The theory and practice of evidence-based information work: one world?
Year: 2007
Type: conference-paper
Abstract: Purpose: To investigate the validity of the assumption that evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) – as conceived, defined, and implemented up to now – is indeed adequate and appropriate to the full spectrum of library and information activities as historically constituted. Methodology/approach: The author’s study and conclusions are based on: 1) a survey and critical appraisal of quantitative as well as qualitative research as reported in our own professional literature – particularly with respect to intermediated information retrieval, reference services, and collection management; 2) a survey of relevant literature from other fields where the introduction of evidence-based practice (EBP) has been discussed; 3) a wide-ranging examination and appraisal of major scholarly publications in epistemology, in the philosophy and sociology of science and scholarship, and in cognitive psychology; 4) long personal experience as researcher and university teacher, in scientific publishing, and (since 1989) as academic librarian. Findings: This reflective investigation suggests that it is much too early to assert with confidence (as is often nonetheless done) that EBLIP enjoys either universal or holistic applicability in the library and information services arena. Available evidence and insights point, rather, to at least these six alternative conclusions: 1) The only reliable approach to ultimately legitimating investments in library and information services (LIS) is to broaden the terms of reference within and through R.L. Hunsucker, “The theory and practice of evidence-based information work – one world?” 1 which we not only conceptualize our objectives and functions but also select and gather, validate, and apply the relevant evidence. This broadening may naturally entail, for example: participatory research; less disregard for long-existing but un(der)utilized evidence; a less presentistic and vainglorious mindset. 2) There exist many varying conceptions of the phenomenon “evidence”, conceptions that have proven fruitful in diverse areas of intellectual endeavor. EBLIP would do well to take note of and to profit from, more than is presently the case, such conceptions. 3) The EBLIP model as presently developed and delimited is by its nature poorly suited to use in supporting truly user-oriented LIS. It is far too unreflectively taken over from the early, orthodox version of evidence-based (clinical-epidemiological) medicine. EBLIP still has much to learn from the enormous amount of criticism that EBP has encountered in the health-care world. I offer a selection of that criticism in eleven categories here. 4) It is prudent, as in other disciplines, to base practice no less on (sound) theory and theory-building than on “empirical” findings. We should look for a better balance between inductive and deductive processes. 5) The closer the contact between LIS and the lived world of their users, the more difficult (if not impossible) it is to measure or even to identify outcomes – and of course to correlate these, if isolable, to LIS inand outputs. Ethnographic, discourse-analytic and other qualitative methods of investigation are here of particular value. The up to now orthodox vision of EBLIP is, in turn, more appropriate to optimizing the less usercentered, more infrastructural and “backoffice” activities. These lend themselves more naturally to quantitatively construed evidence. 6) The disciplines to which one should normally look, beyond library and information studies, for useful evidence and theories, ought to be expanded to include at least philosophy, sociology, and the cognitive sciences – and perhaps even to philology (discourse, rhetoric, narrative). Research implications: The basic assumption behind EBLIP is valid, and in fact essential to further assuring the effectiveness and relevance of our work. We must however, both as researchers and as appliers of research, develop a broader and more R.L. Hunsucker, “The theory and practice of evidence-based information work – one world?” 2 nuanced vision of the EBLIP approach. Evidence – how it is found, construed and used – should function more clearly in the service of theory. Practical implications: Practitioners must be prepared to follow where the best evidence (in the broader and more varied sense suggested above) leads. That implies an even more deeply reflective (but also reflexive!) orientation than EBLIP already recommends. It means the readiness to give up – or to adapt – even the vested interests and articles of faith themselves on which we are accustomed to found our professional legitimation and identity. If, that is (but only if), the evidence testifies that such is in the best interests of the clientele we are there to serve. Value/originality: Encourages a more inclusive, heterogeneous viewpoint regarding – and therefore a more workable approach to – EBLIP.
Author: R. Laval Hunsucker
Language: English
Subfield: Library and Information Sciences
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2161768985