Evidence-based librarianship (EBL) is a relatively new concept for librarians. This paper lays out a practical framework for the implementation of EBL. A new way of thinking about research in librarianship is introduced using the well-built question process and the assignment of librarian research questions to one of six domains specific to librarianship. As a profession, librarianship tends to reflect more qualitative, social sciences / humanities in its research methods and study types which tend to be less rigorous and more prone to bias. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) do not have to be placed at the top of an evidence 'hierarchy' for librarianship. Instead, a more encompassing model reflecting librarianship as a whole and the kind of research likely to be done by librarians is proposed. 'Evidence' from a number of disciplines including health sciences, business and education can be utilized by librarians and applied to their practice. However, access to and availability of librarianship literature needs to be further studied. While using other disciplines (e.g. EBHC) as a model for EBL has been explored in the literature, the authors develop models unique to librarianship. While research has always been a minor focus in the profession, moving research into practice is becoming more important and librarians need to consider the issues surrounding research in order to move EBL forward.

Objective: To conduct a content analysis of library and information studies (LIS) literature published in 2001 and test the domains developed by Crumley and Koufogiannakis. Methods: A comprehensive list of refereed library and information studies journals was compiled and reviewed independently by two researchers to derive a list of included journals. Articles published in 2001 from included journals were independently assessed for relevancy by two researchers. Researchers separately extracted and checked data from included articles. Results: 217 LIS journals were reviewed and 107 were included; 91 journals provided data. 2664 journal articles were examined, with 807 (30.3%) classified as research. The Top 10 journals for research published in 2001 were: 1) JASIST, 2) Scientometrics, 3) Info Proc & Man; 4) Coll & Res Lib, 5) Tie: J Lib Adm/Bull Med Lib Assn, 7) Libs & Culture, 8) J Doc, 9) Tie: J Info Sci/J Acad Libr. For the period studied, descriptive research (329 out of 807 articles) was published far more frequently than any other type. The domain Information Access & Retrieval had the highest number of research articles (314/807), followed by Collections (193/807), Management (135/807), Education (95/807) and Reference (77/807). Two new possible domains were identified: Library History and Professional Issues. Conclusions: Because 36 articles fell into the domain of Professional Issues, a case can be made to add this domain to Crumley and Koufogiannakis’ taxonomy. Library History was not added as a domain because historical research is not used for evidence-based decision-making. There was no evidence to support keeping the Marketing & Promotion domain. LISA provides the best coverage of the top 10 LIS research journals identified in this study.

Objective -The objective of this systematic review was to assess which library instruction methods are most effective for improving the information skills of students at an introductory, undergraduate level, using cognitive outcomes (measuring changes in knowledge). The study sought to address the following questions: 1) What is the overall state of research on this topic? 2) Which teaching methods are more effective?Methods -This project utilised systematic review methodology. Researchers searched fifteen databases and retrieved 4,356 potentially relevant citations. They reviewed the titles and abstracts for relevance, and of those, 257 complete articles were considered in-depth using a predetermined inclusion/exclusion form. There were 122 unique studies that met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to an extensive data extraction and critical appraisal process. Of these studies, 55 met author-defined quality criteria to provide information on the effectiveness of different teaching methods. From this review there was Results -The overwhelming majority of studies were conducted in the United States (88%). Experimental or quasi-experimental research methods were used in 79 studies (65%). Teaching methods used in the studies varied, with the majority focused on traditional methods of teaching, followed by computer assisted instruction (CAI), and self-directed independent learning (SDIL). Studies measured outcomes that correlated with Bloom's lower levels of learning ('Remember', 'Understand', 'Apply').Sixteen studies compared traditional instruction (TI) with no instruction, and twelve of those found a positive outcome. Meta-analysis of the data from 4 of these studies agreed with the positive conclusions favouring TI. Fourteen studies compared CAI with traditional instruction (TI), and 9 of these showed a neutral result. Meta-analysis of 8 of these studies agreed with this neutral result. Another group of 6 studies compared SDIL with no instruction, and meta-analysis of 5 of these agreed that the result was positive in favour of SDIL.Conclusion -Based on the results of the meta-analysis, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that CAI is as effective as TI. Evidence also suggests that both TI and SDIL are more effective than no instruction. Additional comparative research needs to be done across different teaching methods. Studies comparing active learning (AL), CAI, and SDIL would greatly enrich the research literature. Further studies utilizing appropriate methodologies and validated research tools would enrich our evidence base, and contribute to the growth of knowledge about effectiveness of particular teaching methods. IntroductionInformation literacy is a topic of great interest in the field of library and information studies, particularly among academic librarians, who view teaching as an important role (Baruchson-Arbib and Bronstein; Godwin; Peacock). The National Forum on Information Literacy defines information literacy as "the ability to know when there is a need for information, to be ...

Purpose -Attempting to incorporate research into decision making raises several questions about the research that currently exists in librarianship, areas that are most in need of research, obstacles to conducting research, and possible solutions for nurturing a professional environment in which conducting and using research becomes an accepted and expected part of our practice. This article attempts to answer some of those questions. Design/methodology/approach -A general overview of the research base in librarianship is given. Compilation of content analyses and systematic reviews present an argument relating to the need of further research in librarianship. Further examination of potential research questions is conducted, and potential obstacles and solutions to research barriers are presented. Findings -There is still a need to establish a solid evidence base within our profession. With support from all sectors of librarianship, progress can be made. Originality/value -This paper points out gaps in our research knowledge, and areas that need to be explored via research in library and information studies. It is hoped that this paper will encourage librarians to think about how they can incorporate research into their daily practice.

Objective -This project identifies the factors that contribute to the success of librarians as active researchers. Research success is generally aligned with productivity and output, and the authors are therefore interested in understanding the factors that encourage research productivity. This fills a gap in the literature on librarians as researchers, which has tended to focus on barriers rather than enablers.Methods -For this quantitative study, we distributed an online survey to 1,653 potential participants across Canada and received 453 usable responses for a 27% response rate. The Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2017, 12.4 103 survey asked participants to report their research outputs and to answer questions that addressed three categories of factors: Individual Attributes, Peers and Community, and Institutional Structures and Supports. We then statistically analyzed participant responses in order to identify relationships between the research output variables (weighted output score and number of peer-reviewed articles) and the three categories, the factors within those categories, and the constituent components.Results -Participants' research output consisted largely of presentations, non-peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed articles, and posters. All three categories of factors were significantly related to research output, both for a calculated weighted output score and for number of peerreviewed articles. All of the factors identified within those categories were also significant when tested against weighted output score, but Intrinsic Motivations was not a significant factor when tested against number of peer-reviewed articles. Several components of factors were also not significant for number of peer-reviewed articles. Age was the only significant component of Demographics. Three components of Education and Experience were significant: whether participants had received research training after completing their MLIS, whether they were working on an advanced degree, and the institution where they had obtained their MLIS.Conclusions -Research productivity is significantly impacted by all three categories: Individual Attributes, Peers and Community, and Institutional Structures and Supports. Fostering an environment that focuses on all of these areas will be most likely to promote research output for librarians. At the same time, this study's findings point to particular aspects that warrant further investigation, such as the nature and effect of institutional support and librarians' motivations for doing research.

Background : Librarians at the University of Alberta have been involved with teaching undergraduate medical and dental education for several years. After 1 year of increased librarian involvement at the problem-based learning (PBL), small-group level, informal feedback from faculty and students suggested that librarians' participation in PBL groups was beneficial. There was, however, no real evidence to support this claim or justify the high demand on librarians' time.Objectives : The study aimed to determine whether having a librarian present in the small-group, problem-based learning modules for first-year medical and dental students results in an improved understanding of evidence-based medicine concepts, the nature of medical literature, and information access skills. Methods : One hundred and sixty-four first-year medical and dental students participated in the study. There were a total of 18 PBL groups, each with approximately nine students and one faculty tutor. Six librarians participated and were assigned randomly to the six intervention groups. Students were given pre-and post-tests at the outset and upon completion of the 6-week course.

Librarians need to be able to read critically published accounts of educational and training interventions (ETl) and to apply the results to their own practice. One mechanism for assisting library practitioners in doing this is the critical appraisal checklist. This article describes the process of developing such a checklist - involving a literature review of existing frameworks and experience in appraising such studies for a systematic review of information literacy skills training. The ReLIANT instrument is offered as a first attempt to equip library practitioners with a tool for use when appraising published reports of educational and training interventions.

Objective – The objective of this study was to explore and understand how academic librarians use evidence in their professional decision making. The researcher aimed to gain insights on the relevance of the current EBLIP model to practice, and to understand the possible connections between scientific research and tacit knowledge within the practice of LIS. Methods – A grounded theory methodology was used, following the approach of Charmaz (2006). Participants were 19 academic librarians in Canada. Data was gathered via online diaries and semi-structured interviews over a six-month period in 2011. Results – Two broad types of evidence were identified (hard and soft), and are generally used in conjunction with one another. Librarians examine all evidence sources with a critical eye, and try to determine a complete picture before reaching a conclusion. As well, librarians use a variety of proactive and passive approaches to find evidence. Conclusions – These results provide a strong message that no single evidence source is perfect. Consequently, librarians bring different types of evidence together in order to be as informed as possible before making a decision. Using a combination of evidence sources, depending upon the problem, is the way academic librarians approach decision making.