Feature
EBLIP7 Keynote: What
We Talk About When We Talk About Evidence
Denise Koufogiannakis
Collections and
Acquisitions Coordinator
University of Alberta
Libraries
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Email: denise.koufogiannakis@ualberta.ca
Received: 22 Aug. 2013 Accepted: 17 Oct. 2013
2013 Koufogiannakis . This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
The following text is a summary of the opening keynote address at
the 7th International Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice Conference, given on July 16, 2013 at the University of Saskatchewan,
in Saskatoon, Canada.
Introduction
This morning I want us all to start thinking about evidence! Now I
know that doesn’t seem too revelatory given that we’re at an evidence based
practice conference -- but I think that we don’t usually take the time to think
about what evidence actually is in the profession of librarianship, or how we
use it. So, my talk is going to explore those issues of evidence, based
on the findings from my doctoral research.
What is Evidence?
The Oxford Dictionary says that evidence is: “the available body
of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or
valid” (Evidence, 2010).
Looking at the wider body of literature about the nature of
evidence, key elements of evidence are revealed and can be applied to the field
of Library and Information Studies (LIS). In keeping with the previous
definition, evidence is commonly thought of as something constituting a form of
proof to enhance a claim (Hornikx, 2005; Upshur, VanDenKerkhof & Goel,
2001; Reynolds & Reynolds, 2002; Twinning, 2003). That evidence
serves as a proof, differentiates it from information – information must be
relevant to the question at hand, and be used to prove a hypothesis in order to
be considered evidence.
Evidence is generally seen as having three major
properties: relevance, credibility, and inferential force or weight (Schum,
2011). Relevance looks at how the information bears on what is attempted to be
proven; credibility asks whether what is reported actually occurred; and,
inferential force or weight considers how strong the evidence is in comparison
to other evidence.
Types of evidence noted in the literature are wide ranging. Rieke
and Sillars (1984) consider there to be four types of evidence: anecdotal (a
specific instance), statistical (numerical representation of multiple
instances), causal (explanation for the occurrence of effect), and expert
(testimony of an expert) evidence. In a similar vein but considering a
different categorization of evidence, Glasby, Walshe, and Harvey (2007) created
a typology with three types of evidence: theoretical (ideas, concepts and
models to explain how and why something works), empirical (measuring outcomes
and effectiveness via empirical research), and experiential (people’s
experiences with an intervention). They say that “we need to embrace a broad
definition of evidence, which recognises the contribution of different sorts of
knowledge to decision making” (p. 434). Evidence must always be used in
context, whether in the context of a particular situation, or context of a
wider body of professional knowledge.
In my recent PhD research, a grounded theory study, I
studied a group of 19 participants. All were academic librarians in Canada,
working in a variety of settings and positions. They kept online diaries in the
form of a private blog, for the period of one month each, in which they wrote
down the problems or questions that they encountered in their practice during
that time period, and what they did about them. Basically, they were tracking
their thought and decision making processes for me. I then interviewed each
participant to dig deeper into the detail of their decision making, and learn
why they made the decisions they did, as well as what kinds of evidence they
used to help them in making that decision. I wanted to learn about what sources
academic librarians use as evidence and how they use that evidence.
Driving the study was a desire to base the model of
evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP), which promotes the use
of research evidence in practice, on research itself. With the exception of a
study by Thorpe, Partridge and Edwards (2008) (see also Partridge, Edwards and
Thorpe, 2010), no research had been conducted on the actual EBLIP model and
whether it was useful or appropriate for librarians. Since EBLIP was adapted
from evidence based medicine (EBM), it was a legitimate question to ask whether
the same model that worked for physicians really works for librarians. It was
time to explore whether the model was valid and if changes were needed. The
goal was to approach the study with a view to learn and to listen to academic librarians
and how they use evidence in daily practice.
After doing a thorough examination of the model of
EBLIP as it has been presented in the literature, it became clear to me that
“evidence” in the context of EBLIP refers to published research articles.
Booth’s definition, as noted here, does account for other aspects, but the
focus is on research derived evidence, and what we have pursued within the
EBLIP movement since the time of this definition, points mostly to research
evidence:
“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. The best available evidence, moderated
by user needs and preferences, is applied to improve the quality of
professional judgements.”
(Booth, 2000)
The process of EBLIP, as with other forms of evidence based
practice, is one which advocates searching the literature to find research
articles, appraising those research articles to ensure they are valid, and then
integrating the findings into one’s practice. While professional
knowledge and user preferences are accounted for in the definition of EBLIP,
the conversation about those elements stops there. There have also been criticisms
that the EBLIP model does not account for other forms of knowledge that are a
vital part of professional practice. Booth himself has more recently tried to
clarify that EBLIP requires more than research, and that “the best available
evidence and insights derived from working experience, moderated by user needs
and preferences” are essential (Booth, 2012).
The more basic question of “what is evidence?” has not yet been debated
or tested to any degree within the literature of EBLIP. There has been no research
to show that in LIS evidence only consists of research; this treatment of
evidence was simply adapted from the evidence based medicine model.
“I’m Clueless how to Speak
Evidence”
When participants in my study were directly asked what they
considered to be evidence, most were a bit taken aback by the question - often
noting that they had not thought about what evidence was before, or admitting
that it was “a difficult question”. After thinking about it, most participants
took a very broad view of evidence - they were very open to the possibility of
what evidence might be. Most participants named several sources of evidence,
and usually put those in context. For example, different evidence sources
depending upon the type of problem faced.
As for what the participants actually used as evidence - my
research revealed that academic librarians use a wide breadth of evidence
sources in their decision making. Actual evidence sources used were numerous
and detailed. In order to best convey this information, the evidence sources
have been grouped into two main types, and within those types there are a total
of nine main categories of evidence (Koufogiannakis, 2012).
Hard evidence sources are types of evidence that are usually more
scientific in nature. They may focus on numbers, or are tied to traditional
publishing outputs. Sources are usually quantitative in nature, although
qualitative research and non-research publications also fall into this
category. Ultimately, there is some written, concrete information tied to this
type of evidence. A librarian can point to it and easily share it with
colleagues. It is often vetted through an outside body (publisher or
institution), and adheres to some set of rules. These types of evidence include
the published literature (research and non-research articles), facts,
documents, statistics and data, as well as local research and evaluation
projects that are documented. These sources are generally acknowledged as
acceptable sources of evidence, and are what a librarian would normally think
of as evidence in library and information studies.
The other type of evidence can be thought of as “soft” evidence.
As opposed to the “hard” evidence, soft sources of evidence are non-scientific.
They focus on experience and accumulated knowledge, opinion, instinct, and what
other libraries or librarians do. This type of evidence focuses on a story, and
how details fit into a particular context. Soft evidence provides a real-life
connection, insights, new ideas, and inspiration. Such types of evidence
include input from colleagues, tacit knowledge, individual feedback from users,
and anecdotal evidence. These types of evidence are more informal and generally
not seen as deserving of the label evidence, although they are used by academic
librarians in their decision making as a form of proof.
I want to illustrate this use of multiple types of evidence through
the example of information literacy. Let’s just pretend that librarians at a
University need to develop a new information literacy program for engineering
students. What are the evidence sources they are likely to draw upon (in broad
terms, without knowing the specific context)? This is to illustrate how we go
about gathering evidence, and where we find it.
First the librarian might reflect on his or her own past knowledge
or experience in teaching information literacy skills to reflect upon what has
worked for him or her in the past. He or she will likely speak with colleagues
at their own institution to learn what has worked in other subjects or courses.
The librarian may then speak with faculty – looking to discover what students
in this course need to learn; what are the course objectives?
They may then branch out to see whether any other universities
offer a similar course; start looking at the literature for examples of what
worked elsewhere; look on the internet at other Universities’ websites for
documentation or other types of information relating to such a course. Then
they may decide to follow up that initial investigation of what others are
doing by arranging to speak with specific librarians at other universities and
learn what they did and what was successful. At the same time, they may probe
deeper into the literature to look for any research studies that show what is
most effective. In addition, they may look at documents such as the ACRL (2011)
information literacy guidelines, for guidance.
The librarian will then go back to local information
- is there any internal data or research on information literacy or student
needs? What needs to be evaluated once the course starts? The librarian may
begin planning evaluation and feedback mechanisms, and may even think about
whether there is a research project they can carry out within this new
endeavour.
Ultimately, the librarian must make a decision on how to teach the
course. Which of the sources consulted might be best to help with that decision?
It’s complicated! Which do we place more weight in? Which should we place more
weight in? How do we know what is best? How do we combine the various pieces of
what we learn through the evidence gathering process? This is still a very big
gap in our knowledge, and should be of utmost importance to those of us
interested in evidence based library and information practice.
What I’ve learned about evidence in LIS, is that it can come from many sources. Evidence
is much more than research – and depending upon the type of question or problem
we are trying to address, research will not always be the best source of
evidence. The role of EBLIP is about
using evidence and figuring out what is the best evidence in your particular
situation. Evidence use is not easily prescriptive, and must consider
local circumstances.
EBLIP’s focus to date has
been on research evidence and how to
read and understand research better. This is a good thing (I certainly do not
want to diminish the importance of the work that has been done in this respect)
- but it is not the only thing - and we must begin to explore other types of
evidence.
And finally, I think that librarians would be better
served by a having greater understanding of the best types of evidence to use
in particular situations. The question, then, is how do we best weigh different
sources of evidence? I do not yet have that answer, nor has it been explored in
our research literature to date.
How do Librarians Use Evidence?
I now want to turn our thoughts to how we, as librarians, use evidence.
As previously mentioned, the focus of EBLIP to date
has been on research evidence, and when we look at the model of EBLIP, which
was adopted from medicine, it is clearly targeted toward the individual
practitioner.
This figure illustrates the 5A’s you are likely all
familiar with - it outlines the process of Evidence Based Practice, and is what
we have adopted within EBLIP.
Figure
1
The
5A’s process of evidence based practice (Hayward, 2007).
This
model is meant to be used by an individual practitioner - a physician, nurse,
and in our case, librarian. The librarian works through each of these steps to
practice in a more evidence based way.
The findings from my doctoral study illustrated one very basic but game-changing
thing to me - that academic librarians (and I think this is largely
transferable to other types of librarians) work in groups. All of our major
decisions are made in groups, or require approval from others. There are some
smaller decisions that we make on our own, but for the most part, our
professional decisions rely upon others.
Now,
maybe some of you at this point are saying, “well, yeah, of course” but even
though I have been an academic librarian for more than 15 years, and have been
involved with the EBLIP movement for more than 13 years, this was a complete
revelation to me. The fact is that our work in groups changes how we make
decisions as opposed to when we make decisions on our own; and the fact is also
that we make more decisions in groups than we do as individuals. This must have an enormous impact on the
discourse within EBLIP, because if we want evidence to truly permeate and
improve librarian decision making, we need to look at EBLIP from the context of
group decision making.
This leads me then to how we actually use evidence, which has not been very
well explored through research prior to my study. We use evidence for
convincing, and I will explain this in more detail. There are two main aspects
to convincing (Koufogiannakis, 2013a, 2013b).
First
of all, evidence is used for confirming. My research found that one of the main
reasons librarians use evidence is to confirm that the decision they are making
is correct. Confirming generally applies in situations where an individual decision
is being made, or when the librarian is part of a well-functioning group that
she or he feels comfortable with.
Confirming
is nearly always positive because in doing so, a librarian is seeking to better
understand something and add to their knowledge as a professional. What emerged
very clearly in the data from participants is that academic librarians confirm
to feel better and more confident that they are doing the right thing while
remaining open to new possibilities. They may have initial thoughts, reactions
and instincts, but they want to confirm those instincts with more concrete
sources of evidence in order to proceed with their decision in a more confident
manner. This is another way that the librarian brings together the soft
evidence of their initial gut instinct or their own knowledge, with harder
sources of evidence that corroborate the soft evidence, or else make the
librarian re-think their initial position on the matter due to new evidence
that was not previously known or considered.
The quotes below, from participants in my study, illustrate some of the reasons
and ways that librarians use evidence to confirm. Participants felt that they
could not base decisions solely on their existing knowledge because best
practices are constantly changing and they need to continually learn. From
those librarians just starting out, to those that were quite experienced, there
was a common feeling throughout that they did not know everything and wanted
some form of reinforcement whether it be from the literature, input from
colleagues, or some other source of evidence.
I tend to use that [the
literature] as confirmation for interesting ideas that I read about. (Librarian
16, interview)
I find it interesting when the outcome
matches/supports my initial gut reaction and instincts. For me this is one of
the ways I test for validity when making decisions, a little private “ah-ha”
moment – I can say, with confidence: ‘I knew it, I knew I was right’. If the
info collected informs a decision or action different from my initial thought –
I chalk it up to experience and put it under the category of: ‘good thing I
double checked this’. (Librarian 6, diary)
I just think that way and I feel more confident
about what we’re doing if I know that we have – that we’ve tried to collect
evidence, we’ve tried to assess what we’re doing and to me it’s just more
confidence in going forward with other things. (Librarian 17,
interview)
Confirming is done for oneself. It is an act that reassures, and corroborates
instinct or tacit knowledge. The participants’ actions show that they do not
just gather evidence for external purposes, but that they gather and use
evidence as part of their own professional development and regular practice of
keeping current.
Although
not usually the case, confirming can occasionally be negative, if a librarian
consciously discredits or avoids evidence that does not support their
preconceived notion of what is the best.
Secondly,
evidence is used for influencing. As previously mentioned, while some decision
making by librarians is individual, often decisions are made in a group
setting, especially when they will have a major impact on library users or
staff. My research shows that group decision making leads librarians to try and
influence the final decision. Influencing can be positive or negative. When in
a positive work environment, participants often first go through the confirming
stage for themselves, but when working with others, they bring evidence to the
table in order to enable the group to make the best decision possible. In a
positive situation individuals feel free to speak and be heard, and will reach
a consensus. What an individual brings to the table, in this environment, is a
positive form of influencing.
When participants were in a negative environment, they often felt they were not
being listened to, or their concerns not heard. They then adopted strategies to
deal with this. One such strategy was to bring research evidence to the table
in support of their viewpoint, where someone with an opposing viewpoint may not
have done this. Research is generally well regarded in an academic environment
and therefore cannot be as easily dismissed as a person's own opinion. Any form
of evidence that shows “what other libraries do” is also seen in a very
favourable light, as libraries may be more likely to make changes based on what
is happening around them at other institutions. Other strategies were to
convince individuals and bring them on-side prior to any decision, or to stress
particular points depending upon what the decision maker needs to hear in order
to be persuaded. In all cases, the individuals want to influence the final
result, and where a work environment is negative, they will use evidence as a
“weapon”, to quote Thorpe, Partridge and Edwards (2008) as they describe in the
findings of their research regarding librarians’ experiences of evidence based
practice, which is in keeping with my findings.
Different levels of control regarding decision making emerged from the data in
this study. It became clear that librarians do not always have control over
their own decisions. When an individual librarian makes his or her own
decision, influencing is not required. In situations where a group makes the
final decision, or where someone else makes the final decision, influencing is
widely used. And the following quotes from participants illustrate the use of
evidence for influencing:
Where the group setting makes a difference, I
think, is that depending upon whether or not I’m a champion for a particular
project, I may present, you know - I may frame the evidence in a way that I
think would speak to the needs of the people in the group. (Librarian
2, interview)
I will have to sell this to the University
Librarian. (Librarian 18, diary)
I think you have to be very strategic because you
have to recognize what the other person’s concerns are in order to address them
and that’s the strategic part; and also being able to address the mandates of
the library and all those other conflicts, right? (Librarian 5,
interview)
The overall concept of convincing
includes the two sub-categories I just discussed, confirming and influencing.
Confirming focuses on the self. It concerns a librarian’s knowledge and
positioning as a professional. In this case, librarians look to the evidence in
order to confirm and reassure themselves that they are on the right track with
their decision making. They turn to the literature or to input from colleagues
in order to verify their initial instincts. This process is a positive one
because it is self-inflicted and builds confidence. Generally, the librarian
comes to the process of looking for and using evidence to confirm in a very
open minded and forthright manner.
Influencing focuses on others and what a librarian needs to do to
contribute to what would be a positive outcome from their perspective.
Influencing concerns transmitting what an individual thinks the decision should
be to others that are involved in making the final decision, in order to
convince them to come to the same conclusion. Influencing can be a positive or
negative experience depending upon the work environment. Evidence in this
situation can become simply a means to an end, and used differently depending
upon the circumstances and the people involved.
Work environment largely determines the convincing strategy. For example, in
co-worker relationships, how much control one holds, what is likely to convince
someone, past experiences in dealing with particular people, and the perception
of being heard in the workplace are all factors that impact the use of evidence
and the reasons for using evidence.
Depending
upon the work environment, evidence is used differently. If it is a positive
work environment, academic librarians are more forthcoming with ideas, listen
to others, and are open to what the evidence says. If the work environment is
negative, there is often secrecy, a withholding of information, evidence is
used selectively to make a case, situations are approached differently
depending upon personalities, there are feelings of hopelessness, and
power-plays and strategizing are common.
Generally,
librarians want to contribute to organizational decision making, but if they
feel that they are not being listened to, they will be disempowered and look
for other ways to influence the outcome (or some may simply give up).
Ultimately, individual academic librarians are not in control of most final
decisions. Therefore, they do what they can to influence and impact the
decision indirectly. Our workplaces have a huge impact on how we use
evidence.
Shifting the
EBLIP Paradigm
This
research has shown me that two key parts of the current EBLIP model need to be
reworked.
1)
We need to look at a wider breadth of evidence sources within EBLIP, and move
our discussions beyond research. Librarians use many forms of evidence. This is
legitimate and the EBLIP movement needs to catch up.
2)
We need to consider how librarians do their work, and reframe the model so that
it makes sense within our institutional, group-driven decision making, as
opposed to independent, individual decision making.
I propose to you the following points:
1)
We are not health care professionals:
sources of evidence in health do not necessarily transfer into sources of
evidence in librarianship. It is time to look at ourselves rather than model
another profession.
2)
We have unique types of evidence within
our profession.
3)
We rarely act alone – we work in institutions and make decisions in groups.
4)
We almost always act locally.
5)
We care about what we do and want to influence outcomes.
6)
We don't know enough about ourselves as decision makers.
7)
We don't know enough about what are the most important evidence sources to help
us.
Keeping
these points in mind, I want to propose we start to follow a new model of EBLIP
- which is not radically different, but which suits us better.
In
2009, Booth proposed a new 5As of EBLIP which focus more on collaboration. This
model is a better representation of the EBLIP process as it applies to
librarians and fits very well with what I found in my study. It accounts for
multiple sources of evidence; focuses on group decision making; and places
evidence within the overarching problem and environment. It also encourages
consensus building and adaptation as part of a cyclical process towards
successful implementation, and gives more consideration to the areas of apply
and assess, in the newly named ‘agree’ and ‘adapt’ stages. This version of the
5As is more holistic and encompassing of the complex process of evidence based
decision making, as well as more practical. Booth himself noted that his model
was a work in progress; a prototype which had potential to be modified.
My
doctoral study results fit very well with this model for EBLIP. In my thesis I
build upon Booth’s work to enhance this model further. Booth had based his new
model on threads of discussions happening at the EBLIP5 conference in
Stockholm. While not research, it arose from keen insightfulness of the
discussions within a community of practice. My research has now confirmed that
this model is a better fit for librarians that the original model.
In
addition to Booth’s alternative model, work I previously published, based on a
presentation at the EBLIP6 conference which grew out of an earlier phase of
this study, is drawn upon for the new model (Koufogiannakis, 2011). This work
focuses on questions that a practitioner should ask themselves when making
professional decisions in an evidence based manner. These questions account for
both hard and soft sources of evidence, with a focus on continually asking
questions and improving practice.
My work combines well with that of Booth’s to create a more holistic approach
to practicing librarianship in an evidence based way. A key point however, is that we shouldn’t
focus on the model - we need to do what works. A model itself can serve as a
guide but should be flexible.
This
then is a new model for evidence based library and information practice:
1)
Articulate –
come to an understanding of the problem and articulate it.
Questions:
What do I/we already know 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.
Actions:
Set boundaries and clearly articulate the problem that requires a decision.
2)
Assemble –
assemble evidence from multiple sources that are most appropriate to the
problem at hand.
Questions:
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?
Actions:
Gather evidence from appropriate sources.
3)
Assess –
place the evidence against all components of the wider overarching problem.
Assess the evidence for its quantity and quality.
Questions:
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?
Actions:
Evaluate and weigh evidence sources. Determine what the evidence says as a
whole.
4)
Agree –
determine the best way forward and if working with a group, try to achieve
consensus based on the evidence and organisational goals.
Questions:
Have I/we 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? Have we considered all reasonable alternatives? How will this
decision impact library users? Is the decision in keeping with our
organisation’s goals and values? Can I explain this decision with confidence?
What questions still remain?
Actions:
Determine a course of action and begin implementation of the decision.
5)
Adapt
–revisit goals and needs. Reflect on the success of the implementation.
Questions:
Now that we have begun to implement the decision, what is working? What isn’t?
What else needs to be done? Are there new questions or problems arising?
Action:
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.
A
model for EBLIP needs to look at all evidence, including evidence driven by
practice as well as research. Librarians need to take a different view of how
evidence may be used in practice, and tie research and practice together rather
than separating them. Practitioners bring evidence to the table through the
very action of their practice. The local context of the practitioner is the
key, and research cannot just be simply handed over for a practitioner to implement.
The practitioner can use such research to inform themselves, but other
components are also important. Concepts related to practice theory, focusing on
the practitioner and his or her knowing in practice – both local evidence and
professional knowledge – help to provide a more complete picture of decision
making within the profession of librarianship.
The
EBLIP model must be revised so that the overall approach addresses other
aspects of evidence. All forms of evidence need to be respected and the LIS professional,
with his or her underlying knowledge (a part of soft evidence), is at the
centre of the decision making process. Different types of evidence need to be
weighed within the context in which they are found, and only the practitioners
dealing with that decision can appropriately assign value and importance within
that context.
There
must be an emphasis on applicability, because decision making is ultimately a
local endeavour. In every situation, we must work within restrictions. These
elements are facts of life and cannot be ignored. Within such boundaries
librarians need to weigh appropriate evidence and make contextual decisions.
An evidence based library and information practitioner is someone who
undertakes considered incorporation of available evidence when making a
decision. An evidence based practitioner incorporates research evidence, local
sources of data, and professional knowledge into their decision making.
All three must be present.
Moving Forward
There
are two large areas of research I would like to see the EBLIP community address
in the next few years:
1. What are
the best evidence sources based on the type of question? It
would be beneficial for researchers to explore and recommend the best evidence
sources based on the type of question. This would not be a hierarchical list,
but would serve as a guideline on what sources of evidence a librarian should
consult for that type of question. For example, if one has a collections
problem, the research literature should be consulted, but other sources of
evidence that would provide good information include usage statistics for
e-products, circulation statistics, faculty priorities, output of tools such as
OCLC collection analysis, interlibrary loan and link resolver reports, as well
as the publication patterns of faculty. Researchers could determine what the
sources are for each area of practice, and in what circumstances they are best
used.
2. How do we
“read” the results of different types of evidence sources? It
would also be very beneficial for practitioners to have guidance on how to
“read” the results of different evidence sources. For example, what a
practitioner needs to consider when looking at reference statistics, or what
elements a librarian should consider when conducting an evaluation of their
teaching. Some of this information will be found in existing literature, and a
scoping review of what has already been documented would be a good start. We
have already done this with the development of critical appraisal tools for
research studies and it would be beneficial to extend this work to other types
of evidence sources.
Evidence Helps
us Find Answers
To
close, I’d like to encourage you all to keep thinking about evidence and how
you use it. Ultimately, evidence, in its many forms, helps us find answers.
However, we can’t just accept evidence at face value. We need to better
understand evidence - otherwise we don’t really know what ‘proof’ the various
pieces of evidence provide. EBLIP has already made great strides towards better
understanding research evidence, and while we need to continue to improve our
research literature, we also need to extend that effort towards understanding
other types of evidence that is used in librarianship.
I
think we can only do this if we question, test and allow ourselves and one
another to make mistakes while learning and exploring.
What
excites me about all this is very much in keeping with the theme of this
conference – “The possibilities are endless”. There are endless questions,
endless ideas, and we all have something to contribute. In fact, we all
need to contribute. Above all, EBLIP is a mindset - a way of approaching
practice with openness and curiosity - take time during this conference to
listen, be inspired and discover your
possibilities.
References
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2011). Guidelines for Instruction Programs in
Academic Libraries. Retrieved
6 November 2013 from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/guidelinesinstruction
Booth, A.
(2000, July). Librarian heal thyself: Evidence based librarianship, useful,
practical, desirable? 8th International Congress on Medical Librarianship,
London, UK.
Booth, A.
(2009). 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.
(2012). Evidence based library and information practice: Harnessing
professional passions to the power of research. New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 52(4). http://www.lianza.org.nz/resources/lianza-publications/nzlimj/evidence-based-library-and-information-practice-harnessing-prof
Evidence.
(2013). In Oxford Dictionaries Pro. Retrieved 6 Nov. 2013 from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence?q=evidence
Glasby, J.,
Walshe, K., & 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.
doi: 10.1332/174426407781738065
Hayward, R. S.
(2007). Evidence-based information cycle. Centre for Health Evidence.
Retrieved 8 Nov. 2013 from http://www.cche.net/info.asp
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.
Koufogiannakis,
D. (2011). Considering the place of practice-based evidence within evidence
based library and information practice (EBLIP). Library & Information
Research, 35(111), 41-58. Retrieved 8 Nov. 2013 from http://www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/article/view/486/527
Koufogiannakis,
D. (2012). Academic librarians’ conception and use of evidence sources in
practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 5-24.
Retrieved 8 Nov. 2013 from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/18072/14468
Koufogiannakis,
D. (2013a). Academic librarians use evidence for convincing: A qualitative
study. SAGE Open, 3(April-June).
doi: 10.1177/2158244013490708
Koufogiannakis,
D. A. (2013b). How academic librarians use evidence in their decision making:
Reconsidering the evidence based practice model. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Aberystwyth University, Wales, U.K.
Partridge, H.,
Edwards, S., & Thorpe, C. (2010). Evidence-based practice: Information
professionals’ experience of information literacy in the workplace. In A.
Lloyd, & S. Talja (Eds.). Practising information literacy: Bringing
theories of learning, practice and information literacy together. Wagga
Wagga, NSW: Charles Sturt University.
Reynolds, R.
A., & Reynolds, J. L. (2002). Evidence. In J. P. Dillard, & M. Pfau
(Eds.). The persuasion handbook:
Developments in theory and practice. (pp. 427-444)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rieke, R.,
& Sillars, M. O. (1984). Argumentation
and the decision making process. New York: Harper Collins.
Schum, D. (2011).
Classifying forms and combinations of evidence: Necessary in a science of
evidence. In P. Dawid, W. Twining, & M. Vasilaki (Eds.). Evidence,
inference and enquiry. (pp. 11-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thorpe, C.,
Partridge, H., & Edwards, S. L. (2008). Are library and information
professionals ready for evidence based practice? Paper presented at the
ALIA Biennial Conference: Dreaming 08, Alice Springs, NT, Australia. Retrieved
8 Nov. 2013 from http://conferences.alia.org.au/alia2008/papers/pdfs/309.pdf
Twinning, W.
(2003). Evidence as a multi-disciplinary subject. Law, Probability & Risk, 2(2), 91-107. doi: 10.1093/lpr/2.2.91
Upshur, R. E.,
VanDenKerkhof, E. G., & Goel, V. (2001). Meaning and measurement: An
inclusive model of evidence in health care. Journal
of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 91-96. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00279.x