Using evidence in practice

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00759.x

Using evidence in practice Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Evidence-based practice and the developing world Andrew Booth

Introduction Yes—I hold up my hands to acknowledge—we sold out! I refer to an early proposal for the book Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A handbook1 in which we intended to feature a chapter on the difficulties of practicing evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) in the developing world. Having been unable to curb our unbounded enthusiasm for this new and emerging topic area within the constraints of an 80 000 word limit, we were advised by our publishers that something had to give. One of the chapters that ended up on the ‘cutting room floor’ was—you guessed it—the chapter on EBLIP and the developing world! Certainly our decision was not based upon a perception that EBLIP is not important to the developing world. It is true that some believe that such countries have much more important issues to grapple with than the ‘niceties’ of evidence-based practice. However, where resources are tight, and where diversions into intermediate technologies can be a costly mistake, evidence-based practice is arguably more, not less, important. Add the complexities of unreliable Internet communication, problematic access to the evidence base, and the challenge of interpreting the research literature where English is not the first language, and EBLIP certainly does appear to face even greater barriers there than elsewhere within the library world. Notwithstanding developing world representation on the international programme committee for the EBLIP conference series, there is not much evidence of shaping of actual programme content

74

through submissions from that sector. Where abstracts have met the entry criteria, speakers frequently founder on difficulties of obtaining funding for attendance. This recently led me to muse on the current state of play of EBLIP in the developing world. Ironically, given that our previous feature article took a somewhat critical swipe at blogs and other Web 2.0 technologies, a valuable insight comes from the blog of the Southern Tagalog Region Librarians Council (STRLC) of the Philippine Librarians Association (PLAI).2 A search on ‘research’ and ‘libraries’ on the Google Blog Search tool retrieved the full text of a keynote address delivered by Ma’am Fe Angela M. Verzosa at the PLAI-STRLC Seminar-Workshop on ‘Research in Librarianship: Challenges, Competencies, and Strategies’. Somewhat improbably, this workshop was held less than a month (i.e. 9–10 October 2007) before I sat down to write this article, meaning that I was able to read this offering significantly earlier than a typical print output from a similar workshop in the UK.

Two worlds? Ma’am Verzosa’s opening is all too familiar: ‘Research in librarianship, particularly within the context of the Philippine situation, is sad to say, very disappointing’.2 Here, we encounter the all-too-common phenomenon of research being the province of the graduate student. ‘Where’, she laments, ‘are the ‘research-orientated librarians’? The underlying pathology is also common to that encountered in the developed world. First of all she points to a ‘lack of research-mindedness’. For the busy librarian, conducting research is just out of the question. Indeed, even keeping up to date with the professional literature defeats many a library practitioner: ‘How many of us even bother

© 2008 The author Journal compilation © 2008 Health Libraries Group. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25, pp.74–77

Using evidence in practice

to read articles in library journals as part of our daily routine?’.2 Mention of the word ‘routine’ reminds us how the ‘devil is in the detail’. As the Research Policy Statement of the Medical Library Association cajoles: ‘Individual ... librarians must apply the results of research routinely to library and information service practice, to the development of information policy, and to other information issues important to ... institutions.’3 We have no reason to believe that the information behaviours of health librarians are any different from those of physical science librarians for whom: ‘the experiences and opinions of colleagues and patrons were found to be of greater value to the practice of physical science librarianship than reports of original research.’4 A second issue, highlighted by Ma’am Verzosa, is the ‘great amount of research jargon that discourages librarians from reading the research literature’.2 Our experience in writing research briefings for the National Library of Wales indicates that it is possible to demystify much of this otherwise impenetrable research terminology. Thus, ‘baseline’ becomes ‘at the beginning of the study’ and ‘regression analysis’ becomes ‘statistical analysis to see whether any one factor is more likely to explain the results than the others’. While the perception librarians share that their education or training in research methods is inadequate is briefly rehearsed, Ma’am Verzosa explores more interesting territory when she states that ‘there is also the perception that research is lacking in practical applications or mission orientation, which means, conducting research is not part of their library’s mission or function’.2 Dare we also conclude with her that librarians experience a ‘natural resistance to change or new research ideas’?2

Why should librarians pursue research? Notwithstanding such a pessimistic pathology, there is still widespread recognition that research is a necessary enabler in effecting ongoing service

improvement and enhancing the quality of our services. Ma’am Versoza advances six reasons why librarians should undertake research: 1 To improve problem solving and decisionmaking in the workplace. 2 To create new knowledge and thereby contribute to the growth of Library and Information Science (LIS) as a profession or discipline. 3 To make library professionals critical consumers of the research literature. 4 To better equip librarians to provide optimal information services to researchers in other fields. 5 To contribute to career advancement, often encapsulated within faculty as ‘publish or perish’. 6 To improve our ability to think critically and analytically, improve staff morale, and enhance the library’s status within its community.2 The last two of these reasons apply much more within the academic community than elsewhere, with the need to establish both research productivity and kudos. It is no coincidence that information specialists working in support of research units, such as ourselves and those at the Universities of York and Salford, feel an often-intense urge to publish their own research.

Five grand challenges The next section of Ma’am Versoza’s address helpfully recalls an article by Professor Michael Buckland of the University of California in Berkeley, essential reading for any EBLIP practitioner. Buckland states that library research should target what we most need to know, thus identifying five grand challenges:5 1 Library service: could library services be made more meaningful? 2 Library theory: who knew what when? 3 Library design: have digital libraries been designed backwards? 4 Library values: how neutral can libraries be? and 5 Library communities: how do communities differ? Surely it is significant that Ma’am Versoza and the Philippines library community relate to these self-same grand challenges? Furthermore, in an article written when evidence-based librarianship was still a new phenomenon, it is interesting to

© 2008 The author Journal compilation © 2008 Health Libraries Group. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25, pp.74–77

75

76

Using evidence in practice

observe with Buckland that ‘for some library problems, research is not the best remedy’.5 He goes on to say that we would do well to ask library administrators to: ‘compile a list of what they most need to know. But, before converting such a list into a research agenda, we need to ask two questions: first, is research really what is most needed? and, second, in which areas is research likely to be most productive?’5 It is this problem-driven agenda, rather than ‘research for research’s sake’ that resonates most with the practical approach espoused by EBLIP. Interestingly, it has taken the so-called ‘developed world’ some time to conclude that EBLIP is simply a means to an end: that is a journey along the road to a climate ‘in which conducting and using research becomes an accepted and expected part of our practice’.2 In the UK, we have started to subsume EBLIP within an overall approach that will lead to the ultimate achievement of ‘reflective practice’. For the Philippines, the quest is for attributes that include:2 • intellectual curiosity or enthusiasm; • research-mindedness; • diligence and persistence; and • the ability to be resourceful and enterprising.

Towards the practitioner-researcher? In addition to such personal and professional attributes librarians, whether in the UK, in the Philippines or elsewhere, need to start to put themselves in the ‘skin’ of researchers. This involves learning to ‘think like researchers— critically, analytically, methodically’.2 For example, for far too long we have perpetuated the ideal of a single preferred best route for finding information. This was just about tenable when choice was mainly limited to formal information sources. With the growth of the Internet, however, such prescriptive approaches become counter-productive, if not absurd. Any librarian who has taken on the role of a researcher, even within the relative straitjacket of a systematic review methodology, soon becomes aware that research is a multi-channel, not single channel, activity. By becoming more like

researchers, we may become better practitioners, at least where it comes to our role in training or in answering enquiries at the reference desk. Training in research methods, along with viewing and critiquing the research of others, is also essential. Research training, best acquired outside the limited bounds of the Masters Dissertation, should be an ongoing part of our continuing professional development. As Ma’am Versoza states, such training ‘should involve concepts and procedures for preparing, designing, conducting, and evaluating research’.2 Furthermore, it involves knowing about the ‘strengths and weaknesses of various types of research methodologies for studying different problems and issues’.2

Evidence-based librarianship From the above, it is a small step to formal consideration of the value of evidence-based librarianship, broadly characterized by Ma’am Versoza as an attempt to make research in librarianship ‘less rigorous and more practical, that is, applied to practice’.2 Indeed, she echoes the requirement from the definition by Crumley and Koufogiannakis that evidence-based librarianship ‘also involves encouraging librarians to conduct research’.6 It soon becomes clear that, in fact, the developing world is only a ‘short head’ behind those at the forefront of the EBLIP movement. For countries such as the Philippines, the next step is to encourage professional associations to ‘conduct seminars or conferences focused mainly on an exploratory discussion of EBL, and how it can be applied to regular work’. 2 Other incentives may include mentoring from an experienced researcher7 financial resources, protected time for research and rewards for the timely completion of research. How can employers further stimulate research? Through staff development activities, released time for research, sabbatical or special leave, pay and reward schemes, and financial and clerical support for research projects. As Ma’am Versoza concludes: ‘Assistance in matching research projects with personal development, and encouragement to apply the results of the research, go hand in hand

© 2007 The author Journal compilation © 2008 Health Libraries Group. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25, pp.74–77

Using evidence in practice

in creating a conducive research environment in the workplace.’2

Conclusion The so-called ‘blogosphere’, via the blog of the Southern Tagalog Region Librarians Council (STRLC) of the Philippine Librarians Association (PLAI), has allowed us to take a metaphorical journey to another context for practising evidencebased librarianship. If such a journey, like a Thomas Cook expedition of a bygone age, exposes us to unfamiliar locales and unfamiliar names, it also reminds us of the basic ‘sameness’ of human society. Viewed from strictly EBLIP terms, we were not privy to allusions to language difficulties or problems with Internet connections. Aside from a brief sideways mention of ‘those who do not even have access to this professional literature’, which could just as typically refer to a postgraduate medical library in Peterborough as a library network in the Philippines, there is little on insurmountable practical difficulties in accessing the evidence base. Instead of two worlds, we inhabit the same ‘EBLIP-challenged’ (and challenging) ‘one world’. At least I can assuage the mea culpa of my Introduction by stating that, with similarities being more pronounced than differences, there probably was, and still is, no place for a chapter specifically on EBLIP in the developing world. Indeed, while the so-called developed world may have a slight head start in tackling these common challenges, it is likely that, by skipping some intermediate technologies, the developing world may, in time be equally, if not better, equipped, to confront and overcome them.

In bridging such similar challenges, faced by North and South alike, we can in fact do little better than to conclude with Ma’am Versoza that: ‘if research has an important role in understanding the needs to which libraries should be responsive, and if librarians need to conduct research in order to better assess the effectiveness of their approaches to delivering library services, then librarians and other LIS professionals, including the agencies responsible for educating them, and their employing institutions, should be more attentive to such a critical activity as library research.’2

References 1 Booth, A. & Brice, A. (eds) Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: A Handbook. London: Facet Publishing, 2005. 2 Philippine Librarians Association Inc. (PLAI). Blog of the Southern Tagalog Region Librarians Council (STRLC). Available from: http://plaistrlc.blogspot.com/2007/10/ plai-strlc-seminar-keynote-address.html (accessed 5 November 2007). 3 Medical Library Association. Using Scientific Evidence to Improve Information Practice: The Research Policy Statement of the Medical Library Association. Chicago: Medical Library Association Research Task Force, 1995. 4 Brown, C. M. & Ortega, L. Information seeking behavior of physical science librarians: does research inform practice? College and Research Libraries 2005, 66, 231–47. 5 Buckland, M. K. Five grand challenges for library research. Library Trends 2003, 51, 1–10. 6 Crumley, E. & Koufogiannakis, D. Developing evidencebased librarianship in Canada: six aspects for consideration. Hypothesis 2001, 15, 9–10. 7 Fuller, S. S. Enabling, empowering, inspiring: research and mentorship through the years. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 2000, 88, 1–10.

© 2008 The author Journal compilation © 2008 Health Libraries Group. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 25, pp.74–77

77