Evidence Summary
Australian Academic Librarians’ Experience of Evidence
Based Practice Involves Empowering, Intuiting, Affirming, Connecting, Noticing,
and Impacting
A Review of:
Miller, F., Partridge, H.,
Bruce, C., Yates, C., & Howlett, A. (2017). How academic librarians experience
evidence-based practice: A grounded theory model. Library & Information Science Research, 39(2), 124-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.04.003
Reviewed by:
Joanne Muellenbach
Founding Director, Health
Sciences Library
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America
E-mail : [email protected]
Received: 8
Aug. 2017 Accepted: 8 Dec. 2017
2017 Muellenbach.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – To explore
and enhance the understanding of how Australian library and information science
(LIS) practitioners experience or understand evidence based practice (EBP)
within the context of their day-to-day professional work.
Design –
Constructivist grounded theory methodology.
Setting – University
libraries in Queensland, Australia.
Subjects – 13
academic librarians.
Methods – Researchers
contacted academic librarians by email and invited each participant to take
part in a 30-60 minute, semi-structured interview. They designed interview
questions to allow participants to explain their process and experience of EBP.
Main
results – This study identified six categories of experience of EBP using a
constructivist grounded theory analysis process. The categories are:
Empowering; Intuiting; Affirming; Connecting;
Noticing; and Impacting. Briefly, empowering includes being empowered, or
empowering clients, colleagues, and institutions through improved practice or
performance. Intuiting includes being intuitive, or using one’s own intuition,
wisdom, and understanding, of colleagues and clients’ behaviours
to solve problems and redesign services. Affirming includes being affirmed
through sharing feedback and using affirmation to strengthen support for
action. Connecting includes being connected, and building connections, with
clients, colleagues, and institutions. Noticing includes being actively aware
of, observing, and reflecting on clients, colleagues, and literature within and
outside of one’s own university, and noticing patterns in data to inform
decision-making. Impacting includes being impactful, or having a visible impact,
on clients, colleagues, and institutions. Together, these categories represent
a model that explains the nature of academic librarians’ experiences of EBP.
The theory describes academic librarians' experiences as complex and highly
contextualized phenomena. There is no clear relationship between these
categories, as data analysis did not generate a specific hierarchy of
categories.
Conclusion
– Based on the research findings the authors hypothesize that their study
is one of a growing number of studies that has begun to establish an empirical
basis for EBP in the LIS profession.
Commentary
This study highlights how academic librarians experience EBP in the
workplace. The findings build upon the understanding of experiences identified
in a study by Gillespie (2017) that revealed similarities in the way that
academic and public library professionals experienced evidence. Gillespie
concluded that library professionals were able to draw upon more than one
source of evidence and apply their professional knowledge and experiences.
Librarian experiences also match the recommended practices of EBP, identified
by McKibbon and Wilczynski
(2009), which include defining the question, finding evidence, critical
appraisal, applying evidence, and evaluating the process. No divergence from
recommended practices was noted.
This research study explored the lived experiences of 13 academic
librarians from Queensland universities at a particular point in time. Further
qualitative research of how EBP is experienced by LIS professionals from other
work settings, on different groups of participants, such as public librarians,
special librarians, or academic librarians in other countries, and over a
longer period of time, would strengthen the key findings and applicability of
the study. The constructivist grounded theory methodology discussed by Charmaz (2006) succeeded in enhancing awareness of the
various experiences of EBP, how it is used, and how EBP actually happens in
terms of emotional, mental, and physical experiences in a workplace setting.
However, the study methods did have some weaknesses. Researchers report
recruiting participants via a purposive sampling approach, yet the details of
this approach were not explained. While those selected were employed in a
variety of roles, the results would be enhanced if the specific selection
criteria had been revealed. Authors also make a reference to memos, but their
purpose is not clear. In addition, the study would have been more impressive if
it had also identified the researchers who conducted the interviews, carried
out the initial line-by-line coding of interview transcripts and memos, and
conducted the data analysis.
This study has succeeded in providing new insights into how the
realities of EBP are enacted, experienced, and understood for a particular
group of LIS professionals, at one point in time. The findings of this research
study have the potential to assist library schools, associations, and others
involved in educating, preparing, and supporting LIS professionals at every
career stage to develop the actions, knowledge, mindsets, and skills needed to
facilitate and advance EBP. For example, this study could influence library
schools to design and deliver new EBP curricula, or LIS professionals may be
inspired to start a discussion group, organize a journal club, or conduct
further research on this topic. The findings may also serve to inform the
design of professional development programs in evidence based library and
information practice, as well as leadership in academic libraries and more
broadly, within the information sector.
References
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing
grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London, UK: Sage Publishing.
Gillespie, A., Miller, F., Partridge, H., Bruce, C., & Howlett, A. (2017). What do Australian
library and information professionals experience as evidence? Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 12(1), 97-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B8R645
McKibbon, A., & Wilczynski, N. (2009). PDQ Evidence-based principles and practice
(2nd ed.). Shelton, CT: People’s Medical Publishing
House.