Research is crucial for any profession – both to drive forward the theoretical foundations, and to provide evidence and support for developing practice. This is true across many areas as well as librarianship – health, education, marketing.
The research strategy developed by CILIP’s Library and Information Research Group,1 and recently adopted as policy, opens with the assertion that research is 'a means to furthering profession excellence, rather than an end in itself'. It adopts a definition of research from Powell et al:
'… to create new knowledge and thereby contribute to the growth of LIS as a profession or discipline…to improve problem-solving and decision-making in the workplace, to make professional practitioners critical consumers of the research literature, and to better equip librarians to provide optimal information services to researchers in other fields.' 2
Research, then, has many roles:
- driving the profession forward in its philosophical and theoretical thinking
- supporting practical service delivery, innovation and improvement
- supporting policy
- questioning and challenging our assumptions.
There is widespread agreement among all parties with an interest in LIS research about what the term should cover. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) panel which audits research quality in universities, while adopting a more general definition of research ('original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding'), specifically asserts that 'solving practical problems can lead to outstanding and original work', and that academic outputs which are practice-based will be assessed on the same basis as other work.3
Interactions between academics and practitioners
Research carried out last year as the 'Interactions' project4 examined the knowledge transfer between academic researchers and LIS and archive practitioners, focusing on the ways research is conducted, communicated, accessed and used.
The study found widespread support for research in all its forms, from 'blue skies' to that focused on developing services. There continues to exist, however, a 'culture gap' between academics and practitioners in terms of the relevance of research; what 'counts' as research; and appropriate dissemination and communication of research findings. Practitioners complain of research that is not relevant, and that academic journals are dry and impenetrable. They want research results to be translated for them. They sometimes fail to see as 'research' what they do as part of service development, and are reluctant to make the time to share it by writing for professional or research journals.
Academics claim they are under pressure to publish for RAE purposes (i.e. in the top refereed journals), yet the RAE definitions themselves do not support this. This is not new – indeed, it is a depressingly regular finding of similar projects.5 It also seems to be endemic in other practice-focusing disciplines.
'Practitioners consider that much academic research is irrelevant to the problems they face, difficult to understand and often unreadable. By contrast, academics complain that practitioners ignore their work.' 6
Does this quote sound familiar? Does it sum up the LIS world? Yes – but it was written about the relationship between market research practitioners and academics.
So, we are not alone. But, as information professionals, surely we – who guide others in the effective retrieval and use of information – should be able to communicate effectively among ourselves about our research needs and results.
From the Chief Executive
'A lot of this is about what our vision is of our profession and our place as individuals within that profession. I think we have got to see ourselves as part of a very big picture, and not part of a little box. There is a mind-set that says I do the work, I deliver my library service and I do a good operational job. A large number of our colleagues don’t lift their sights above that and say, actually, I’m part of a very large profession that has a very fundamental impact on social, educational and economic processes, and I need to engage with the whole of that.
I’m talking about a very serious conversation with the research councils, which says the library information domain is pretty darn important to the social, economic, scientific, cultural environment in which you operate – you need to think about it seriously. And to do that we have to have practitioners and academics who think at that level and at the moment they are few and far between. We need to raise our game...'
From interview with CILIP Chief Executive Bob McKee for the Interactions project.
Who will take responsibility?
Also of significance was the fact that both sides raised communication, and responsibility for it, as an issue. We pride ourselves as a profession on our ability to network, to share information and experiences (and evidence) with each other. However, it was entertaining, and then somewhat disheartening, to hear from practitioners that academics need to 'get out more' (meaning it is their responsibility to approach practitioners and find what research needs to be done) and then from academics that they would welcome practitioners' ideas (indeed, they wished practitioners would come to them with research ideas and collaborations).
We do not deny that there is more that can, and indeed should, be done by the two groups, but each has reasons why it is the other who should be doing more! Significant new trends in evaluation and impact studies, and in evidence-based practice, suggest it is critical that we have the necessary research to inform what we do. We also need it so we can not only provide evidence of our value to our organisations and to wider society but also underpin the ways we develop our service delivery. We all need to take responsibility for ensuring that our profession promotes research, and engaging with research as a core aspect of what it means to be an information professional.
We moan about living in an age when everything is dumbed down. As a profession we are largely educated to degree standard and should be able to make judgments and think for ourselves, yet we want to find the information we want in the format we want it, and not have to interpret it! Is this not contradictory? We argue for the status of being reflective, yet we do not have time to reflect. If it was something we wanted to do, we would find time for it.
CILIP's recent Life@Work Survey7 includes the question: 'What one thing could CILIP do to dramatically improve your professional standing?' The results show that improving pay is the biggest concern, and that this is linked to issues of raising our professional status.
Typical comments are:
'Help us increase our pay because then employers and colleagues will realise that we are actually professionals.'
'Put more effort into fighting for better salaries comparable with other professions.'
It is far more unusual to read comments such as:
'CILIP can't improve my professional standing, that’s down to me.'
Yet surely – CILIP is after all a membership organisation – it is also up to us as individuals to take a professional approach to our jobs, and that includes finding time to engage with research, and to the wider issues that are affecting our roles.
Practitioners, why don't you ask researchers to help you find solutions in the same way you might ask a colleague? Can you really afford not to engage with research and the wider debates and demand to be treated as a professional?
Researchers, what is wrong with seeking out practitioners in the same way you seek out fellow researchers to discuss your research and test ideas? Can you really afford not to disseminate your ideas and research results as widely as possible?
National organisations, we need a co-ordinated research policy and strategy, which emphasises relevance to practitioners as one of the criteria for funding research, and sends out a key message to the profession and the wider world: without a thriving research culture, we will not become a thriving profession.
We are living in an exciting time in the development of our profession. There are so many different opportunities that we cannot afford to be complacent, or expect answers to be handed to us on a plate. Innovation and innovative thought come from widening out networks, talking to the widest range of professional and individuals we can, reflecting on their messages and forming new ideas. Let us resolve to do this more, and not wait to be invited.
References and notes
1 www.cilip.org.uk/professionalguidance/research/
researchstrategy.htm
2 R. R. Powell, L. M. Baker and J. J. Mika. ‘Library and Information Science Practitioners and Research’. Library and Information Science Research 24, 2002, pp. 49-72.
3 RAE 2008: guidance on submissions. HEFCE, 2005 (www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2005/03/rae0305.pdf).
4 J. Eve and N. Schenk. ‘Research and practice: findings from the Interactions project.’ Library & Information Research, 96, 2007, pp.37-47.
5 See, for example, G. Haddow and J. E. Klobas. ‘Communication of research to practice in library and information science: closing the gap.’ Library & Information Science Research, 26, 2004, pp. 29-43.
6 M. Catterall. ‘Academics, practitioners and qualitative market research.’ Qualitative Market Research: an international journal, Vol.1, No.2, 1998, pp. 69-76.
7 www.cilip.org.uk/jobscareers/lifework_survey/
2006survey.htm
Juliet Eve (j.eve@brighton.ac.uk) is a Senior Lecturer in the Division of Information and Media Studies at the University of Brighton, and Course Leader for MA Information Studies.
Noeleen Schenk (noeleen.schenk@ikmconsult.co.uk) is an information and knowledge consultant.
They will be discussing the results of the research for the Interactions project in an interactive session at the CILIP Umbrella conference at the University of Hatfield, designed to explore ways of taking research forward – and invite all to join them on Saturday morning, 9am, to contribute their ideas to the debate.