Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Facet Use in Search Tools is Influenced by the Interface but Remains Difficult to Predict
No full textA Review of:
Dahlen, S. P. C., Haeger, H., Hanson, K., & Montellano, M. (2020). Almost in the wild: Student search behaviors when librarians aren’t looking. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(1), 102096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102096
Abstract
Objective – To examine the relationship between student search behaviours and the quality of scholarly sources chosen from among library search tools.
Design – Unmonitored search sessions in a facilitated library setting.
Setting – A mid-sized public university in the United States of America.
Subjects – 50 upper-level undergraduate students in the social and behavioural sciences.
Methods – Recruited participants were given one of two search prompts and asked to use EBSCO’s Social Science Abstracts and two configurations of ProQuest’s Summon, with one being pre-scoped to exclude newspapers and include subject areas within the social sciences. The search tools were assigned in random order. In each case, the participant was asked to find two of the “best quality” articles (p. 3). A librarian was present in the room but did not observe participants; instead, all sessions were recorded using Camtasia Relay. Afterwards, participants were interviewed about the process they used and their impressions of the search tools. They also completed a survey collecting information on their GPA and whether they had previously had library instruction.
Main Results – Facet use differed significantly between the EBSCO database and Summon, though not between the two different configurations of Summon. There was a significant relationship between high use of facets in one platform being connected to high use in the other platforms. In contrast to some previous studies, a non-trivial proportion of participants went beyond the first page of search results. In support of most previous studies, participants infrequently searched on the subject field or changed the default sort order. Summon’s article suggestion feature was noted as being especially helpful, and clicking on suggested articles was significantly correlated with the number of article records viewed.
Conclusion – The choice of search tool has a large influence on students’ subsequent search behaviour. Many of the advanced features are still missed by students, although in this study the majority of sources picked were of high quality. The authors note the importance of configuring the interface so that facets and other features deemed worthwhile by librarians are higher up on the page. The researchers reason that the prominent display of facets leads to greater uptake. Despite finding no association between library instruction and facet use, teaching students how to use facets remains an advisable strategy
Librarians’ Participation in the Systematic Reviews Published by Iranian Researchers and Its Impact on the Quality of Reporting Search Strategy
No full textAbstract
Objective – The validity of the results from systematic review studies depends largely on the implementation and the reporting of the search strategy. Using an experienced librarian can greatly enhance the quality of results. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the librarian’s participation and the quality of reporting search strategy in systematic reviews published by Iranian researchers in medical fields.
Methods – Three databases were searched to identify the systematic review studies conducted by Iranian researchers from 2008 to 2018. A total of 310 studies were selected using systematic random sampling, and the quality of their search strategy reports was reviewed by the Institute of Medicine checklist. A short questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in the search strategy of these studies was sent to the corresponding authors of the selected studies. A total of 229 questionnaires was returned. The data obtained from the questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and also from the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics.
Results – The mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies was low. The librarians’ participation rate for these studies was 13.6%. No meaningful relationship was found between the librarians’ participation and the mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy of systematic review studies. However, an investigation of the relationship between each of the items in the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and librarians’ participation as the corresponding author or a member of the research team showed a meaningful relationship in five items.
Conclusion – The results showed that the quality of reporting the search strategies in systematic reviews was low and the librarians’ participation in designing and reporting the search strategy in systematic reviews was limited. The authors of the systematic review studies, as well as the journals’ editors and referees, need to pay more careful attention to reporting the search strategy exactly and comprehensively. Employing librarians in this area can have a major impact on this part of systematic review studies
Mixed Methods Research in Library and Information Science: A Methodological Review
No full textAbstract
Objective - To review mixed methods research trends in the field of library and information science (LIS). In particular, we examine the extent to which research about or using mixed methods has been occurring in library and information science over the past decade (2008-2018), and how much of that mixed methods research is done in health contexts.
Methods - We conducted a methodological review and analysis of mixed methods research (MMR) in LIS for published articles indexed in LISTA and Web of Science. After deduplication and verification for inclusion, we coded 417 articles to identify contributions using or about MMR. Given the connections between evidence based practice in health and LIS, we also identified whether articles about or using mixed methods were health-focused.
Results - We found MMR to be a tiny proportion (less than 0.5%) of the overall LIS research literature. In terms of observable trends, while contributions about MMR remain fairly static, there has been an increase in articles using mixed methods. Of the 417 included articles, 373 (89.5%) primarily used mixed methods and 44 (10.5%) were primarily about MMR. Results also demonstrated that health-related research both using and about mixed methods has a strong presence in the LIS literature, with 136 published articles (32.6% of the total).
Conclusion - Confirming findings of prior analyses of research methods in LIS, our methodological review shows current opportunities to adopt and expand the use of mixed methods research processes. Further contributions about mixed methods research, and ideally connecting research and practice in LIS, are needed. Despite the small proportion of MMR in LIS research, there is an observable increase in the number of publications using mixed methods during this timeframe. The LIS research community can promote additional growth by leveraging this momentum around using mixed methods, and look to translate lessons learned about mixed methods research and practice in health contexts to other LIS settings. Recommendations include developing educational opportunities and learning resources that facilitate wider engagement with MMR in LIS contexts
Undercover Feminist Pedagogy in Information Literacy: A Literature Review
No full textAbstract
Objective – Feminist pedagogy in library instruction presents a new approach to actively engaging students in the research process. While feminist pedagogy in universities found early adoption in the 1970s, it is a newer phenomenon in library instruction, finding its early roots in works by Ladenson (2010), Accardi (2010), and Accardi and Vukovic (2013).
By fostering active engagement and critical thinking skills, feminist library instruction sessions encourage students to question authority, actively participate in the knowledge production process, and become aware of their power and information privilege as they navigate increasingly complex information environments. At its core, this specific pedagogical approach subverts traditional classroom dynamics by focusing on diversity and inclusion.
This literature review demonstrates how feminist pedagogy is currently being practiced in academic library information literacy sessions and how students can be assessed in a feminist manner.
Methods – Practitioners of feminist pedagogy draw on techniques and methodologies designed to emphasize and value different experiences, such as cooperative learning, collaborative learning, inquiry-based learning, and inquiry-guided learning. These techniques and methodologies are used to develop students’ information literacy skills, to take ownership of the research process, and to stimulate critical inquiry.
For the literature review, the following databases were searched: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) on the ProQuest platform; Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA); Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA); Scopus; and Web of Science Core Collection. Hand searching in WorldCat, as well as cited reference searching and bibliography mining, were also conducted. The searches were run between November 2018 and April 2019, followed by a second round in July 2019 based on participant feedback from the 2019 EBLIP10 conference. Case studies, books, book chapters, literature reviews, research papers, interviews, surveys, and papers based on statistical and qualitative analysis were consulted.
Results – While some librarians may lack familiarity with feminist theory, feminism writ large influences academic librarians’ professional practice (Schroeder & Hollister, 2014). Librarians can incorporate feminist pedagogy into their practice and assessment in many concrete ways. However, librarians who focus on feminist pedagogy may face obstacles in their teaching, which may explain why publications on feminist pedagogical discourse within library and information studies have emerged only within the last decade (Fritch, 2018; Hackney et al., 2018). The most common challenge feminist librarians face is the restrictive nature of the standalone, one-shot information literacy session. Moreover, there is much room for improvement in library and information studies programs to introduce students to the theory and practice of feminist pedagogy.
Conclusion – This paper highlights examples of feminist methods librarians can put into practice in their information literacy sessions and ways in which students can be assessed in a feminist manner. The literature demonstrates that feminist pedagogy has been successfully implemented for decades in universities. By comparison, practicing feminist pedagogy at the library instruction level is a relatively new area of focus within the profession. Hopefully, this growing trend will lead to more evidence based literature in the near future. 
Developing, Implementing, and Monitoring a System for the Management of Corporate Policies: A Partnership Between Risk and Evidence
No full textNo abstract
Making Job Postings More Equitable: Evidence Based Recommendations from an Analysis of Data Professionals Job Postings Between 2013-2018
No full textAbstract
Objective - Over the last decade, many academic libraries have hired data professionals to offer research data services. As these positions often require different types of experience than traditional librarian positions, there is an increased interest in hiring professionals from outside the typical library and information science (LIS) pipeline. More broadly, there has also been an increased interest in academic libraries and higher education to incorporate the principles and practices of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEI&A) into their work. These phenomena allow an opportunity to examine the growing area of data professionals and library hiring practices through the lens of DEI&A. Data was collected from 180 data professional job positions, including education, experiences, and skills, to better understand the evolving and complex landscape of data professionals and to provide evidence based recommendations regarding how the profession can enact meaningful and lasting change in the areas of DEI&A.
Methods - The qualifications and responsibilities listed in data professional job postings from 2013 to 2018 were examined. Prior to analyzing the job postings, a codebook of 43 variables was developed. The 177 data professional job postings (corresponding to 180 positions) were independently analyzed, noting the presence of each variable, including the locations and the degrees of complexity sought. After coding, discrepancies were mutually resolved. Overall, the coding process had 94% intercoder agreement, which indicates a high level of agreement.
Results - Over one-third of postings (n = 63, 35%) did not use the word “librarian” in the job title. Eighty-eight percent (n = 159) required a Master’s in LIS degree, but 67% (n = 119) also accepted an equivalent degree. Over half of the positions (n = 108, 60%) were also looking for an additional degree, most frequently a graduate degree. The median salary of the positions listing a quantitative value was $57,000; however, this value may not be accurate because only 26% of job positions (n = 47) gave a quantitative salary. From the research data management skills mentioned, general data management (n = 155, 86%), data repositories (n = 122, 68%), and data curation (n = 101, 56%) appeared most frequently. Libraries were also looking for traditional LIS skills and experiences, including instruction (n = 138, 77%), consultation (n = 121, 67%), and a public services perspective (n = 69, 38%).
Conclusion - The results show that academic libraries are trying to recruit candidates from outside the traditional academic library pipeline. Research data activities (a non-traditional area for LIS) and traditional LIS areas were both frequently mentioned. Overall, these job positions should be written through a more intentional lens of DEI&A. This would help to make data professional positions more diverse and inclusive, while also helping academic libraries to reach their goal of recruiting outside of LIS. A set of concrete DEI&A recommendations are provided that are applicable for writing all library positions, so that readers can put these results into action and enact meaningful change within the profession
Professionalism Reconsidered
No full textA Review of:
Bundy, M. L., & Wasserman, P. (1968). Professionalism reconsidered. College & Research Libraries, 29(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_29_01_5
AbstractObjective – In their 1968 editorial for College & Research Libraries, Mary Lee Bundy and Paul Wasserman interrogated the nature of librarianship as a profession. They describe what they see as the limits of contemporary practice and offer ways forward for those concerned with the status of librarians.
Design – The article offers an analysis of the question, making use of selected contemporary literature on American librarianship, rather than empirical research or a literature review.
Setting – Bundy and Wasserman locate their critique in the daily work of academic librarians. Their descriptions are based on their own observations.
Subjects – The authors focus on “the real world in which librarians practice” rather than “abstract academic terms” (p. 7). Their subjects are library workers who, by virtue of the MLS, are identified as professionals in the library workplace. Bundy and Wasserman note that these library workers “often spend considerable time being concerned about whether or not they are truly professional” and go on to take up these concerns themselves (p. 5).
Methods – Bundy and Wasserman compare librarianship to “what is customarily considered to constitute professional behavior” (p. 7). Their comparison is structured through an analysis of three categories of professional relationships: librarian to client, librarian to institution, and librarian to professional association. This taxonomy of relationships is their own; the authors do not refer to analyses of professionalism in other disciplines such as nursing, social work, or education, fields where similar questions have arisen. The authors describe each of these professional relationships in turn through their own observations as a professor and Dean of the library program at the University of Maryland.
Main Results – Bundy and Wasserman argue that librarianship does not meet the threshold for professional behaviour in any of these three categories of practice. The relationship between the client and the professional requires expertise: “the professional knows” (p. 8). According to the authors, most reference transactions involve questions that “would not overtax the capacity of any reasonably intelligent college graduate after a minimum period of on-the-job training” while an “essential timidity” prevents them from clearly stating what they do know (p. 8). Given this, the relationship with the client can never be professional: the client knows as much as or more than the librarian. Bundy and Wasserman make an exception for children’s librarians, arguing that their clientele benefits from the “close control of the content of collections to reflect excellence” (p. 9). Otherwise, librarians are “in awe” of both the expanding bibliographic universe and the “growing sophistication of middle-class readers” (p. 9). Unless librarians understand themselves to be experts, and engage as experts with their clients, they cannot be professionals.
Professionals also see themselves as superior to their institution, struggling against “institutional authority which attempts to influence [their] behavior and performance norms” (p. 14). The professional resists disciplinary mechanisms that force workers to conform to institutional norms, maintaining authority over their own work. In Bundy and Wasserman’s view, librarians instead display “rigid adherence to bureaucratic ritual” where “the intellectual and professional design is sacrificed upon the altar of economic and efficient work procedures” (p. 15). Librarians focus on the efficient completion of narrowly defined tasks that enable compliance with institutional demands instead of placing their relationships with clients at the center of their professional life. Library administrators encourage this restriction on the status of their employees. The authors argue that the librarian who attempts to maintain a professional relationship “is seen as a prima donna, impatient with necessary work routines, unwilling to help out in emergencies, a waster of time spent in idle conversation with his clientele about their work--renegade and spoiled” (p. 16). Acting “like a professional” is incompatible with the ways librarians normally relate within the larger institution.
Finally, professional status requires professional associations. These associations should ensure the quality of education in professional programs while facilitating the growth of connections between professional librarians. Again, librarianship fails: its professional association is guilty of “accrediting and re-accrediting programs of doubtful merit thereby giving its imprimatur to schools very distant from any ideal or even advanced attainment” (p. 21). When it gathers librarians together at annual meetings, those committees “consist of members explaining why they have failed to complete assignments or committees which deliberate weightily the means for perpetuating themselves instead of considering the purpose or program, or still others which consume hour after hour preoccupied with minutiae” in organizations that are reduced to “the associational excesses of the ritual, the routine, and the social” (p. 23).
Conclusion – For Bundy and Wasserman, librarianship fails to qualify as a profession because the field cannot lay claim to a particular area of expertise, slavishly follows the rules of the institutions in which it is embedded, and is governed by professional associations that fail to ensure the rigor of professional education while reducing relationship-building to the reproduction of the association itself. Unless the field works to become more thoroughly professional, they argue, librarianship cannot advance or innovate, doomed to “not only decline rapidly, but ultimately face obsolescence” (p. 25)
