Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Page 299 of 302

  • 4 - How good is the evidence base?

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Jonathan Eldredge, Assistant Professor in the School of Medicine and Coordinator of Academic and Clinical Services in the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center at the University of New Mexico
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 36-48

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Identifying research evidence relevant to answering EBIP questions poses an initial challenge. How good is the evidence base? How well does it answer our EBIP questions? Once we have identified and obtained this research then we have to evaluate its relevance and quality, a second major challenge (Chapter 9).

    This chapter identifies the types of research that may be used to answer important questions for our practice and outlines how an understanding of research types helps in matching an appropriate research type to a specific question. The chapter ends with an appraisal of the overall evidence base.

    Identifying the evidence base

    The evidence base for information practice is located within three main search domains: (1) the library and informatics literature; (2) the so-called ‘grey literature’ for our field; and, (3) the literatures outside our field with functional relevance to the question such as the literatures of the social, behavioural, education or management sciences.

    The library and informatics literature

    Issues of index coverage

    The first of these, the library and informatics literature, poses several unexpected challenges for the searcher. To illustrate from within the health sector, the major journals in our field include Health Information and Libraries Journal, Journal of the Medical Library Association and Medical Reference Services Quarterly. Less prominent journals include Bibliotheca Medica Canadiana; Hypothesis and Journal of Hospital Libraries. While PubMed is available to all searchers, commercial databases are likely to be too expensive for some professionals to access. The databases selected in any search for the contents of the major journals will yield different retrieval. Tables 4.1–4.3 illustrate uneven coverage amongst three databases. From Table 4.1 one notes that PubMed appeared to offer the most complete access, for the years 2001 or 2002, to the contents of Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA): (51 [2001] and 66 [2002] references compared to the Library Literature database's 32 and 42 respectively). For 1998, however, Library Literature provided access to 93 versus PubMed's 74 references to the same journal. Within the field, Library Literature is used extensively when searching for the evidence needed to make decisions. Yet, for the years 1998–2002, Library Literature did not index any contents for Health Information and Libraries Journal or its predecessor Health Libraries Review.

  • 12 - Disseminating the lessons of evidence-based practice

  • from Part 2 - Skills and resources for evidence-based information practice
    • By Ellen Crumley, Clinical Librarian with the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Alberta, Canada, Denise Koufogiannakis, Collections Manager at the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Canada
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 138-143

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Dissemination of research results is vital to the progress of the profession as well as helping to improve practice. It involves not only making your research available, but also ensuring that it is accessible to others and presented in a manner that is easy to understand. In addition, it is important to use a variety of techniques for delivering information in order to provide evidence (or to conduct research where no data are available) for what we do as librarians and to help others understand how we define our role.

    In this chapter, we explore the evidence for dissemination and the different methods by which research and knowledge can be circulated. We also provide an overview of how distribution is used by librarians and investigate innovative ways to make your research known. Two types of disseminators, those who conduct research and those who use research findings in their practice, are examined throughout the chapter.

    Scenario

    As a special librarian, you work with a business research group consisting of a statistician, a research assistant and an MBA. Your role includes conducting environmental scans, facilitating access to online resources and performing comprehensive literature searches. You are also being asked to order documents for employees and other time-consuming tasks which could be done by other staff. You report to the vice president of the organization, who understands little about your role, yet she speaks on your behalf at board meetings. Since you see your boss infrequently, you prepare carefully for your meetings. You wish to communicate your needs and wants better, using evidence. You also want to find effective ways to get vital information to your supervisor. As a solo librarian, you also worry that you are isolated from other librarians and want to find ways to keep up with issues of relevance to your profession while at the same time gaining the support of your colleagues.

    Effective dissemination

    Dissemination continues to be a hot topic in recent literature. In order to be effective, research needs to be user-friendly, that is, understandable by those to whom we report, as well as to our colleagues. Many libraries are run by non-librarians and many librarians report to a person in another discipline who may not clearly understand their role and function within the organization.

  • Special Topic (E) Should I charge and, if so, what should I charge for? (Evidence Briefing)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Lynette Cawthra, Information and Library Service Manager at the King's Fund
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 223-230

  • Summary

    What are my objectives in charging?

    ‘Before introducing charges for any service it is essential to consider where the service sits within your long-term objectives and priorities and establish that: there is a need for the service; there is a willingness to pay; and you have the appropriate resources and skills to take it forward’ (Webb, 2003). You must decide what your objectives are in charging. For instance:

  • • are you trying to produce value-for-money outcomes? (Cooper, 1997)

  • • are you attempting to make a profit, recover costs or control excessive use? Libraries are often more concerned to recover costs than to make money, e.g. ‘cost-minus pricing’, providing subsidized services below costs (Snyder and Davenport, 1997)

  • • is the charged-for service peripheral (e.g. a service to ‘non-core’ users) or integral to what the library offers (e.g. passing on costs to internal users)?

    • Answers to such questions will generate very different pricing strategies (Ward et al., 2002).

    Libraries should establish a pricing mechanism only after determining the implications of such a policy on performance and utilization of library services (elasticity analysis) (Olaisen, 1992).

    What are my motives?

    Possible reasons for charging include:

  • • to generate revenue

  • • to recover costs, in whole or in part

  • • to benefit from users’ ability and willingness to pay

  • • to control usage (Snyder and Davenport, 1997) e.g. by ‘non-core’ users

  • • conversely, as outreach to ‘non-core’ users (Ward et al., 2002)

  • • to bring a service in line with ‘competitor services’ (Ward, 1997)

  • • to provide ‘value-added’ services e.g. a new or upgraded service. If a service benefits only a small proportion of library users, they may be expected to pay (Snyder and Davenport, 1997)

  • • to create a measure of value, aiming to demonstrate – e.g. to funding bodies – that information (and by extension the information expert! (Webb, 2003, 5)) is viewed as a valuable commodity

  • • as the only way to afford some services at all (Snyder and Davenport, 1997).

    • What services might I charge for?

    Table E.1 suggests possible services that might be charged for:

    You should not introduce charges randomly for existing, unchanged, previously free services (Webb, 2003). Previous demand from existing users does not necessarily convert into sales. You may need to look more broadly and recruit new clients (Webb, 1994).

  • 18 - Evidence-based perspectives on information access and retrieval

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 231-246

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Information access and retrieval has generated significant research output over recent decades. This chapter examines issues in evaluating information retrieval systems and techniques. It then identifies issues involved in practical use of such systems. Sources from the information science and computing literature feature in addressing such issues. Illustrative studies are assessed for quantity and quality. The chapter concludes by describing priorities for future research. The chapter is followed by two special topics examining the research evidence on searching aptitudes and characteristics, and the merits of different interfaces.

    What is evidence-based information access and retrieval?

    In their fifth domain, Information Access and Retrieval, Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) consider ‘creating better systems and methods for information retrieval and access’. Information retrieval (IR) is: ‘the science and practice of identification and efficient use of recorded media. Although … traditionally concentrated on the retrieval of text from the … literature, the domain over which IR can be applied effectively has broadened considerably …’. (Hersh et al., nd).

    Asking the question

    Budd and Miller (1999) highlight three particular questions from this domain:

  • • How does technology affect the information-seeking behaviour of users?

  • • Do we think differently when using a print source and an electronic source?

  • • How should we evaluate information technology?

    • Evaluation of information technologies provides a particular challenge to evidencebased information practice. Frequently, innovative technologies are adopted uncritically as a ‘good thing’ and evaluation viewed as an unwelcome ‘brake’ to technological advance.

    Marcum (2003) identifies several key questions for the digital library:

  • 1 How are digital resource users best served? What resources will they want? How will they want to use them? And, what services will most enhance use?

  • 2 What elements are required for a coherent preservation strategy covering resources both digital and traditional?

  • 3 What kinds of education will ‘librarians’ of the future need?

    • The developing information environment and changing expectations and demands of library users have blurred the distinction between collection management and information access and retrieval, where digital libraries are concerned. Indeed, the third question, from the education domain, suggests that a holistic approach to question identification and subsequent resolution may be preferable. Such an interpretation is supported by Marcum's observation that we need to learn a lot more than we now know about the use of digital resources, their preservation, and the training needed for operating the library of the future.

  • 2 - A brief history of evidence-based practice

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Anne Brice, Head of Knowledge and Information Sciences, in the Public Health Resource Unit, Oxford, Alison Hill, Programme Director of the South East Region Public Health Observatory
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 13-23

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter reviews the growth of evidence-based practice. It does not offer a comprehensive history of the relationship between research and practice, but highlights the main landmarks and initiatives, initially in healthcare, but also in such areas of practice as education, social care, and policy. It describes the significant effect the evidence-based healthcare movement has had on the role and practice of librarians, focusing on the UK in particular.

    Although single events may appear to be major catalysts of change, in retrospect any trend is a composite of diverse and complex social, political and technological change. The current context as it affects further development of evidence- based practice will be discussed.

    Definitions and debates

    There are many definitions of evidence-based practice in the literature (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2003). The one that we feel best encapsulates the core concepts of evidence-based clinical practice states that it is ‘an approach to decision making in which the clinician uses the best evidence available, in consultation with the patient, to decide upon the option which suits the patient best’ (Gray, 2001).

    The evidence-based movement was based on the concept that practice should be based on up-to-date, valid and reliable research. It is difficult to argue with such a simple and direct message. The term ‘evidence-based’ was adopted deliberately to challenge prevailing practice at the time and to provoke practitioners into proving that they were up-to-date with research evidence, and incorporating that evidence into their practice (Gray, 2001). The term is now accepted and in universal usage, but at the start it met with negative reactions from the medical establishment, and generated ridicule and controversy (Feinstein and Horwitz, 1997; Grahame-Smith, 1995; Isaacs and Fitzgerald, 1999; Lancet Editorial, 1995; Molesworth, 1998; Sackett, 1995). Criticism ranged from evidence-based medicine being ‘old hat’ to it being a dangerous innovation, a threat to clinical autonomy, aimed at rationing healthcare and suppressing clinical freedom through ‘cook book’ medicine (Sackett et al., 1996).

  • 5 - Why don't librarians use research?

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Paul Genoni, Department of Media and Information at Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, Gaby Haddow, Research Project Officer for the Western Australia Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery, Ann Ritchie, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners as the Project Officer for the National Standing Committee, Education
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 49-60

  • Summary

    Introduction

    It is frequently asserted that librarians do not use research findings when making decisions related to their professional practice. It is claimed that their decisions are based on little more than instinct or colleagues’ opinions, and that as a result their decision making may be ill-informed and high-risk. It is further claimed that this situation indicates a ‘communication gap’ between researchers and practitioners, and that this gap inhibits the maturation of librarianship, as many practitioners operate without an adequate understanding of the theoretical foundations to their practice.

    This chapter examines the evidence related to the use of research by practitioners and the nature of the communication gap. In doing so it provides an overview of reasons advanced to explain why librarians do not use research data. It also explores the characteristics of the literature of librarianship, and the part played by education in preparing practitioners for the use of research-based evidence. Finally, it presents suggestions for improving the use of research by practitioners.

    Scenario

    The research

    Considerable research has been conducted that compares and reviews information retrieval systems’ features. Much of this research is conducted and published by researchers associated with the field of information science. Their aim is to identify systems’ features that make information searching as easy and relevant to the searcher as possible. The findings of this research tend to be published in scholarly journals and is presented at research-oriented conferences.

    The practice

    The automated system of a medium size government library needs upgrading to incorporate new and improved features, such as Internet links and better searching capabilities. The librarian gains approval from the department to purchase a new system within a specified budget. Advertisements for automated systems in recent issues of the professional association's newsletter provide the contact details for local agents. However, before contacting the agents the librarian calls colleagues at other government libraries to ask for their opinions about systems to which they have upgraded in the last few years and posts a message to a discussion list requesting information about the relative merits of systems being used in other libraries.

  • Special Topic (F) What are the characteristics of a good searcher? (Critically Appraised Topic)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Catherine Beverley, Senior Information Officer/ HTA Information Unit Manager at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 247-250

  • Summary

    Indicative Title

    Men may be more effective internet searchers than women.

    Abstract

    Abstracted from: Ford, N., Miller, D. and Moss, N. (2001) The Role of Individual Differences in Internet Searching: an empirical study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (12), 1049–66.

    Objective

    This exploratory study aimed to investigate the role of ‘individual differences’ in internet searching. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether there was any statistically based evidence that retrieval effectiveness is affected by:

    (a) psychological differences between individuals, consisting of:

  • (i) cognitive (cognitive styles and levels of experience)

  • (ii) affective (internet and study attitudes and perceptions)

    • (b) demographic differences (age and gender).

    Setting

    Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, England.

    Participants

    Volunteers drawn from two cohorts (1999 and 2000 entry) of three taught Masters programmes (MA Librarianship, MSc Information Management and MSc Information Systems). The two cohorts consisted of 250 students.

    Method

    Students were asked to search for information on a prescribed topic using the AltaVista search engine via the Netscape Navigator browser. The following scenario was used:

    A technician cuts his finger badly in the Information Studies departmental office. What are the legal implications of this for the university? Find relevant information on the web.

    Searchers were free to choose the simple search option, which provides best match (or keyword) searching, and/or the advanced search option. A JavaScript front-end recorded all search data submitted to the search engine, and this was automatically sent to the researchers. There was no time limit or restriction on the number of queries students could submit.

    Outcome measures

    A 63-item self-completed ‘individual differences’ questionnaire, based on several different scales (e.g. Tait and Entwistle, 1995; Ford and Miller, 1996). Riding's (1991) psychometric measure, Cognitive Styles Analysis.

    Details of age and gender were obtained via a form on the opening screen of the web-based search interface.

    Data analysis

    The first two screens of retrieved items resulting from each successive query were categorized using a dichotomous ‘relevant/not relevant’ classification. A single relevance estimate was calculated in relation to each participant's search across all queries. Multiple regression and factor analysis were applied to the data.

  • 14 - Examining the evidence base for reference services and enquiry work

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 148-158

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter briefly defines the essentials of reference services and enquiry work before identifying questions that users or funders of such a service might seek to answer. From here the chapter considers sources that might yield answers to such questions before making a brief assessment of relevant studies that have already examined this area, assessing them for quantity and quality.

    The chapter concludes with a description of priorities for future research. This chapter is followed by a special topic illustrating what research evidence tells us about current awareness services.

    What is evidence-based reference/enquiry work?

    The first domain identified by Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) is Reference/ enquiries by which they mean ‘providing services and access to information that meets the needs of library users’. Reference services fall into three distinct types:

  • • information service – providing answers to enquirers’ questions

  • • instructional service – teaching people to find information on their own

  • • guidance – advising and assisting users to identify and select appropriate materials on particular topics.

    • Instructional service potentially overlaps with the education domain (Chapter 15). However, a workable distinction is to consider that an instructional service offers task-specific instruction to achieve a specific information need whereas the educational domain covers more general non task-specific activities as required for skills transfer or lifelong learning. The complexity increases further with technological developments whereby a straightforward bibliographic enquiry might be resolved as document delivery. Technology has further complicated things as ‘subject portals’ are developed to support reference work.

    Asking the question

    On first appearance this domain appears to lie completely within the evidence base of the library literature. However, is the reference interview truly unique to librarianship? The consultation in medical practice is a well researched interaction between a service provider and a service user. Similarities between the reference interview and the consultation reveal intriguing areas for investigation. The literature concerning the problem or ‘heartsink’ patient has parallels in that of the difficult user (Blessinger, 2002; Fescemeyer, 2002). Interestingly, the movement towards evidence-based patient choice (EBPC) has stimulated research interest in the consultation. In a qualitative study Ford et al. (2003) conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants to identify the elements and skills required for a successful EBPC consultation.

  • Special Topic (C) Electronic or paper: how do I manage my journals collection? (Evidence Digest)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By David Peacock, Knowledge Services Manager at the Northern England Workforce Development Confederation
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 196-199

  • Summary

    Question

    To what extent should library and information services move from providing a physical printed journal collection to providing access to remote and distributed electronic journals?

    Why is it important?

    Initially librarians viewed e-journals as supplementary to the print title but increasingly a hybrid mix of journal formats is seen as complementary. Few library and information services have replaced print titles with an electronic-only option, arguing that their users expect easy, anytime, anywhere access (Goodman, 2002). Most examples are in the academic and corporate sectors. In asking whether ‘replacing print journals with electronic versions is either feasible or, indeed, desirable for the end-user’ this topic excludes associated issues regarding managing the serials acquisition process. It focuses on studies published between 2000 and 2002.

    What is required?

    Users are assumed to prefer electronic access to print resources. A small international survey of all types of libraries revealed relatively few standardized or best practices. A larger survey of all types of library users is required.

    Likely cost consequences

    It is frequently assumed that e-journals are cheaper to produce and distribute than paper counterparts. In reality, the cost of electronic-only subscriptions ranges considerably from between 85% and 115% of the paper price (Bevan et al., 2001). Another assumption is that availability of e-journals allows geographically separate sites/campuses to share the cost of single deals and reduce the cost of duplicating titles. In reality, this will depend on the definition of ‘site’ and access restrictions by individual publishers.

    Publishers make it difficult for libraries to take electronic-only options (Bevan et al., 2001). At the present, the primary issue concerns the additional cost of obtaining electronic access over and above the existing print subscription. Online access can range from being completely free and unrestricted to costing up to 50% more and with various access restrictions.

    Drexel University, which has moved to purchase only the electronic version whenever possible, has not yet proven that converting to the electronic version lowers costs over paper versions. The universities per title subscription costs are lower for e-journals, but the University has maintenance costs. Although several mainly clerical tasks were eliminated, new tasks were created for more highly skilled staff (Montgomery, 2000). Despite the costs of binding and physically storing paper archives, electronic archiving still has ‘considerably higher’ costs (Drewes and Guzi, 2001).

  • Special Topic (D) How do I measure the impact of my service? (Guideline)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Christine Urquhart, Programme Director of the distance learning Health Information Management MSc programme, at the Department of Information Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 210-222

  • Summary

    Statement of the question under consideration

    This guideline examines how to measure the impact of your service, with an emphasis on impact studies from the health sector. It seeks to identify what works and what is less successful and to translate general lessons to other sectors (See also Wavell et al., 2002).

    Impact measurement has a long history. Reports by Flowerdew and Whitehead (1974) and King Research Inc. (1984) may appear old-fashioned but arguments about cost-benefit analysis for information services, the value of information, and the cost of user time, remain fresh. Although the social impact of public libraries is now seen in terms of community identity, lifelong learning and support for local business and culture (Kerslake and Kinnell, 1998), the social impact (Harris, 1998), or the social audit (Linley and Usherwood, 1998) of public libraries is not a new concern.

    In the education sector, the impact of the information and library service on learning is often taken for granted. It is only when new electronic information services require an investment in hardware support, networking, additional licences, and new ways of working, that such assumptions are questioned. In the UK, the eVALUEd project reviewed a variety of manuals useful to those evaluating digital library services (Thebridge and Hartland-Fox, 2003), including American (Bertot et al., 2001; Hernon and Dugan, 2002; Lindauer, 2000; Shim et al. 2001), UK (Crawford, 2000) and European manuals (EQUINOX). The JUSTEIS project (Urquhart et al., 2003) (and its companion JUBILEE project at Northumbria University) is part of the monitoring and evaluation framework set up by the Joint Information Systems Committee to assess how electronic information services affect the information behaviour of staff and students in higher and further education. Its remit covers possible impacts on learning, teaching and research.

    Health library services operate within a wide variety of organizational structures, with various funding sources. They may serve undergraduate students; postgraduate students; staff undertaking formal and informal continuing professional development; clinical and biomedical researchers; health service managers and administrators; and patients and their carers. A library in an NHS Trust must consider impacts on staff learning and clinical research activities, as well as the direct and indirect impacts on improved quality of patient care. Increasingly, it needs to consider its social impact, through services designed to liaise with patients, providing information and advice on their condition, its treatment and appropriate support services.

  • 1 - Why evidence-based information practice?

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Anne Brice, Head of Knowledge and Information Sciences, in the Public Health Resource Unit, Oxford
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 1-12

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Evidence-based practice is rightly described as one of the ‘success stories of the 1990s’ (Trinder, 2000). Its growth in popularity is demonstrated by its spread from medicine to related health fields and, more importantly, by its migration to other disciplines and professions.

    This chapter begins with a discussion of evidence-based practice, outlining the political and social context within which it has developed as a major part of public policy (Weiss, 1998; Nutbeam, 2001). It then moves to consider evidence-based information practice in particular, and concludes by discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence-based practice paradigm as they apply to information practice.

    Scenario

    You are a member of a city-wide action group set up by the Education and Leisure Services to tackle concerns regarding the city's 14–16 year olds. There is an increasing perception that this age group is not being addressed by local facilities and amenities and, rightly or wrongly, this lack is being linked to a high prevalence of vandalism, drug use and teenage pregnancy. Working in a subgroup involving representatives of school, public, educational charity and further education college libraries, you are devising an action plan focusing on the specific contribution libraries might make.

    You decide to look for evidence from the research literature to inform your decision making. A search on the internet, complemented by bibliographic databases,

    identifies work funded by the UK organization Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (then Resource) as part of the ‘Start with the child’ initative. A research report reviews primary and secondary research and is usefully subdivided by age group. Each section models the child's world, then identifies the needs and motivations of that age group before outlining the implications for services.

    On the basis of this evidence the subgroup devises an action plan which includes the following strategies:

  • • to provide a more welcoming atmosphere with a more sophisticated ambience and a variety of dedicated spaces – quiet, loud and chill-out

  • • to involve young people in the design and in staffing and interfacing

  • • to broaden content to reflect popular/contemporary/commercial culture, including music and fashion

  • • to allow young people to plug their own music into workspaces, through headphones and listening posts.

  • 16 - An evidence-based approach to collection management

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 185-195

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter outlines the main components of collection management within the increasingly popular concept of the ‘hybrid’ collection which brings together both paper and electronic sources. It identifies a range of questions that management of such collections needs to address. The evidence base is characterized in terms of useful sources and important research studies. This chapter is followed by a special topic examining the research evidence on managing the electronic/ paper mix in connection with journal holdings.

    What is evidence-based collection management?

    The third domain identified by Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) is Collections by which they refer to the activity of: ‘building (and we could add maintaining) a high-quality collection of print and electronic materials that is useful, cost-effective and meets the users’ needs’.

    The broad term ‘collection management’ includes collection development, maintenance and withdrawal. Collection development involves ‘planning, goalsetting, decision-making, budgeting, and acquiring materials and evaluating them’ (Gessesse, 2000). Richards and Eakin (1997) emphasize the centrality of this domain to information practice: ‘The library's collection is its heart because it is the collection that is the central information resource upon which most library activities rely …. Today's vision of the collection must incorporate both a broader range of materials … and a greater sense of connectivity’.

    The first impression on reviewing this domain is the tremendous spectrum encompassed, from management-oriented tasks of collection development to the physical (or even electronic) sciences involved in preservation or restoration of printed or electronic materials. Some observers identify the specific field of archive management as one of the most unequivocally ‘evidence-based’ areas of information practice. On the other hand, Scott Plutchak, in reviewing collection development, affirms that ‘as with so much else in librarianship (and medicine, for that matter), [it] remains more of an art than a science’ (Plutchak, 2003). If evidence-based information practice is the science of making decisions then our view of evidence-based collection management has to be reconciled with the observation of Richards and Eakin (1997) that: ‘Librarians make decisions about collections …. Some claim these decisions are primarily an art; others argue that they are, or should be, grounded in scientific methods’.

  • 3 - Evidence-based information practice: a prehistory

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Jonathan Eldredge, Assistant Professor in the School of Medicine and Coordinator of Academic and Clinical Services in the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center at the University of New Mexico
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 24-35

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Although the contribution of evidence to information practice has only been recognized in recent years, librarianship has a long pedigree in practitioner-based research. The first known cohort study in health librarianship was reported in 1946 and other health librarians adapted the basic cohort design to answer important questions during the 1950s and early 1960s. The first randomized controlled trial (RCT) in health librarianship took place during the late 1970s. A small but identifiable stream of such studies continued during the early 1990s (see Box 3.1).

    Thus, health librarians can point to use of research designs such as cohort studies or RCTs even before ‘evidence-based medicine’ was first reported.

    This chapter charts the development of practitioner-led research as a fundamental platform for evidence-based librarianship (EBL) and the broader, evidence-based information practice (EBIP). It considers where EBIP has come from, examines major historical developments, and highlights a few individual contributions in our search for the early origins of EBIP.

    In the beginning …

    … was a question. Evidence-based information practice (EBIP) existed as a concept long before it became a label. A long time ago someone working in a library asked, ‘Is this really the best way to do this?’ Or, perhaps they wondered, ‘Why don't we try doing this a new way instead of the way we have always done it?’ Or, perhaps they asked, ‘Why don't more people use our library?’ What happened next probably depended upon how their manager (or some other person in authority) reacted to their questioning of conventional wisdom. The identity of that first librarian is lost to the obscurity of time.

    Early EBIP antecedents

    The roots of EBIP pre-date the modern international movement and may be traced in the histories of the profession and biographies of noted librarians, professional ‘ancestors’ who exhibited, at times, one or more of its defining characteristics. Surveying the past 5500 years, however, historian James Thompson (Thompson, 1977) makes the humbling observation that: ‘The development of libraries and librarianship has not been some kind of evolutionary process whereby these have grown better and better’.

  • 19 - Introducing an evidence-based approach to marketing and promotional activities

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 257-271

  • Summary

    After defining evidence-based marketing this chapter considers questions that those marketing their service might need to answer. After briefly considering sources that address marketing and promotion, such as business and psychological databases, it critically examines studies that have examined this area. The chapter concludes with a look at the need for complementarity of research techniques within this domain.

    What is evidence-based marketing and promotion?

    By marketing and promotion, Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) refer to the activities of ‘promoting the profession, the library and its services to both users and non-users’. In a recent article on ‘information marketing’ Rowley (2003) rehearses the following definition: ‘Marketing is the management process, which identifies, anticipates and supplies customer requirements efficiently and profitably (Chartered Institute of Marketing).’

    Although the library profession generally resists the term ‘customer’, preferring ‘reader’, ‘user’ or ‘client’, the recent expansion of marketing from goods and products to services has made business analogies more acceptable. This has opened the way for the domain of marketing and promotional activities to accommodate a wider knowledge base from the business and commercial literature.

    Within its wider context marketing includes affecting behaviour (Rowley, 2003) and changing attitudes. In this sense marketing occupies a niche of perennial concern for libraries as a mechanism for raising awareness of a service amongst its stakeholders. Senior managers need to be convinced that they should spend resources on information services in preference to other activities or services. A prerequisite to successful marketing is ‘premarketing’ (Booth, 2003) (i.e. the identification of users’ information needs). Hence this domain includes the information needs analysis or information (or marketing or communications) audit (Cram, 1995; Weingand, 1997).

    Asking the question

    As Rowley (2003) remarks: ‘The large majority of the literature on the marketing of libraries and information services is in the form of either ‘‘how to’’ guides, or case studies of practice in specific contexts. This needs to be countered by an acknowledgement that there are unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions relating to marketing.’ This concisely highlights two key issues when applying evidence-based practice to this domain – first, the poor quality of usable literature, as already characterized in the broader, yet associated, domain of management and, second, the mismatch between questions addressed by the literature and those posed by the practitioner. Despite such an unpropitious verdict there is sufficient literature in marketing to merit consideration.

  • 20 - A future for evidence-based information practice?

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Anne Brice, Head of Knowledge and Information Sciences, in the Public Health Resource Unit, Oxford, Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Ellen Crumley, Clinical Librarian with the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Alberta, Canada, Denise Koufogiannakis, Collections Manager at the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Canada, Jonathan Eldredge, Assistant Professor in the School of Medicine and Coordinator of Academic and Clinical Services in the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center at the University of New Mexico
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 279-292

  • Summary

    This concluding chapter, bringing together perspectives from evidence-based information practice in the UK, US and Canada, takes stock of achievements so far. It considers the main challenges facing the movement as it gathers momentum, and suggests some short and long-term priorities. After defining progress made, both nationally and internationally, it records personal aspirations for the evidencebased practice paradigm, linked to some ‘quick wins’ to be achieved if such a culture is to develop and grow.

    The EBIP journey

    The successful planning, delivery and experience of the first Evidence Based Librarianship Conference in Sheffield in September 2001 may be viewed, in retrospect, as a major landmark in the progress of the movement (Eldredge, 2001). It brought together individuals from the UK, Canada and the USA, already pioneers in EBL, with a shared awareness of the potential activities and goals required by a global initiative. In charting the unique contribution of each country, alongside complementary developments already underway, the conference presented an opportunity to test EBIP with a broader audience, and to identify practical steps to be planned and taken forward internationally. These included agreement on planning a second conference.

    Since then the EBIP movement has moved forward on sometimes divergent and sometimes parallel tracks, culminating in a second International Conference held in Edmonton, Canada in June 2003. Several key themes have emerged as a potential focus for future strategies and actions.

    Any movement seeking ‘critical mass’ must be active in awareness raising and dissemination. Initiatives to date include publishing, community building and teaching and learning activities.

    Publishing

    A plethora of conceptual literature has been published, bringing EBIP to the forefront of professional concerns and generating interest in its development. Leading articles have promoted EBIP in the major health libraries journals and, perhaps more significantly, in generalist library journals (Booth and Haines, 1998; Koufogiannakis and Crumley, 2002; Marshall, 2003).

    After several years of hosting a quarterly ‘Research’ column the editorial team of Health Information and Libraries Journal (formerly Health Libraries Review) decided that the principles of research-based practice were beginning to be integrated within the main body of the journal to the extent that a separate column was no longer required.

Page 299 of 302