evidence Based Toolkit for Public Libraries. http://ebltoolkit.pbworks.com/w/page/9671460/FrontPage. Wilson, V. and Grant, M. J. (2013) Evidence based library and information practice: What’s in it for you? Health Information and Libraries Journal, 30 (2), 89–91. doi:10.1111/hir.12031. Winning, A. (2004) Identifying sources of evidence. In: Booth, A. and Brice, A. (eds), Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook, London: Facet Publishing, 71–88. Winning, M. A. and Beverley, C. A. (2003) Clinical librarianship: A systematic review of the literature. Health Information Library Journal, 20 (Suppl. 1), 10–21. Woodfield, J. and Lamond, H. (2015) Evidence-based redesign of an academic library home page. Eighth International Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Conference (EBLIP8) – Evidence and Practice: Working Together, 6–8 July 2015, Brisbane, Australia. Woods, H. B. and Booth, A. (2014) What is the current state of practitioner research? The 2013 LIRG research scan. Library and Information Research, 37 (116), 2–22. Worstall, T. (2014) Close the Libraries and Buy Everyone an Amazon Kindle Unlimited Subscription. www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/18/close-the-libraries-and-buyeveryone-an-amazon-kindle-unlimited-subscription/. Xu, J., Kang, Q. and Song, Z. (2015) The current state of systematic reviews in library and

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 204

204

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

information studies. Library & Information Science Research, 37 (4), 296–310. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2015.11.003. Yanos, T. and Ziedonis, D. M. (2006) The patient-oriented clinician-researcher: Advantages and challenges of being a double agent. Psychiatric Services, 57 (2), 249–253. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.57.2.249. Yoo-Lee, E. Y., Lee, T. H. and Valez, L. T. (2013) Planning library spaces and services for millennials: An evidence-based approach. Library Management, 34 (6/7), 498–511. doi:10.1108/LM-08-1108. Yukawa, J. and Harada, V. H. (2009) Librarian-teacher partnerships for inquiry learning: Measures of effectiveness for a practice-based model of professional development. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4 (2), 97–119. Zhang, L., Watson, E. M. and Banfield, L. (2007) The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction versus face-to-face instruction in academic libraries: A systematic review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33 (4), 478–484. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2007.03.006. Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K. and Rainie, L. (2014) From Distant Admirers to Library Lovers–and Beyond. A typology of public library engagement in America. www.pewinternet.org/2014/03/13/library-engagement-typology. Zickuhr, K., Rainie, L. and Purcell, K. (2013) Library Services in the Digital Age. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://libraries.pewinternet.org/files/legacy-pdf/PIP_ Library%20services_Report.pdf.

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 205

Index

academic librarians 83, 96 conceptions of evidence 98 convincing 101 finding evidence 99 influencing 100 use of evidence 99 academic libraries 93–104 assessment 96 discovery 94 evidence sources 97 information behaviour 95 information literacy 96 informed systems approach 103 landscape 93 learning management systems 94 library redesign 102 research data management 94 user needs 94 action research 32, 99, 139, 142, 144–8 accountability buddy 63, 91 adapt 15, 71–8, 169 advocacy 75, 129, 139, 163, 166, 169 agree 15, 59–69, 169 applicability 14, 45, 46

articulate 15, 19–26 assemble 15, 27–43 assess 15, 45–57 assessment 71, 96, 104, 109, 118 balanced scorecard 160 bias 62 change management 76–7, 102 Lewin’s model 77 Choo’s modes organizational decision making 66 contingent valuation 159 convincing 9, 73–4, 101 credibility 46 critical appraisal 45–8 critical appraisal tools 47 decision making 59–70, 165 bias 62 bounded rationality 60 convincing 68 group 15, 59, 63, 68 groupthink 64

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 206

206

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

individual 15, 60 influences 60 influencing 68, 74 organizational culture 64 organizational decision making 66 power 67 styles 61 Delphi studies 25, 128 domains of evidence 23 ECLIPSE 21 evaluating evidence 45–57 evaluation 71, 73, 74, 76 evidence, concept 27, 153, 98, 111, 138, 153–5 evidence, definition 27 evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) advocacy 75 cycle 6, 14 decision-making 59–70 definition 6, 82 history 6, 123 implementation 17, 101–3, 127–30, 113–18, 143–8, 161–3 Koufogiannakis’ revised framework 4, 11, 13 model 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 72, 123, 165, 167 principles 3 Todd’s model 72, 167, 138–9 evidence-based information practice 6 evidence-based librarianship 6 evidence-based medicine 6, 121 evidence-based practice principle 6, 121 evidence gathering 27, 42, 155 evidence hierarchies 49–52 evidence in librarianship practice 6 evidence levels 51 evidence mindset 165 evidence summaries 49 evidence types 14, 28–43, 54, 111, 124, 166 external 27, 56, 97, 124

local 27, 57, 97 professional knowledge 27, 38 research 30–3, 56, 125 evidence weighing 45, 49–55, 168 group decision making 63 health librarians advocacy 129 clinical librarians 127 Delphi method 128 EBLIP model 123 health literacy 128 hive approach 127 impact 128 information literacy 128 information needs 128 information seeking 128 mixed method designs 127 patient care 128 professional roles 122 research evidence 125–7 research skills 130 sources of evidence 124 systematic reviews 126, 127 value 128 health libraries 121–32 context 122 impact agenda 74, 107, 110, 112–15, 128 influencing 74, 101 information literacy 96, 128, 133, 136, 144 input measures 33 journal clubs 47 local evidence 28, 33, 53, 167 anecdotal evidence 34, 37 assessment 34 documents 34, 36 evaluation 34 observation 34, 36 organizational realities 34, 37

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 207

InDEX

statistics 33 user feedback 34, 36 mentoring 63 mixed methods research 31–2, 127 organizational culture 64–8, 85 organizational decision making 66 outcome measures 115, 161, 162 output measures 33 PICO 20 practitioner-researchers 81–90 benefits 85–7 challenges 83–5 characteristics 88–91 definition 82 EBLIP relationship 86, 87–8 problem-based learning 75 professional knowledge 38, 53, 117, 167 expertise 39 input from colleagues 39, 40 non-research literature 39, 40 tacit knowledge 39, 40 what other libraries do 39, 40 professional role development 6, 102, 122 public libraries 105–19 assessment 109, 118 digitization 105 EBLIP 106 economic value 114 evidence 111 impact 107, 112–16 landscape 105–6 lifelong learning 105 literacy 105 outcomes 115 research evidence 109 resource allocation return on investment 115 social value 114–15 standardized tools 117–18 users 105 value 110, 114

207

qualitative research 30 quality agenda 74 quantitative research 30 questions 19 clarification 20–3 frameworks 20–2 reflection 20 so what approach 22 reflection 16, 71–3, 149 reliability 46 research evidence 29, 109, 125, 139, 167 research–practice gap 81 return on investment 115, 156–7 school libraries 133–49 action research 139, 142, 144–8 advocacy 139 context 133–8 digital skills 135, 136–7 EBLIP 138 evaluation 137 information literacy 133, 136, 144 learning-centric school library 135 learning commons 134 learning outcomes 135 literacy 143 practitioner-researchers 142 research evidence 139–43 teacher-librarians 141, 148 Todd’s model of EBLIP 138–9 SCIE knowledge framework 52 SEA change model 72 secondary research 31, 33 special libraries 10, 151–64 balanced scorecard 160 barriers to EBLIP 160 benchmarking 157–9 conception of evidence 153–5 contingent valuation 159 definition 151 EBLIP 152 gathering evidence 155 outcomes 161, 162

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 208

208

BEIng EVIDEncE BAsED In lIBrAry AnD InformAtIon prActIcE

return on investment 156–7, 162–3 value measurement 161 SPICE 21 SPIDER 21 statistics 33 systematic reviews 24, 33, 48, 126, 127, 168 systematic scoping reviews 25

TAPUPAS framework 53, 168 teacher-librarians 9, 141, 148 trustworthiness 45, 46

tacit knowledge 39, 53

weighing evidence 45, 49–55, 168

users 94, 105 validity 45, 46 value 110, 114, 128, 161, 166

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 209

K&B_Being evidence based_TEXT PROOF_05 11/08/2016 17:10 Page 210