Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
Library Assessment and Quality Assurance - Creating a Staff-Driven and User-Focused Development Process
No full textObjective – Gothenburg University Library has implemented a process with the goal to combine quality assurance and strategic planning activities. The process has bottom-up and top-down features designed to generate strong staff-involvement and long-term strategic stability.
Methods – In 2008 the library started implementing a system in which each library team should state a number of improvement activities for the upcoming year. In order to focus the efforts, the system has gradually been improved by closely coupling a number of assessment activities, such as surveys and statistics, and connecting the activities to the long-term strategic plan of the library.
Results – The activities of the library are now more systematically guided by both library staff and users. The system has resulted in increased understanding within different staff groups of changing external and internal demands, as well as the need for continuous change to library activities.
Conclusion – Library assessment and external intelligence are important for tracking and improving library activities. Quality assurance and strategic planning are intricate parts in sustainable development of better and more effective services. The process becomes more effective when staff-driven and built upon systematic knowledge of present activities and users
Reference Management Practices of Postgraduate Students and Academic Researchers are Highly Individualized
No full textA Review of:
Melles, A., & Unsworth, K. (2015). Examining the reference management practices of humanities and social science postgraduate students and academics. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 46(4), 250-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2015.1104790
Objective – To understand patterns in reference management practices of postgraduate students and faculty members at one institution.
Design – Mixed methods online survey and semi-structured interviews.
Setting – Public research university in Australia.
Subjects – The survey included responses from 81 postgraduate students. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 8 postgraduate students and 13 faculty members.
Methods – The researchers distributed an 18-item survey via email to approximately 800 people who previously registered for EndNote training sessions. Survey participants were also recruited via a website advertisement. The researchers recruited postgraduate student interview participants from the list of survey respondents. Librarians invited faculty members to participate in the semi-structured interviews. Interview audio recordings were transcribed and coded for data analysis.
Main Results – The survey found that 71.4% (n=55) of respondents used reference management software (RMS) and 29% (n=22) did not. Over half of the students who did not use an RMS described other ad hoc or “manual” (p. 255) methods for organizing and tracking references. The majority of participants reported using EndNote (67.53%, n=52), while few respondents reported using other RMS tools like Zotero (1.3%, n=1) or Mendeley (1.3%, n = 1). Software awareness (49.32%, n=36), recommendations from faculty members (30.14%, n=22), and University support (47.95%, n=35) were the primary motivations for choosing a specific RMS. Other important factors included ease of use (32.88%, n=24) and integration with Microsoft Word (46.58%, n=34). Students preferred RMS features that support the process of accessing and using references in a paper, and reported that technical problems were the most common frustrations. The researchers found that student interview respondents were more likely to use RMS (75%, n=6) than were faculty member respondents (31%, n=4). Interview respondents varied in which RMS features they used, like importing references, PDF management, or “Cite While You Write” plug-ins (p. 258). Few interviewees used the RMS’s full functionality, either due to variations in workflow preferences or lack of awareness. Similar to survey respondents, interviewees who did not use an RMS reported their own personal practices for managing references. The time and learning curve necessary to become proficient with a particular RMS, as well as how the RMS fit into a particular task or workflow, influenced respondents’ decisions about software selection and use. Faculty members were split with their advice to students about using an RMS, with some respondents advocating that an RMS can save time and trouble later in their writing processes, while others took a more cautious or hands-off approach.
Conclusion – The authors conclude that measuring RMS use or non-use does not reflect the real world complexity behind student and faculty member reference management practices. They suggest that librarians may want to rethink focusing on RMS as the sole reference management solution. Librarians should also recognize that institutional availability and support may influence users’ RMS choices. A user-centred approach would account for RMS and non-RMS users alike, and librarians should “develop a more flexible perspective of reference management as part of an approach to researchers that aims to understand their practices rather than normatively prescribe solutions” (Melles & Unsworth, 2015, p. 265). Instruction workshops should help students and faculty members select features or systems that match their existing research processes, rather than exclusively demonstrate the mechanics of a particular RMS
Secret Shopping is an Effective Tool for Identifying Local Patterns in Library User Experience
No full textA Review of:
Boyce, C. M. (2015). Secret shopping as user experience assessment tool. Public Services Quarterly, 11(4), 237-253. doi:10.1080/15228959.2015.1084903
Objective – To assess library user experience (UX) at two entry-level service desks to determine the need for, and inform the aspects in which to improve, services and staff training.
Design – Observational study using secret shopping.
Setting – A small, private university in Illinois, United States of America.
Subjects – Library employees, comprised primarily of student assistants; and 11 secret shoppers, comprised of 5 faculty members, 4 staff members, and 2 first-year students from the university.
Methods – Recruitment methods for shoppers consisted of the campus electronic mail list, flyers, directed requests, and a $10 gift certificate to the campus bookstore following their participation. Both groups (library employees and secret shoppers) were briefed on the purpose of the study and completed informed consent forms. Shoppers attended face-to-face training sessions in which they selected two questions to ask from a list of options, one for each service desk in the library. Shoppers were not told at which desk to ask their questions. The list of options included informational and research assistance questions; shoppers also had the option of asking a question based on an actual information need. Two service desks were involved: one for circulation and one for research/IT support. Since IT staff and Librarians were excluded from the study, shoppers were directed to tactfully end the transaction if a referral to an expert was made.
Within two weeks of the training session, shoppers made two separate visits to the library at a time convenient to them to ask the question and observe the transaction at each of the two service desks. For each round of secret shopping, shoppers completed an electronic evaluation form afterward on the Qualtrics platform. The evaluation form consisted of yes/no, multiple-choice, and open-ended comment questions with two questions employing skip logic for a total of 29 possible questions. The questions covered the following variables both quantitatively and qualitatively: how well the question was answered, the customer service skills (responsiveness, approachability, and respectfulness) of the library employee, and if applicable, the quality of the referral to other library staff or services.
Main Results – The shoppers evaluated a total of 21 transactions: 11 for the circulation desk and 10 for the research/IT support desk (1 shopper did not evaluate this desk). Eighteen of the transactions were in-person and three3 were by phone. Eight of the questions asked were based on the participants’ actual information need.
On the variable of satisfaction with the answer received, the research/IT support desk scored higher than the circulation desk. The circulation desk received 7 very satisfactory ratings, 3 satisfied ratings, and 1 neutral rating; whereas the research/IT support desk received 10 very satisfactory ratings and 1 satisfied rating. The lower scores of the circulation desk may be related to the variables of responsiveness and approachability, as library employees on the circulation desk were scored lower in these areas and observed as not paying attention in two interactions and this was not observed at all at the research/IT support desk. However, the study did not collect sufficient data to test this relationship. All shoppers gave positive ratings on whether they were treated respectfully and if the library employee waited for the shopper to state the question fully and with the exception of one transaction, clarify the question if necessary.
Responses to the open-ended comment questions were reviewed by investigators, who found that in five cases the transaction would have been improved by consulting library faculty. On the variables related to customer service, responses were generally positive but in several transactions the library employees failed to appear attentive and ready to help the shopper.
Conclusion – The author found secret shopping was an effective tool for evaluating library UX to identify both positive and negative patterns and better inform responses to areas in need of improvement. The author identified two areas for improvement to the library. First, library employees at the circulation desk require additional training that would encourage them to refer transactions to library faculty where necessary. Second, although evaluation of customer service skills was generally positive, library employees will also receive additional training that will emphasize listening and role-playing scenarios. These areas for improvement will also support the library’s plans to combine research and circulation functions into a single service desk on the entry level and move the IT support desk to the third floor
Search Extended: Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) is seeking an Editorial Intern
No full textNo abstract
The Collision of Two Lexicons: Librarians, Composition Instructors and the Vocabulary of Source Evaluation
No full textAbstract
Objective – The study has two aims. The first is to identify words and phrases from information literacy and rhetoric and composition that students used to justify the comparability of two sources. The second is to interpret the effectiveness of students’ application of these evaluative vocabularies and explore the implications for librarians and first-year composition instructors’ collaborations.
Methods – A librarian and a first-year composition instructor taught a class on source evaluation using the language of information literacy, composition, and rhetorical analysis (i.e., classical, Aristotelian, rhetorical appeals). Students applied the information learned from the instruction session to help them locate and select two sources of comparable genre and rigor for the purpose of an essay assignment. The authors assessed this writing assignment for students’ evaluative diction to identify how they could improve their understanding of each other’s discourse.
Results – The authors’ analysis of the student writing sample exposes struggles in how students understand, apply, and integrate the jargon of information literacy and rhetoric and composition. Assessment shows that students chose the language of rhetoric and composition rather than the language of information literacy, they selected the broadest and/or vaguest terms to evaluate their sources, and they applied circular reasoning when justifying their choices. When introduced to analogous concepts or terms between the two discourses, students cherry-picked the terms that allowed for the easiest, albeit, least-meaningful evaluations.
Conclusion – The authors found that their unfamiliarity with each other’s discourse revealed itself in both the class and the student writing. They discovered that these miscommunications affected students’ language use in their written source evaluations. In fact, the authors conclude that this oversight in addressing the subtle differences between the two vocabularies was detrimental to student learning. To improve communication and students’ source evaluation, the authors consider developing a common vocabulary for more consistency between the two lexicons
