A Content Analysis of Librarianship Research

Abstract

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.

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

“…Participants were asked to focus their question using the "SPICE" framework (Booth, 2006), that is, to identify the Setting-Perspective-Interest (phenomenon of)-Comparison-Evaluation for their specific topic in order to facilitate identification of relevant evidence. Participants were also required to locate their question within a specific EBLIP domain (Management, Information Access and Retrieval, Professional, Collections, Reference Enquiries, Education) (Koufogiannakis et al, 2004). 2) Acquire -Course participants were asked to identify an appropriate article to help answer their burning question.…”

“…broad subject areas) within which library and information practitioner questions might be framed. They subsequently revised this taxonomy in the light of the characteristics identified from a significant sample of the library literature (Koufogiannakis, Slater, & Crumley, 2004).…”

“…Recurring themes include efficiency (especially of staff time), the development of innovative services, and improving existing services. Participants were asked to categorize their question into one of the six EBLIP domains (Crumley & Koufogiannakis, 2002;Koufogiannakis et al, 2004): Management, Information Access and Retrieval, Professional, Collections, Reference and Enquiries, and Education. Examples from each are included below in Table 1.…”

How are we Measuring Up? Evaluating Research Data Services in Academic Libraries

“…In their book Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice, Koufogiannakis and Brettle (2016) describe a new framework for EBLIP that explicitly acknowledges the role of local evidence and professional knowledge in combination with research evidence, and offers a structured approach for decision making that has great potential for evaluating RDS. The proposed framework describes five phases of EBLIP: (Crumley & Koufogiannakis, 2002;Koufogiannakis, Slater, and Crumley, 2004). Perhaps the most widely used EBLIP tool is the critical appraisal.…”

The Interdisciplinary Influence of Library and Information Science 1996–2004: A Journal-to-Journal Citation Analysis

“…Citation studies examining the shi�-ing profile of LIS research have not only charted and mapped citation patterns within the discipline, as did Denise Koufogiannakis and Linda Slater, but have also provided, in Lokman I. Meho and Kristina M. Spurgin, and also in Christian Schloegl and Wolfgang G. Stock, comparative assessments of the productivity, influence, and rigor of the field's journal literature. 22 The results that these and other assessments provide have not been encouraging. Robert Grover, Jack Glazier, and Maurice Tsai characterized the field's research as underdeveloped; Jeffery N. Ga�en demonstrated the field's isolation and high rate of self-citation; and Lynne McKechnie and Karen E. Pe�igrew found an absence of a rigorous theoretical and conceptual foundation.…”