Research and its application

1. Research literature and its perceived relevance to university librariansDr Bob PymmDr Philip HiderSchool of Information Studies

2. Research and its application • Role of research fundamental to development of a profession • ALIA - underpins improvement of professional practice • Difficulty of linking university-based research to practitioner’s world • Concern over this ‘gap’ a subject of research over many years in LIS

3. Research and its application (cont.) • Rayward - “difficulty of getting work read or assimilated” • Maguire – “a lack of respect between the two” • Van House “practitioners criticise research as irrelevant; researchers criticise practitioners for their lack of interest”

4. Research and other disciplines • Psychology – concern over transfer of learning from journals into practice – should be a circular process • Education – problem of narrowing the gap between research and practice • Marketing – the research/ practice relationship a cause for concern

5. Recent LIS research • Haddow and Klobas – 11 factors or gaps behind these barriers to communication • These included: • Knowledge: lack of communication • Culture: different types of work • Motivation: lack of interest • Relevance: different needs and problems

6. Haddow and Klobas • Continued • Immediacy: timeliness • Publication: little published by practitioners • Reading: separate literatures • Terminology: terminology not understood • Activity: few practitioners undertake research • Education: for practitioners in research • Temporal: practitioners lack time to read or do

7. Relevance and terminology • Selected as two major factors • Relevance • Perceived usefulness to practitioners • High value placed on research that can be applied to daily activities • A major reason for not reading research-based articles

8. Relevance and terminology (cont.) • Terminology • Academic language and style • Briefer literature reviews • Presentation – excessive tables, stats etc • Need for clear, simple, concise prose

9. Research questions • The range of LIS journals read by senior university library staff • The extent to which such staff could clearly understand articles from top ranking LIS journals • The extent to which such articles provided information that could be translated into positive actions in the broader LIS environment • The stimulus such articles provided to thinking broadly about LIS practice

10. Methodology • Paper questionnaire evaluating five abstracts randomly selected from 2006 top 25 LIS journals • Limitation of abstracts vs full article • Against nine criteria • Also questioned re professional reading • Sent to senior Library staff (top 5, 8 or 10) in 31 university libraries

12. Top 10 read journals

13. Relevance and terminology questions

14. Questions 5-9

15. Findings • Level of professional reading wide ranging –only 12 of 91 reported no access • High level of understanding of abstracts – only 10% unintelligible • Generally, relevance was good - 68% reported moderate or significant relevance to profession

16. Findings (cont.) • 55% reported moderate or significant relevance to academic libs • But over 70% reported they would not, or was only a slight chance, of following up full article • And only 26% reported they were moderately or significantly likely to consider the potential of this research to their own workplace

17. Conclusions • Majority of abstracts were clearly understandable and described the purpose of the research well • Most research was relevant to the broad LIS profession • The relevance and terminology gap not significant • Support for brief research reports in journals • Issue of practitioners putting into practice • Cooperative research should be highly possible