What Do Australian Library and Information Professionals Experience as Evidence?

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.

Time to Move EBLIP Forward with an Organizational Lens

“…Koufogiannakis grouped sources of evidence into either "hard" or "soft," where "hard" included sources that could be easily shared, were "written, concrete information" that was generally accepted as evidence, and "soft" included sources that focused on experience or knowledge or others that allowed a "real-life connection" to context (2012, p. 11). This broad interpretation of "evidence" was consistent with findings reported by Gillespie et al (2017), which included observations, feedback and statistics recognised as evidence by practitioners. Experiences of evidence based practice have been found to not always be a straight-forward or linear process, but "holistic" in being evidence based LIS professionals (Gillespie, 2014;Koufogiannakis, 2013;Koufogiannakis, 2015;Luo, 2018;Miller, Partridge, Bruce, Yates, & Howlett, 2017).…”

“…Studies in a variety of contexts such as academic libraries, teacher librarianship, public and special libraries have explored conceptualizations and lived experiences of evidence based practice by LIS professionals. LIS professionals identify and use a variety of evidence types, beyond the research literature (Gillespie, Miller, Partridge, Bruce, & Howlett, 2017;Koufogiannakis, 2012). Koufogiannakis grouped sources of evidence into either "hard" or "soft," where "hard" included sources that could be easily shared, were "written, concrete information" that was generally accepted as evidence, and "soft" included sources that focused on experience or knowledge or others that allowed a "real-life connection" to context (2012, p. 11).…”

Evidence-based Practice

“…Over the past decade, understanding evidence-based practice in the library practitioners' context has evolved to a broader view of what constitutes as 'evidence'. In particular, research identified an appreciation of the complexities that impact on the implementation in day-to-day practice (Gillespie et al, 2017;Alisa Howlett & Howard, 2015;Koufogiannakis, 2011bKoufogiannakis, , 2012Luo, 2018). Findings from empirical studies (Gillespie et al, 2017;Koufogiannakis, 2011a) confirmed that library professionals identify and use a variety of evidence types, beyond the research literature and often combine different types, to inform their daily practice.…”

“…In particular, research identified an appreciation of the complexities that impact on the implementation in day-to-day practice (Gillespie et al, 2017;Alisa Howlett & Howard, 2015;Koufogiannakis, 2011bKoufogiannakis, , 2012Luo, 2018). Findings from empirical studies (Gillespie et al, 2017;Koufogiannakis, 2011a) confirmed that library professionals identify and use a variety of evidence types, beyond the research literature and often combine different types, to inform their daily practice. Koufogiannakis (2011c) identified two other types of evidence that are valid as important and contextual sources of evidence for library and information service practitionerslocal evidence and professional knowledge.…”

“…• Not always straight-forward or linear (messy) • Holistic • Deliberate or unintended (serendipitous) • Used immediately or filed away for future use • Impacted by time, accessibility and the availability of evidence • Highly contextualised and influenced by the librarian's workplace (Booth, 2002;Gillespie, 2014;Gillespie, Miller, Partridge, Bruce & Howlett, 2017;Howlett & Howard, 2015; "Evidence-based practice is not just about gathering data and statistics or using key performance indicators in annual reports." "Evidence-based practice is relevant to all sizes of libraries and may be even more applicable to libraries staffed by one person."…”