What do Australian library and information professionals experience as evidence

Ann Gillespie, Faye Q. Miller, Helen Partridge, C. Bruce, A. Howlett
{"title":"What do Australian library and information professionals experience as evidence","authors":"Ann Gillespie, Faye Q. Miller, Helen Partridge, C. Bruce, A. Howlett","doi":"10.18438/B8R645","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \n \nThis article presents the findings of a project which established an empirical basis for evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP). More specifically, the paper explores what library and information professionals experienced as evidence in the context of their professional practice. \n \n Methods \n \nThe project consisted of two sub-studies. The public library sub-study was conducted using ethnography. Over a 5-month period, a member of the research team travelled to a regional public library on 15 occasions, staying between 3 and 4 days on each visit. The researcher observed, interacted, and became involved in the day-to-day activities of this library. These activities were recorded in a journal and added to the researcher’s insights and thoughts. Additionally, 13 face-to-face interviews with staff in positions ranging from the operational to the executive were conducted. The academic sub-study was conducted using Constructivist Grounded Theory. Semi-structured interviews were conducted either in person or via Skype, with 13 librarians from Australian universities. Interviewees were in a diverse array of roles, from liaison librarian to manager and library director. Results \n \nThe project found that the Australian academic librarians and the public librarians who participated in the project experienced six elements as evidence: observation, feedback, professional colleagues, research literature, statistics, and intuition. Each of these will be described and highlighted with examples from each of the two studies. \n \n Conclusions \n \nThe findings of this study revealed many similarities in the way that library professionals from both studies experienced evidence. Evidence was not hierarchical, with evidence from many sources being valued equally. In contextualizing evidence and applying to the local environment, library professionals were able to draw upon more than one source of evidence and apply their professional knowledge and experiences. In this way evidence was more nuanced.","PeriodicalId":21486,"journal":{"name":"Science & Engineering Faculty","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Engineering Faculty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/B8R645","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Objective This article presents the findings of a project which established an empirical basis for evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP). More specifically, the paper explores what library and information professionals experienced as evidence in the context of their professional practice. Methods The project consisted of two sub-studies. The public library sub-study was conducted using ethnography. Over a 5-month period, a member of the research team travelled to a regional public library on 15 occasions, staying between 3 and 4 days on each visit. The researcher observed, interacted, and became involved in the day-to-day activities of this library. These activities were recorded in a journal and added to the researcher’s insights and thoughts. Additionally, 13 face-to-face interviews with staff in positions ranging from the operational to the executive were conducted. The academic sub-study was conducted using Constructivist Grounded Theory. Semi-structured interviews were conducted either in person or via Skype, with 13 librarians from Australian universities. Interviewees were in a diverse array of roles, from liaison librarian to manager and library director. Results The project found that the Australian academic librarians and the public librarians who participated in the project experienced six elements as evidence: observation, feedback, professional colleagues, research literature, statistics, and intuition. Each of these will be described and highlighted with examples from each of the two studies. Conclusions The findings of this study revealed many similarities in the way that library professionals from both studies experienced evidence. Evidence was not hierarchical, with evidence from many sources being valued equally. In contextualizing evidence and applying to the local environment, library professionals were able to draw upon more than one source of evidence and apply their professional knowledge and experiences. In this way evidence was more nuanced.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚图书馆和信息专业人员的经验是什么
目的本文介绍了一个项目的研究结果,为基于证据的图书馆与信息实践(ebrlip)建立了实证基础。更具体地说,本文探讨了图书馆和信息专业人员在其专业实践背景下经历的证据。方法本研究分为两个子研究。公共图书馆分项研究采用民族志方法进行。在5个月的时间里,研究小组的一名成员前往地区公共图书馆15次,每次停留3至4天。研究者观察、互动并参与到图书馆的日常活动中。这些活动被记录在日记中,并添加到研究人员的见解和想法中。此外,还与从业务到行政等职位的工作人员进行了13次面对面面谈。学术子研究采用建构主义扎根理论进行。对来自澳大利亚大学的13位图书馆员进行了面对面或通过Skype进行的半结构化访谈。受访者担任各种各样的角色,从联络图书管理员到经理和图书馆馆长。项目发现,参与项目的澳大利亚学术图书馆员和公共图书馆员经历了六个要素作为证据:观察、反馈、专业同事、研究文献、统计数据和直觉。我们将用这两项研究中的例子来描述和强调这两项研究。本研究的发现揭示了两项研究的图书馆专业人员所经历的证据的许多相似之处。证据没有等级之分,来自许多来源的证据被同等重视。在将证据置于背景中并应用于当地环境时,图书馆专业人员能够利用多个证据来源并应用他们的专业知识和经验。这样,证据就更加微妙了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Box-columns with combined axial compressive and torsional loading E-tendering readiness in construction: an a priori model Improving the efficiency of fully Bayesian optimal design of experiments using randomised quasi-Monte Carlo Enhancement of confined air jet impingement heat transfer using perforated pin fin heat sinks Measuring impacts and risks to the public of a privately operated toll road project by considering perspectives in cost-benefit analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1