As was noted in Chapter 3, this study focused only on academic librarians in Canada. As a group, academic librarians work under similar circumstances and it therefore made sense to focus on them as a single group. Academic librarians work in an environment where using and doing research is accepted and even promoted as part of their professional approach. For example, it is not unusual for academic librarians have faculty status and go through the process of tenure. In this respect, this group should be the most likely to use ‘evidence’ and if an affinity towards the EBLIP model were to exist, it would be with this particular group of librarians. Academic librarians (including the sub-set in academic health sciences libraries) have been quite active in the EBLIP movement, as is demonstrated by the fact that the majority of the Editorial Team and Editorial Advisory Board members with the journal Evidence Based Library and Information Practice come from academic institutions.
While further research will be required to determine whether or not these findings are directly transferable to other groups of librarians, there is reason to believe that they will be. Other groups of librarians have also shown an affinity towards being
evidence based. For example there were feature issues of Evidence Based Library
and Information Practice dedicated to school libraries in 2010 and public libraries in
180 action research and local assessment. The evidence sources for school, public and special librarians are likely to be even more local and based in practice than they are for academic librarians. For example, public librarians focus on serving their
communities, being responsive to change, and must continually prove their worth to public boards. They have long used local statistics to show the worth of the services they provide. As Ryan (2012) notes,
While public librarians do make significant use of local data to inform organizational decision making, further encouragement and opportunity is needed to take the additional step of publishing these evidence based approaches with the LIS community. (p. 6)
For librarians serving communities outside of academia, the use of sources of evidence may be even more broad and weighted towards the local and the non- research publication types of evidence.
It is conceivable that librarians in public, special, or school library roles would use even less of the current EBLIP process than academic librarians. Mainly, the focus on external research evidence has made the model too narrow to meet the
immediate needs of those librarians. In terms of group decision making, and the complexity of the organisational dynamic within which librarians work, it makes sense that this would apply to librarians beyond those working in academic libraries. A librarian’s work is generally collaborative, and even for those working in small one- person libraries, they would be collaborating and make group decisions with their non-librarian colleagues. School librarians, especially, seem to work very
collaboratively on issues that affect their workplace; this is borne out by the action research that they engage in (Ballard, March, & Sand, 2009; Farmer, 2009; Gordon, 2009).
While this study involved librarians in one country, the findings deal with processes and ways of working. It is likely, that at least in other western cultures such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, the findings will be applicable, because the culture and expectations of what librarians do is not dramatically different in these countries. In cultures that have very different systems of decision making, the results may not be applicable due to cultural differences in the
181 studies that occurred prior to this one, and which this study agrees and builds upon, came from Australia (Thorpe, Partridge, & Edwards, 2008; Partridge, Edwards, & Thorpe, 2010) and the United States (Hiller, Kyrillidou, & Self, 2008; Casey, 2011). These studies found similar issues related to evidence based practice in terms of its use for influencing, the importance of organisational dynamics, and the different forms of evidence that are used. Hence, there are already similarities that come from different geographical areas, and focused on different populations than the one in this study. Given these congruencies, transferability of the findings, seems a natural extension.
Above all, as was previously noted, to practice in an evidence based manner, librarians need a positive work environment, time to use or create evidence, a
positive outlook, ongoing education and training, and access to relevant information. These elements should hold true for all groups of librarians, although the specific challenges within each determinant may be different depending upon the type of environment a librarian works in. Testing these specifics in different environments would be welcomed.
7.7 Chapter conclusion
This chapter has discussed the study’s research findings in light of the original research questions asked, and within the context of the literature and the existing evidence based model within academic librarianship. The findings of this study suggest that academic librarians do use evidence in their decision making, but that those sources of evidence are not always recognised within the current EBLIP model, and thus there is a disconnect between the model and practice. Areas where the model needs to change include widening what is thought of as evidence, and more explicit recognition of the value of professional knowledge. These concepts are reinforced via the literature reviewed in Chapter 2, especially the literature on
practice theory and practice based evidence. In addition, the literature on decision making theory confirms the complexity of the decision making process within librarianship, and such complexity should be considered within the EBLIP model. This includes organisational dynamics, group decision making, and potential biases. The research findings demonstrate how practice changes came about not just from
182 decisions by individual practitioners but also from decisions made in groups. The two decision making processes run in tandem. Librarians use evidence for convincing – which includes “confirming” for the individual, and “influencing” others. The next chapter of this thesis will propose a new model for evidence based library and information practice, based on what has been learned from this study.
183
Chapter 8: A revised model for evidence based library and
information practice
8.1 Introduction
As was noted in Chapter 7, this research study uncovered elements of the evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) process which merit modification, as well as elements that have previously been absent and need to be included. Since this was a grounded theory study, the purpose was to inductively learn and generate a better theoretical understanding of the use of evidence by academic librarians. This has resulted in the proposed revised model of EBLIP, which was developed from the data and findings in conjunction with previous literature on the topic. It is presented as a result of this research, but not further tested since to do so would require a completely different research project that takes an existing model and tests how that model works with an existing population. To do so becomes a future
research project that will confirm or find room for further improvement regarding the revised model presented here.
Academic librarians used the ‘acquire’ and ‘appraise’ aspects of the existing model, but not in the narrow way that is outlined within the EBLIP literature. For example, participants acquire evidence from a far wider range of sources than the research literature. The current model’s sole focus on research evidence was not in keeping with the way that librarians involved in this study made decisions. As well, academic librarians appraise what they find by thinking critically about it and using professional knowledge to place that evidence into the local context, but they do not go into the very specific and detailed use of critical appraisal checklists as a regular part of reading and determining the worth of research literature.
This study identified four main aspects of the EBLIP model which should change: 1. The concept of evidence must be broadened from the current focus on
published research evidence to include other types of evidence, with an emphasis on local sources.
2. The emphasis on scientific research must be balanced and paired together with the professional knowledge of librarians. This study clearly shows that
184 the two are used in conjunction when making decisions to improve practice, and that both are equally important aspects of the decision making process. 3. The model currently focuses on individual decision making, but because
librarians frequently make decisions in groups, the model must become inclusive of group decision making, in all its complexity, including the use of evidence for convincing.
4. In the current model, the steps of ‘apply’ and ‘assess’ have not been well developed. These steps make use of softer forms of evidence and skills that focus on the artistic side of the profession, including how to implement a change and reflection on the process and one’s individual performance. These elements are a critical part of practice improvement and must be given more attention.
Based on this study’s findings, the literature review, and the analysis detailed in the Chapter 7, this chapter will outline a new model for EBLIP. While not radically different from the existing model, it builds upon the general principle of evidence based practice, but considers it within the specific context of librarianship,
addressing the four items noted above that have been identified as requiring change. The new model attempts to be more inclusive of different sources of evidence, to include professional knowledge throughout the process, and to be practice-focused.