No abstract

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

histological subtype, increased risks and positive exposure response-relationships were apparent only for squamous cell carcinoma and small cell lung cancer. Conclusions Our pooled analysis suggests that occupational exposure to PAH is associated with a modest increase in the risk of lung cancer, after adjustment for tobacco smoking and exposure to other occupational lung carcinogens.

This paper outlines the author’s intellectual journey towards a deeper understanding of the nature of information literacy and how IL learning can be supported. This work was stimulated by a consultancy in one UK university to recommend an appropriate IL framework for use on their VLE. The journey described here considers relevant principles of learning, the place of student reflection in IL learning, what IL in HE should encompass, the importance of context in developing IL, and the influence of the digital environment, especially Web 2.0. The main features of existing IL frameworks in HE are critiqued. A new IL framework is then offered along with a rationale for its appearance and use. The conclusion looks forward to continuing development of the ideas covered here.

This paper describes the process model used in the Impact Implementation Programme and its origins in earlier research and development conducted in the schools, further education and public libraries domains. The choice of an action research methodology is discussed. The facilitation process undertaken through the first annual cycle of the Programme is described and various lessons learnt are reported. Conclusions are offered on the success of the Programme so far and on some factors likely to influence success if this model is adopted elsewhere.

This paper surveys the (patchy and uneven) advances in LIS impact evaluation over the past ten years and notes the surge forward in public library impact evaluation, before looking more broadly at international and educational impact evaluation scene and noting the advance of programme-theory driven approaches. The authors then identify various trends drawn from the wider evaluation discourse that they think are likely to be relevant to information literacy (IL) practitioners, academic staff, employers and others who are concerned with impact evaluation of IL work.The trends identified are:growing clarity about the levels of evaluation expertise needed to deliver information literacy support from the perspectives of leaders of LIS education programmes, staff of academic institutions, library leaders and managers and IL practitioners,growing interest in more inclusive or democratic approaches to impact evaluationthe limitations of the simple logic model of evaluationre-purposing of existing data to meet new evaluation needscollecting and presenting stories of change as impact evaluation evidence.Implications for IL practitioners are offered in relation to each of these trends. The authors then predict that over the next ten years there will be a strong focus on whether IL interventions are having an impact in combating misinformation and disinformation; more systematic and sustained approaches to IL impact evaluation in the health and higher education sectors but less so in some school libraries and other settings. They think that the more proactive public libraries will adopt IL evaluation approaches, that workplace IL will continue to depend upon the organisational culture, and that research on information seeking in context will shed light on evaluation priorities. Finally, they hope that future IL work will be underpinned by programme theory-based evaluation.

No abstract

This paper explores the notion of impact in the context of academic development programs and considers how it can be described and understood. We argue that impact has a range of meanings and academic development programs such as graduate certificates have a broad group of stakeholders and hence the impact is different for each group depending on how the program aims and objectives are defined and understood. In finding a way through the difficulties of evaluating impact in academic development we point to the importance of clearly conceptualizing the notion of impact, a careful identification of the assumptions underpinning any program and an understanding of who academic development will benefit and how. We suggest that impact in academic development cannot be understood without taking account of the range of possible impacts and the difficulty of attributing simple cause and effect to a complex environment