Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (Journal)
Not a member yet
1552 research outputs found
Sort by
A Survey of Electronic Serials Managers Reveals Diversity in Practice
No full textA Review of:
Branscome, B. A. (2013). Management of electronic serials in academic libraries: The results of an online survey. Serials Review, 39(4), 216-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.serrev.2013.10.004
Abstract
Objective – To examine industry standards for the management of electronic serials and measure the adoption of electronic serials over print.
Design – Survey questionnaire.
Setting – Email lists aimed at academic librarians working in serials management.
Subjects – 195 self-selected subscribers to serials email lists.
Methods – The author created a 20 question survey that consisted primarily of closed-ended questions pertaining to the collection demographics, staff, budget, and tools of serials management groups in academic libraries. The survey was conducted via Survey Monkey and examined using the analytical features of the tool. Participants remained anonymous and the survey questions did not ask them to reveal identifiable information about their libraries.
Main Results – Collection demographics questions revealed that 78% of surveyed librarians estimated that print-only collections represented 40% or fewer of their serials holdings. The author observed diversity in the factors that influence print to digital transitions in academic libraries. However 71.5% of participants indicated that publisher technology support like IP authentication was required before adopting digital subscriptions.
A lack of standardization also marked serials workflows, department responsibilities, and department titles. The author did not find a correlation between serials budget and the enrollment size of the institution. Participants reported that they used tools from popular serials management vendors like Serials Solutions, Innovative Interfaces, EBSCO, and Ex Libris, but most indicated that they used more than one tool for serials management. Participants specified 52 unique serials management products used in their libraries.
Conclusion – In surveying academic librarians engaged in serials management, the author sought to identify trends and standards in the field, but instead found significant variation in serials budgets and processes amongst the responding libraries. While it is clear that electronic subscriptions are a significant development and now a permanent feature of serials management, decisions to move from print to digital are complex and definitive conclusions about best practices for serials transitions could not be drawn from this study.
The survey revealed that institutions have invested in staff and tools for the management of electronic serials, but staffing configurations and tool combinations are also extremely diverse. The author concluded that the lack of standardization in these areas and the disconnect between institution and serials budget size indicated a serials landscape that was highly individualized and customized to each institution’s unique needs
The Life and Times of Aboutness: A Review of the Library and Information Science Literature
No full textObjective – This paper explores the concept of “aboutness”, its related terms, and the process of aboutness determination as found in the Library and Information Science Literature.
Methods – A review of the literature pertaining to aboutness determination and related terms specific to Library and Information Science was undertaken, borrowing extensively from the literature review of Daniel Joudrey’s (2005) dissertation, Building puzzles and growing pearls: A qualitative exploration of determining aboutness, as well as examining a small selection of research and articles not discussed by Joudrey. In addition, a concept map was developed to outline many of the concepts and theories found.
Results – The LIS literature demonstrates conflicting positions surrounding the term aboutness and its correlates. Despite the lack of firm agreement on terminologies, the notion of subject is explored because it featured prominently in the literature. As well, intensional and extensional aboutness are explored in contrast to a more subjectivist perspective which asserts that a document\u27s aboutness cannot be separated from its reader. Aboutness determination is also examined through the lens of theme and rheme, that is what is presupposed in a document versus what is new. Aboutness from the user perspective featured considerably in the literature, with many authors asserting both the importance and the challenge of mediating knowledge on behalf of the user. The stage of aboutness determination in the complete process of subject indexing is also presented here, and the findings demonstrate that the stages are anything but linear and sequential.
Conclusion – While the findings are more expositional than conclusive, they demonstrate the complexities and challenges surrounding the concept of “aboutness” and the process of its determination. The value of this review is in its ability to present the ways in which scholars and practitioners have attempted to grapple with this conundrum. Although indexers may find temporary solace in cataloguing manuals that outline aboutness determination procedures, underneath these “safe surfaces” is an ambiguous concept further complicated by obscure and incomplete processes. This review provides an opportunity to reflect on those challenges and to further the discussion
Google Scholar Retrieves Twice as Many Relevant Citations as PubMed and Provides Greater Full-Text Access for Quick, Clinical Nephrology Searches
No full textObjective – To compare recall and precision of results retrieved by searches in PubMed and Google Scholar for clinical nephrology literature.
Design – Survey questionnaire, comparative.
Setting – Canada.
Subjects – Practicing nephrologists with average age of 48 years and who have practiced nephrology for an average of 15 years.
Methods – The researchers identified 100 systematic reviews in renal therapy published between 2001 and 2009. The primary studies cited in the systematic reviews served as the reference standard for relevant articles; 1,574 unique citations were identified and used to measure recall and precision. The researchers created a unique clinical question from each of the objective statements of systematic reviews and sent one question to a random sample of practicing nephrologists to determine the search strings they would use to search for clinical literature; the researchers collected 100 usable responses. Using the search string in both Google Scholar and PubMed, the researchers analyzed the first 40 retrieved results in each for recall of relevant literature and precision. The researchers also analyzed the availability of full-text articles in each database. A pilot study to test the methodology preceded the main study.
Results – Google Scholar’s recall for the first 40 records was 21.9% and PubMed was 10.9%. Each database contained 78% of the relevant literature/reference standard set from the systematic reviews. However, 15% of the articles were in neither database. Precision results were similar (7.6% for Google Scholar and 5.6% for PubMed). Google Scholar had more full-text available at 15% of articles versus 5% for PubMed. Google Scholar and PubMed had similar numbers of relevant articles when all retrieved records were analyzed, but Google Scholar still provided more access to free full-text articles.
Conclusion – Google Scholar provides better recall and provides more access to full-text than PubMed; however, search strings provided by nephrologists used in both databases failed to retrieve 80% of relevant articles. Therefore improving nephrologists’ ability to effectively search could enhance their ability to implement research in practice helping patients. The researchers suggest future studies should be conducted to determine the generalizability of the findings on recall and precision in other medical disciplines
Evidence for Removal of a Reference Collection in an Academic Health Sciences Library
No full textNo abstract
Preference for Print or Electronic Book Depends on User’s Purpose for Consulting
No full textA Review of:
Rod-Welch, L.J., Weeg, B.E., Caswell, J.V., & Kessler, T.L. (2013). Relative preferences for paper and for electronic books: Implications for reference services, library instruction, and collection management. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(3-4), 281-303.
doi: 10.1080/10875301.2013.840713
Abstract
Objective – To determine patron format preference, perceived usability and frequency of e-book usage, and to study use and preference of e-reading devices.
Design – Survey questionnaire.
Setting – Large public research university in the United States of America.
Subjects – 339 students, faculty, and staff members
Methods – An anonymous 23-item survey was available in online and print formats. Print surveys were distributed in the lobby of the library and throughout various buildings on campus. A direct link to the online version of the survey was included in e-newsletters, on the library homepage, and on the library’s Facebook site. A definition of e-book was placed prominently at the beginning of the survey. Questions included information on preference of format (11), experiences using e-books (3), ownership of particular devices for reading e-books (1), attitudes regarding library purchase of e-books and readers (3), demographic information (4), and additional comments (1).
Main Results – Of the 339 completed surveys, 79 were completed online and 260 in print. When asked about preference in format for reading, 79.6% of respondents preferred print books compared to 20.4% choosing e-books. If the library was purchasing a book to support class research and projects, 53.9% preferred print and 46.1% preferred electronic, but if the library purchased a book for leisure reading, 76% preferred print and 24% preferred electronic. In response to the question about how often they used e-books from the library, 50.1% of respondents never used library e-books, 21.1% used once per year, 20.8% monthly, 7.4% weekly and 0.6% daily. Of those who used e-books, 38.1% read only sections they needed, 31% searched keywords, 24.2% downloaded and printed pages to read later, 21.8% read the most relevant chapters, 17.1% skimmed the entire book and 14.2% read the entire book. If both formats were available, 25.1% felt that the library should purchase the print book, 16.7% the e-book, and 58.2% chose both formats. When asked about downloading e-books, 51.1% of respondents would use an e-book only if they could download it to a hand-held device. A majority of the respondents, 81.7%, felt that the library should provide e-readers for checkout if the library purchased e-books instead of print books. When asked which types of books they preferred to read in electronic format in an open-ended question, 22% preferred textbooks, 21% leisure reading, 18% research books, 15% other types, 6% journals, 5% reference books, and 3% anything. Regarding which types of books were preferred in print format, 42% preferred leisure reading, 21% other, 14% all, 11% textbooks, 6% research books, 2% no e-books, 2% journals and 2% reference books.
Conclusion – Preference for book format (electronic or print) depends on the users’ purpose for reading the text. This will likely change over time, as users gain more familiarity and experience with e-books, and better support is provided from the library
Call for Applications: Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL) Summer Workshop
No full textNo abstract
International Symposium for Health Information Management Research (ISHIMR) 2015
No full textNo abstract
Why Do I Have to Write That?: Compositionists Identify Disconnects between Student and Instructor Conceptions of Research Writing that Can Inform Teaching
No full textA Review of:
Schwegler, R. A., and Shamoon, L. K. (1982). The aims and process of the research paper. College English, 44(8), 817-824.
Objectives – This classic article discusses research-based writing assignments. Schwegler and Shamoon sought to identify differences between college students’ and college instructors’ conceptions of research and research paper assignments, particularly in terms of their purpose and process. The authors also sought to identify common features of academic research writing that could inform writing instruction about research writing.
Design – Qualitative interviews with college instructors and students about their views of the research process and about forms of research writing. Instructors were also interviewed about evaluation standards for academic research papers.
Setting – Unspecified, though the description suggests a college or university in the United States.
Subjects – College instructors and college students. (Number of subjects unspecified.)
Methods – The authors, a university writing program director and a writing program instructor, conducted one-on-one interviews with college instructors and students about their views of research and the research paper. Questions focused on conceptions of the research process, the purposes of research, and the forms that research writing takes. Instructors were also asked about standards for effective evaluation of research papers.
The limited description of the research methods and interview questions employed in this study hinder the ability to critically assess its validity and reliability. Potential limitations of the study, such as selection bias or unclear wording of interview questions, cannot be adequately assessed based on the provided information. The authors also do not identify limitations of their study. As is discussed in more detail in this review’s commentary, the study does not conform to the conventions of most research studies from the behavioral, health, physical, and social sciences. The authors’ methods, however, may be better understood in light of particular disciplinary approaches and debates in Composition Studies.
Main Results – Interviewees’ responses illustrated notable differences between college instructors’ and college students’ conceptions of the process, purpose, forms, and audiences of research paper assignments. While instructors understood the research paper to be argumentative, analytical, and interpretive, students generally described it as informative and factual. Students, when asked why research papers are assigned, identified purposes such as learning more about a topic, demonstrating one’s knowledge, or learning to use the library. Instructors indicated that the purpose of the research paper includes testing a theory, building on previous research, and exploring a problem that has been presented by other research or events (p. 819). At the same time, most instructors described research as an ongoing pursuit of “an elusive truth” (p. 819), rather than as primarily factual in nature. According to Schwegler and Shamoon, instructors also indicated during interviews that research and writing involve a clear though complex pattern that is evident in the structure and conventions of research papers. For example, the research process usually begins with activities like reading, note-taking, identifying problems with and gaps in current research, and conversing with colleagues. These instructors also reported that writing conventions which are implicitly understood in their fields are used by other scholars to evaluate their peers’ work.
Reflecting on these interview responses, Schwegler and Shamoon suggest that pedagogical approaches to writing instruction can be informed both by acknowledging disparities in students’ and instructors’ conceptions of research and by identifying shared characteristics of academic writing. The authors therefore make several general observations about the nature of professional research papers and describe the structure and conventions of academic research papers. They conclude that the structure of scholarly research papers across the disciplines reflects the research process. Such a paper opens with identification of a research problem and a review of current knowledge and is followed by a variation of four possible patterns: 1) Review of research, 2) Application or implementation of a theory, 3) Refute, refine, or replicate prior research, and 4) Testing a hypothesis ( pp. 822-823). Schwegler and Shamoon indicate that the key features of scholars’ writings are also apparent in student research papers which instructors evaluate as highly-ranked and absent in lower-ranked papers. Furthermore, they provide an appendix that outlines the essential textual features of a research paper (Appendix A) (p. 822). It is unclear, however, if these descriptions of scholarly research writing are based on the instructor interviews or on other sources, such as previous analytical studies or an analysis of academic research papers from various disciplines. The researchers do not articulate the specific methods used to arrive at their generalizations.
Conclusion – The authors conclude that students’ and instructors’ differing conceptions of the research process and the research paper have important implications for writing instruction. Many of the interviewed instructors described research as involving methods that are quite different from those needed for most research paper assignments. The discrepancies between class assignments and academics’ approaches to research suggests that differences in instructors’ and students’ views of research often are not addressed in the design of research paper assignments. Instructors who teach the research paper should ensure that the purpose, structure, and style of assignments reflect what content-area instructors will expect from students. Schwegler and Shamoon argue that because the basic conventions of the research paper generally apply across disciplines, instruction about those conventions can be integrated into composition courses and lower-level undergraduate courses. Such an approach can assist students in better understanding and approaching research writing as would a scholar in the given discipline