Research Article
What Do Australian Library and Information
Professionals Experience as Evidence?
Ann Gillespie
Post Doctoral Research
Fellow
Queensland University of
Technology
Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Email: anngillespie@outlook.com
Faye Miller
Research Assistant
University of Southern
Queensland
Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Email: Faye.Miller@canberra.edu.au
Helen Partridge
Professor and Pro-Vice
Chancellor (Scholarly and Information and Learning Services)
University of Southern
Queensland
Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia
Email: helen.partridge@usq.edu.au
Christine Bruce
Professor
Queensland University of
Technology
Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia
Email: c.bruce@qut.edu.au
Alisa Howlett
Coordinator, Evidence Based
Practice
University of Southern
Queensland
Toowoomba, Queensland,
Australia
Email: alisa.howlett@usq.edu.au
Received: 2 Aug. 2016 Accepted:
2 Jan. 2017
2017 Gillespie, Miller, Partridge, Bruce, and Howlett. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
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.
Abstract
Objective –
This article presents the findings of a project which established an empirical
basis for evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP). More
specifically, the paper explores what library and information professionals
experienced as evidence in the context of their professional practice.
Methods – The project consisted of two sub-studies.
The public library sub-study was conducted using ethnography. Over a 5-month
period, a member of the research team travelled to a regional public library on
15 occasions, staying between 3 and 4 days on each visit. The researcher
observed, interacted, and became involved in the day-to-day activities of this
library. These activities were recorded in a journal and added to the
researcher’s insights and thoughts. Additionally, 13 face-to-face interviews
with staff in positions ranging from the operational to the executive were
conducted. The academic sub-study was conducted using Constructivist Grounded
Theory. Semi-structured interviews were conducted either in person or via
Skype, with 13 librarians from Australian universities. Interviewees were in a
diverse array of roles, from liaison librarian to manager and library director.
Results – The project found that the Australian
academic librarians and the public librarians who participated in the project
experienced six elements as evidence: observation, feedback, professional
colleagues, research literature, statistics, and intuition. Each of these will
be described and highlighted with examples from each of the two studies.
Conclusions – The findings of this study revealed many
similarities in the way that library professionals from both studies
experienced evidence. Evidence was not hierarchical, with evidence from many
sources being valued equally. In contextualizing evidence and applying to the
local environment, library professionals were able to draw upon more than one
source of evidence and apply their professional knowledge and experiences. In
this way evidence was more nuanced.
Introduction
This article
presents findings from a three-year project, which explored the ways in which
Australian LIS professionals experience evidence based practice (EBP). Two
interconnected sub-studies provided an empirical basis for EBP in the context
of the Australian library and information profession: 1) academic librarians’
experience of EBP, using constructivist grounded theory methodology and 2)
public librarians’ experience of EBP, using ethnographic methods. The two
contrasting qualitative research approaches enabled the facilitation of deeper
insights into how LIS professionals
can experience EBP and also what they
experienced as evidence. The concept of “evidence” in the EBLIP context is
seldom interrogated. Research evidence does not always provide the necessary
guidance to make decisions in professional practice, yet it takes “front and
centre” position in EBLIP discourse. This article specifically focuses on
comparing the findings on what was experienced as evidence across the two
sub-studies to describe what constitutes these forms of evidence in the context
of librarians’ professional practice. To contextualize what LIS professionals
experience as evidence, a review of the literature outlines the current state
of research into the various sources of evidence used for evidence based
library and information practice (EBLIP), followed by an overview of the two
sub-studies’ methodological approaches and findings.
Literature Review
Over the past 15
years, since an initial re-modeling of the decision-making framework from its
medical origins, what constitutes as “evidence” in evidence based library and
information practice (EBLIP) has been debated in the literature. From the first
EBLIP framework proposed by Eldredge (2000), “published research” has taken
centre stage and often times continues to be assumed as the only type of
evidence in EBLIP discourse (Koufogiannakis, 2013, p. 8).
An early
definition of EBLIP from Booth (2002) builds on Eldredge’s (2000) framework and
identifies sources of evidence other than research to inform improvements to
practice or “professional judgments” (2002, p 53).
Evidence-based librarianship is 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
judgments (Booth, 2002, p. 53).
Yet despite these
additional sources of evidence included in Booth’s (2002) definition,
Koufogiannakis (2011, p. 42) highlights the ongoing omission of “user-reported”
and “librarian-observed” sources in the EBLIP literature. Koufogiannakis (2011,
p. 53) uses a practice based perspective to identify local information and
professional knowledge as other evidence to consider in practice, forming a
more “realistic view” of evidence. Similarly, Todd (2009, p. 89) categorizes
research evidence as “evidence for practice,” one of three dimensions of
evidence in a “holistic,” conceptual approach to looking at evidence used in
professional practice. Two other dimensions of evidence, evidence in practice
and evidence of practice, are identified in Todd’s (2009) model. User-reported
evidence and results of evaluation programs are examples of “evidence of
practice” (Todd, 2009, p. 89).
This aligns with
“local evidence” sources as described by Koufogiannakis (2011, p. 50) to
include usage data, feedback, and librarian observation. According to
Koufogiannakis (2011), local evidence is directly applicable as it is concerned
with addressing the needs of the users of the library or information service.
Koufogiannakis (2011, p. 42, 44) argues for these additional types and sources
of evidence to be considered equally with research evidence and says that they
are not any less worthy, but simply different.
An understanding
of “evidence” in EBLIP is evolving, both from acknowledgements of different
types and sources of evidence in the literature, as well as findings from
empirical studies seeking to identify evidence in organizational contexts
(Gillespie, 2014; Koufogiannakis, 2012; Partridge,
Edwards & Thorpe (2010). Research evidence is found to not be the
only type of evidence to inform practice (Koufogiannakis, 2012, p.18).
Koufogiannakis (2012, p. 10) grouped sources of evidence used by academic
librarians into two types – hard and soft evidence. “Hard” evidence has
“concrete” information attached to it and types include published literature,
statistics from the particular product or service, and local evaluation
(Koufogiannakis, 2012, p. 11). “Soft” evidence focuses on “the story of how
things fit together in context” and includes input from colleagues, feedback,
and tacit knowledge (Koufogiannakis, 2012, p. 11). Koufogiannakis (2012, p. 10)
found that practitioners were unsure of what constituted evidence; there is
some hesitation as to the relevance and quality of research evidence. But
regardless of the source, they were willing to consider whatever may inform
decision-making (Koufogiannakis, 2012, p. 10). This study confirms that
research evidence alone is not enough to inform professional practice.
With a range of
evidence sources identified by library and information professionals,
Koufogiannakis (2012, p. 9) found evidence that use in practice is dependent on
the situation and type of problem being faced. A pilot study by Partridge,
Edwards, and Thorpe (2010) is the first Australian study to explore variations
in experiences of EBLIP by a cross-sector group of library and information
professionals. Participants described their experiences of the role of evidence
in their daily practice. For example, an experience of evidence based practice
“as service improvement,” where the professional’s focus is on best practice,
looking at, and benchmarking against other library and information services, is
undertaken (Partridge, Edwards, Thorpe (2010, p.
286). The range of evidence identified in participants’ experiences with
evidence based practice was associated with its use and “submission” as part of
decision-making processes and culture within their organizations (Partridge et
al., 2010, p. 291). Evidence used by Australian library and information
professionals in Partridge et al. (2010) included research literature, as well
as surveys, organizational strategy, and feedback, which is consistent with the
sources of evidence advocated by Koufogiannakis (2011; Thorpe, Partridge and
Edwards, 2008). Findings of this study suggest that identifying types or
sources of evidence and assigning its value is influenced by the situation and
how the evidence is used in making decisions. Koufogiannakis (2013, p. 9)
argues that evidence identified and used in practice cannot be prescriptive,
and must consider local context and circumstances; that the role of EBLIP is
about using evidence and figuring out what is best for the situation or
problem.
This then poses
the question of what is “best available” evidence, the determination of which
Booth (2002) and Koufogiannakis (2011) say only the library and information
professional can do through appraisal and assigning value to evidence pertinent
to making decisions in a given situation or context. Within a professional
practice setting, day-to-day realities can influence how evidence is
encountered, gathered, and used. For example, influential stakeholders of an
organization, such as a CEO, were found to determine the types of evidence
gathered for a decision or task in a study which explored evidence based
practice of special librarians (Howlett and Howard, 2015). Further to this,
Koufogiannakis (2013) found that who owns the decision – the individual
librarian or a group within an academic library – has an impact on how evidence
is used, either for confirming a decision or to influence or convince. While
similarities exist across library and information practice, empirical findings
suggest variations in what is “best available.” Understanding these variations
will better position the existing EBLIP model to achieve its aims in making
effective “value added” decisions in the provision of library and information
services.
The Research Project
The three-year
project commenced in 2013 and included two interconnected sub-studies.
Sub-study one explored academic librarians’ experience of evidence based
practice (Miller, Partridge, Bruce, Yates, & Howlett, submitted).
Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) was the research approach
employed. Data collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with thirteen
academic librarians recruited from Australian universities. Participants were
recruited via a purposive sampling approach. Participants were identified
through publicly available information about staffing and organizational
structures that is provided on University library websites. Participants were
approached via email inviting them to take part in the study. Participants were
identified to ensure variation in key aspects such as roles (e.g., liaison, reference
and information librarians, library executives, team managers, and directors)
and University. Interview questions were designed to allow participants to
describe their experiences of evidence based practice. In keeping with the
grounded theory approach, there was one primary interview question: Can you tell me about your experience of
using evidence in your professional practice? In addition, a range of
follow-up questions was also used to probe or elicit further information from
participants about responses they provided.
Data collection
and analysis was undertaken simultaneously, with “each informing and focusing
the other” (Charmaz, 2006). This is a key element of grounded theory.
Typically, data is collected initially from a small pool of participants. This
data is analyzed and the results inform the direction of further data
collection, including sampling strategies. The researcher returns to the field
continually until theoretical saturation is achieved. The findings from this
sub-study provide a holistic view of academic librarians’ experience of
evidence based practice. Six categories of experience were constructed, which
described librarians’ experiences of evidence based practice as: empowering,
intuiting, affirming, connecting, noticing, and impacting. Each category was
identified through analysis of responses from more than one participant. It is
beyond the scope of the current paper to give a detailed discussion of each
category. Further details regarding the sub-study’s findings are presented in
Miller et al. (submitted).
Sub-study two
explored how evidence based practice was experienced in one Australian public
library. Ethnography was the research approach employed (Fetterman, 1998).
Summertown Library is the site for this investigation. Summertown is a
pseudonym used to protect the identities of the participants. The same
pseudonyms have consistently been used in other articles reporting on this
project (Gillespie, Partridge, Bruce & Howlett, 2016). The Summertown
Library is a service provided by the Summertown City Council, which serves a
large provincial town of over 180,000 residents. Three branches are
strategically located, with another branch planned in the near future to cater
for the growing spread of the population. Summertown is a coastal town that has
a port and is the service centre for outlying mining and industrial industries.
In more recent times it has become a site for migrant and refugee families.
One member of the
research team travelled to Summertown 15 times over a 6 month period. Each
visit was of 3 to 4 days. Initial visits took a “big net” approach where the
researcher was immersed in as many activities in the library as possible (e.g.,
shelving, assisting customers on the floor, culling, storytelling, assisting in
the mobile van, and offering assistance wherever possible). At day's end the
researcher recorded the events in a journal. Included were unobtrusive
observations, comments, interactions with staff, and attempts to interpret what
the researcher was seeing. In addition, thirteen participants from within the
library staff, representing diversity in the operational units and management
levels, were interviewed. Additionally, the researcher collected a range of
print materials, including promotional leaflets of library activities,
strategic plan and related timelines, planning pro forma, and feedback forms.
Ethnographic data
analysis is iterative “as it builds on ideas throughout the study” (Fetterman,
1998, p. 92). Analysis is a refinement of the data with the researcher trying
to fit selections of the data into the bigger picture; in this case,
experiences of evidence based practice. The researcher's reflections and
interpretations, observations, interactions, and field notes provided the data
for the current study. In keeping with the ethnographic approach, the findings
are presented as a thematic narrative. Evidence based practice is experienced
in Summertown Public Library through four interconnected and interdependent
cultural orientations: valuing, being, learning, and leading. It is beyond the
scope of the current paper to give a detailed discussion of each cultural
orientation. Further details regarding the sub-study’s findings are presented
in Gillespie et al. (2016).
In both
sub-studies, data collection was designed to allow the participants to reveal
their own experiences and understanding of evidence based practice and
evidence. The research team did not impose a pre-determined definition or
understanding of these concepts. This approach was in keeping with the two
research methods employed and with the overarching aim of the project, which
was to build an empirical basis for evidence based practice grounded in the
lived experiences and realities of library and information science
practitioners.
What is Evidence?
In both studies,
observations, feedback, professional colleagues, research literature,
statistics, and intuition were recognized as evidence. Each of these will be
described and highlighted with examples from each of the studies.
Observations as
Evidence
Observations as
evidence could be deliberate and controlled or unexpected and serendipitous.
Observation was recognized by Tracy, a public librarian, “as a very powerful
tool.” It can raise awareness of clients’ behaviours, demographics, and usage
patterns, confirm professional judgment, and expose information concerning
continual improvement of services and resources that may not be available from
statistical data sources.
In the public
library sub-study, especially among operational staff, observation was
generally unexpected and not controlled. The observations were generally not
recorded as they were seen, but they were often reported or passed on in
conversation informally and in more formal meeting and planning situations. In
the example which follows, observation served to raise awareness guiding Taya,
who was leading Children's Storytime, to seek supporting evidence. Taya relates
her observations of participation and attendance at Storytime sessions:
We saw that our
audiences for the mentoring and Storytime sessions were increasing. And we were
having a lot more multicultural people come to Storytime.
Taya observed that
many of the families attending Storytime were from diverse cultural
backgrounds. At the end of sessions the families are asked to complete feedback
forms. These provide some useful information, but the forms do not ask
demographic questions. The growing cultural mix of families attending Storytime
could only be gathered from observations.
Similarly, in the
academic library study, observations of client or staff behaviours and usage
patterns were experienced as forms of evidence, as one academic librarian
described:
. . . that’s why I
really love getting out and working on the desk for a couple of hours every day
or going into classes and . . . teaching because you still pick up on ways to
improve or identify . . . similar problems that the students are having maybe
on a website or with searching or . . . just understanding their behaviours in
regards to finding information as well. (Participant 1).
For academic
librarians in this study, observational evidence can be gained informally, such
as in the above example, or from formal web data analytics observed during a
daily task, for example:
. . . I’ve got a
library guide, which is all about how to reference in APA style . . . and I was
looking at the statistics for that site ‘cause I really want to know how many
students are actually accessing it. And it is one of the most popular library
guides that we do have . . . what I found interesting was that the most used
page within that guide itself was how to reference a website, not how to
reference a journal article or a book from the library . . . . So that gives .
. . evidence to me that . . . although we really try to focus our . . .
sessions on using library resources . . . the students are still using websites
. . . and wanting to reference them (Participant 1).
In contrast,
examples of observations by executive and management levels were more
deliberate, although these too were unrecorded. For example, Tonya, as
Executive Manager of the public library, spends time on the library floor every
week with the purpose of seeing first-hand what is happening in the library and
getting a “feel” of work flows and responses from the staff as they interact
with customer requests. When she is on the floor, customers do not realize that
she is the executive manager, and Tonya does not respond to them in that way
either. She responds as any of the operational level library staff would do. In
this way, she is deliberately observing staff interactions, work flows,
customer concerns, and activities. This observational evidence keeps Tonya in
touch with the day-to-day library activities.
Feedback as
Evidence
Similar to
observational evidence, feedback could be formally or deliberately sought, or
could come from incidental encounters. The collection and analysis of data from
customer satisfaction surveys was systematically carried out by the Summertown
Council on a regular basis. Additionally, customers were asked to fill in
feedback forms after being involved in activities. Mostly responses were
positive, with “more of this” being quite common. The collated data of customer
feedback forms, in conjunction with the customer satisfaction surveys, provided
an overall picture of customer satisfaction. The results presented a positive
image for the library and its operations; however, the customer feedback forms are
a requirement of the council and are generic in nature. There were concerns
among library managers that this type of evidence does not indicate level of
impact, or provide information which might assist in future planning.
Examples of
evidence gained from incidental feedback were in the form of emails and in
face-to-face encounters. Betty explained, “Quite often we will have a thank you
. . . 90% of the time you'll get positive feedback.” Maggie valued incidental
customer feedback in this comment, “ . . . someone comes up to you or a few
people come up to you after and say, wow, that was really good.”
For academic
librarians, evidence is the corroboration of supportive feedback received and
shared by colleagues, clients, and institutions, as illustrated in the
following quote from an academic librarian:
I think I’m performing . . . effectively when my
colleagues give me positive feedback . . . . I think managers can give you . .
. lots of positive reinforcement about where you’re going . . . . I think it’s
that 360 thing . . . you get it from all directions (Participant 8).
Similarly, for
public librarians, this valuing was witnessed through the ways skills and
achievements of staff were acknowledged and shared. Open acknowledgments shared
face-to-face and among staff was affirmative evidence. Examples of feedback
included shared responses and incidents, usually a firsthand encounter and
emails, relating to customer reactions, events staff had attended, and feedback
of a more general nature. Affirmative evidence as part of conversation was an
ongoing and everyday occurrence among all levels of staff.
Other examples of
feedback as evidence were in relation to workplace performance. This feedback
could be face-to-face in meetings between staff and their supervisors. Maggie
valued this type of feedback.
. . . my supervisor is very good . . . if I'm doing a
good job she'll tell me I'm doing a good job . . . that just prompts me to do
better, you know.
It was during the
interview with Xavier, that he reflected that anecdotes gathered in
face-to-face encounters with customers could provide valuable feedback.
Awareness among staff about the value of this feedback and the need to document
the anecdote would move the evidence from being an unexpected encounter to a
strategic approach in capturing this type of evidence.
For academic
librarians, feedback is collected through listening and questioning, which can
be used to enhance or change services and/or practice, as the following quote
from a liaison librarian explains:
I might be . . .
walking along a corridor, and an academic will actually . . . come out of their
office . . . "Thanks . . . I like . . . the library . . . what service
they're offering, or what you did in that class the other day,” . . . whereas
the formal feedback might be they'll send me an email after class to say . . .
"We hope you can continue doing . . . joint classes,” . . . it's good to
seek it out and get that formal, and sometimes you don't need to, they'll just
tell you informally, which is great as well. I think I like that one better . .
. . And if I haven't explained it well, I can tell. They'll ask me the same
kind of questions again, or if I'm on the right track they might ask me . . . a
more advanced question that . . . continues the conversation . . . you're sort
of using that feedback . . . you're using that as evidence (Participant 3).
Professional
Colleagues as Evidence
Interactions with
professional (industry or university librarian) colleagues at conferences are
experienced by academic librarians as evidence. These interactions include
sharing experiences and informal networking with librarian colleagues from
other universities and institutions to experiment and gather new ideas to
implement within their own library.
. . . attending
conferences . . . events and webinars, and those types of things, where
librarians from outside of my workplace are sharing their experiences, or their
achievements, or projects they’ve worked on, getting a chance to see what
everyone else is doing and then picking up on, “That’s what I’m doing,” or,
“That’s something that I want to do” (Participant 1).
Additionally, they
are sharing and collecting resources with other universities to demonstrate
improved processes. They are also collaborating with outside subject experts to
improve selection quality and learning resources. Academic librarians also
benefit from professional colleagues as evidence for benchmarking across
similar libraries with good practice models to inform planning their own
library.
Sharing and collecting ideas from other libraries was also evident in the
public library sub-study. Flora, the manager of Collection Development, was
able to investigate and later implement innovative ways of displaying and
arranging the non-fiction collection. She consulted with professional
colleagues and visited other public libraries. In gaining first-hand evidence
from outside sources, Flora was able to report to management to plan and
implement changes.
Research
Literature as Evidence
Academic
librarians are maintaining awareness of professional literature to evaluate
specific library activities and make decisions in terms of industry standards
and best practice, where applicable. They also maintain awareness of scholarly
literature to increase credibility of evidence presented and service
contribution to university contexts.
. . . individual librarians have . . . done literature
searches. In terms of just reviewing particular services, we have done
literature reviews just to see what evidence is out there for best practice
(Participant 5).
Using scholarly
literature did not feature strongly in the interviews in the public library
sub-study. However, from incidental conversations with staff, the literature
influenced and informed before decisions were made. Cailey, from the Children’s
Services section of the library, related an incident where floor staff were
wishing to remove the book spinners used to display books in the junior and
teenage areas. The book spinners were considered to be difficult to keep tidy
and to relocate books when needed. Cailey was able to bring to a management
meeting literature which supported the use of book spinners, especially for
junior and teenage customers. Due to bringing these insights, the book spinners
stayed. Additionally, they were moved to more prominent positons in the
children’s and teens’ areas of the library.
Statistics as
Evidence
The Summertown
Libraries and their council collected and collated many statistics. For
instance, the library collected circulation and membership statistics generated
from the library management system; visitor numbers were an indication of
traffic in the different libraries and customer participation data demonstrated
how many attended the different activities that were offered. The council
quantified and plotted customer satisfaction surveys. This data was useful for
accountability, to plot trends over time, to indicate workload such as periods
and areas of high use, and likewise, underutilization.
Flora, the
Collection Development Manager, considered that statistics were vital in her
role. Statistical data was used for budgets and user requests, and identified
areas of high demand. The collection of data from user statistics revealed a
need to extend the inter-library loan scheme. Data generated from the library
management system assisted staff in culling the collection, as well as
identifying gaps and future purchases. The data was interrogated and selected
to gain specific information for the long term management of the collection.
Tonya, the
Executive Manager, termed much of the data that was collected as lag data; that is, this type of data was
evidence of past events. It was considered useful, but of limited value in the
big picture of the library. Tonya felt that she needed a bigger picture of the
community landscape, and the statistical data being collected did not provide
these insights. The library was able to provide many services of the type that
are generally associated with the role of libraries, but she considered that
there was much that could be specifically designed to meet the needs of the
local population. Tonya began by actively seeking statistical data as evidence
from within the council. This type of data included demographic information
such as age and ethnicity, population density, population growth, locations of
growing, and changing population. Additionally, from sources further afield,
she sought data and indications of trends such as community needs in a changing
economic environment.
Academic
librarians in this study are adept at “keeping an eye on” usage patterns from
statistical data, but they are uncertain about how to use this evidence once
identified. One of the main experiences reported by librarians is the
perception that, while more challenging to capture “mental notes” for future
use, qualitative data gathered from informal conversational feedback were more
insightful and useful for decision making than quantitative data gathered from
client surveys or databases where only numbers of interactions have been
recorded (Participant 3).
Intuition as
Evidence
For academic
librarians, intuition, encompassing wisdom and understanding of library
staff/clients’ behaviours, is being used as evidence to solve problems and
redesign library services. As the following senior level academic librarian
expressed in relation to using her intuitive understanding of staff under her
supervision:
I’ve learnt to trust my gut, and … I’ve learnt not to
be scared to invite someone into the office and say “are you alright?”
(Participant 11).
Another librarian
who teaches information literacy classes described the intuitive evidence of
knowing she is teaching effectively as:
. . . sometimes it’s more of a perception or an
intuition you know when you’re teaching a class and you can see the students .
. . the light go on in their eyes . . . . Many times you can just visually see
it . . . you know they’ve understood and they’ve comprehended . . .
(Participant 9).
Nadia, the team
leader of the Summertown Library’s Customer Service section, considered that
gaining understandings of many aspects of the organization and the people who
worked within it helped to build a picture about what is happening; that
intuition is something that is built over time using a variety of sources to
come to conclusions: “ . . . a lot of what you do is still gut instinct.”
Nadia draws on her
professional knowledge as an experienced team leader and her professional
experiences from working in the organization. These guide her intuition, which
in turn guides her actions. This can be explained as there being two parts to the
practitioner’s expression of the term “intuition”; that is, professional
experience and professional knowledge, and there is a nuanced difference
between these two concepts. When evidence from whatever source is presented,
the practitioner looks at this and makes a judgment based on professional and
past experiences. This action relies on professional experience. When the
practitioner questions and seeks further evidence in different or better ways,
in order to gain more information, or to confirm or deny the evidence,
professional knowledge comes into play. Nadia explained it in this way:
In that in terms of evidence, don’t just rely on, on
what you’re being told or how you’re being trained because at the end of the
day, we are a government organization and we are trained a certain way. You’ve
got to think outside the box.
Professional
knowledge is a measured and thoughtful response to the evidence; the
practitioner is defining the purpose of the evidence, considering ways to
explore it further, and drawing upon professional knowledge.
Evidence in Context
This study has
revealed that professionals in both the public library and academic library
shared similar views about what they considered to be evidence. The
similarities bring attention to and emphasize the many different types of
evidence that inform and confirm everyday practice. However, there were some
differences. These were related to the way in which the studies gathered,
analyzed, and presented the data, rather than the perceptions of evidence from
each group. The grounded theory academic library study provided many contexts,
with each interview coming from a different library setting, but the
revelations from these interviews were limited to how much the participants
were willing to share; there were no first hand observations from the researcher.
In contrast, the ethnographic public library study revealed much contextual
data from one library setting. The first hand observations and insights of the
researcher provided many examples of library professionals’ experiences of
evidence based practice, providing data of a more nuanced nature and rich
contextual information which face-to-face interviews on their own may not
provide.
Conclusion
This study has
revealed that what is experienced as evidence by academic and public library
professionals is similar in many ways. In both studies, evidence based practice
was a lived experience. Observations, feedback, professional colleagues,
research literature, statistics, and intuition were recognized as evidence.
However, many of these types of evidence were used in conjunction with each
other as a means to support or confirm. All evidence types were treated equally
by the participants and there was not a hierarchical structure of evidence
types. Library professionals drew upon their professional knowledge and
experiences to draw conclusions from the various types of evidence. This
nuanced approach of contextualizing evidence, drawing from many sources and
applying it to the local environment, demonstrates an experiential engagement
with evidence based practice.
This is in
contrast to early writing on evidence based practice in librarianship as
expressed by Brice and Hill (2004), where evidence from the research literature
was held in the highest regard, with less recognition of the practitioner
observed and user reported evidence types. This study serves to explain and
elaborate in practice based terms the early EBLIP definition provided by Booth
(2002). Previously, evidence based practice as an experience had been explored
by Gillespie (2014), Koufogiannakis (2013), and
Partridge et al. (2010). This study adds to this growing empirial base; it
highlights that there is no one way to be an evidence based practitioner and
that many sources of evidence are utilized by library professionals to guide
and inform practice and in decision making.
This
study has provided many insights about the nature of evidence among library
professionals in academic and public library contexts. The examples in this
paper provide lived experiences of library professionals gathering and using
many sources of evidence in their everyday work environments.
Acknowledgements
This project was
funded by the Australian Research Council. The authors would like to thank the
many Australian library and information professionals who kindly participated
in this project.
References
Booth, A.
(2002). From EBM to EBL: Two steps forward or one step back? Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 21(3),
51-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J115v21n03_04
Brice, A., & Hill, A.
(2004). A brief history of evidence-based practice. In A. Booth & A. Brice
(Eds.), Evidence-based practice for
information professionals: A handbook (pp. 13-23). London: Facet
Publishing.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical
guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Eldredge, J. D. (2000).
Evidence-based librarianship: An overview. Bulletin
of the Medical Library Association, 88(4), 289-302. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35250/
Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gillespie, A. M. (2014). Untangling the
evidence: Introducing an empirical model for evidence-based library and
information practice. Information
Research, 19(3). Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/76198
Gillespie, A. M.,
Partridge, H., Bruce, C., & Howlett. A. (2016). The experience of
evidence-based practice in an Australian public library: an ethnography. Information Research, 21(4). Retrieved
from http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-4/paper730.html
Howlett, A., &
Howard, Z. (2015) Exploring the use of evidence in practice by Australian
special librarians. Information Research,
20(1). Retreived from http://www.informationr.net/ir/20-1/paper657.html#.WJjraRSyKuA
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 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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8JC8J
Koufogiannakis, D.
(2013). EBLIP7 keynote: What we talk about when we talk about evidence. Evidence Based Library & Information
Practice, 8(4), 6-17. .
http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8659R
Miller, F., Partridge,
H., Bruce, C., Yates, C., & Howlett, A. (submitted). How academic
librarians’ experience evidence based practice: A grounded theory model. Library and Information Science Research.
Partridge, H., Edwards,
S. L., & 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. (pp. 273-297). Amsterdam: Chandos. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-876938-79-6.50013-3
Thorpe, C., Partridge.,
& Edwards, S. L. (2008). Are library
and information professionals ready for evidence based practice? Paper
presented at Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Biennial
Conference 2-5 September 2008, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.
Todd, R. J. (2006).
School libraries and evidence-based practice: An integrated approach to
evidence. School Libraries Worldwide, 12(2),
31-37.
Todd, R. J. (2009).
School librarianship and evidence based practice: Progress, perspectives, and
challenges. Evidence Based Library &
Information Practice, 4(2), 78-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8BS62