Evidence Portal for information management

Pete Dalton and Sarah McNicol set out their research into the development of a new sector-wide evidence portal to help CILIP to provide an authoritative source of data and evidence about information management and libraries.

To underpin effective evidence-based practice, the development of a robust evidence base is vital. It is well known that using research or other types of evidence in LIS practice can contribute to the realisation of a range of benefits including: supporting improvement and development of services; building trust and credibility with stakeholders; and advocacy and demonstrating the value added by the sector.

CILIP has been developing an evidence-based approach to advocacy and is keen to adopt this approach across all of its priority areas, considering that evidence-based practice can benefit the wider information and knowledge sector.

Therefore, in autumn 2017, we were commissioned by CILIP to begin to assess the demand, and some of the emerging requirements, for the development of a sector-wide evidence portal. The main methods of data gathering we used were: a survey of stakeholder from across the sector; desk-based search to identify other research portals and evidence bases (in the information sector and more widely); and a small number of stakeholder interviews. This article focuses principally on the ­survey findings.

An online survey was developed to gather feedback from across the library and information sector; explore evidence of demand for an evidence base; and obtain some early indications of priorities for an evidence portal. While every effort was made to have as wide coverage as possible, the survey was not intended to be perfectly representative of each of the stakeholder groups, or of the sector as a whole.

It was acknowledged from the outset that the responses would likely not be statistically significant and evenly distributed, however, the data collected will provide an effective starting point from which to develop further. There were 1,150 responses to the survey suggesting an interest in the topic, and the findings were indeed interesting and valuable.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of survey respondents indicated that their role was “librarian”, however other groups such as “information manager” and “knowledge manager” were represented in the responses. Almost nine out of ten respondents were CILIP members. There was representation from 18 library and ­information sectors, with the most highly represented being: HE (35.1 per cent), public (17.6 per cent), school (14.9 per cent and health (8.8 per cent).

We investigated potential demand for an evidence base or research portal by asking stakeholders about the ­perceived importance they placed on evidence and their current use of research and evidence.

We asked: “overall, how important is research or evidence to you in your current role?”, and respondents were invited to indicate their response on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being highly important. Overall, the mean value was 7.13 and 52.4 per cent of respondents gave a score of eight or higher.

The sources of evidence most frequently used by respondents were: professional journals (62.6 per cent), case studies (52.7 per cent), academic journals (49 per cent), published reports (44.5 per cent) and data sets/statistics (42.4 per cent). In addition to the options offered in the survey, professional or peer networks were highlighted by respondents as an ­important source of evidence.

The most common way in which respondents made use of evidence was to improve existing services or practices (73.4 per cent). This was followed by professional development (63.9 per cent) and making decisions about new services or practices (61.5 per cent). Challenges

We were also interested in the challenges respondents faced when accessing evidence in order to consider ways in which a portal might be designed to help overcome these. By far the most common problem experienced was lack of time (62.9 per cent of respondents). This was followed by lack of awareness of where to find ­evidence (33.7 per cent); inability to access relevant research or evidence, for example paywalls (31.0 per cent); and lack of evidence to meet specific needs (28.1 per cent). Lack of skills was seen as less of a problem (12.9 per cent). In addition, ­however, some respondents highlighted the poor quality of some research or evidence they had encountered, as well as the need for support in the practical implementation of research.

We then explored the type of content and features respondents felt to be most important in a potential portal for the sector.

By far the most frequently requested type of response was case studies or good practice exemplars (74.3 per cent of respondents). This was followed by datasets/statistics (48.5 per cent), academic articles (41.8 per cent) and research reports (41.5 per cent).

The most important features for a potential evidence base according to survey respondents were: free availability (90.8 per cent rated important or very important); rigour of evidence (89.1 per cent); regular updating (81.0 per cent); and sector-wide coverage (76 per cent).

This led us to devise a model for a possible portal for the sector that highlights “essential features” such as the inclusion of case studies and the need for regular updating, and “recommended features” such as summaries of key papers and indications of the rigour of resources. We also suggested possible additional features, such as a comments facility and alerting services, as well as options for possible ideas to test once the basic design of the portal is established, such as the ability to combine datasets.

An issue highlighted by our research is that, whilst there is, generally, a high level of appreciation of the importance of ­research and evidence within the library and information profession, there is, at present, no single definition of an ­evidence base or portal. Evidence portals can take a variety of forms and offer different resources and services depending on the needs of their audiences.

In addition, we found some evidence of differences by sector. For example, the perceived importance of research was found to be greatest within the health and HE sectors. This suggests that there may need to be different approaches and/or forms of presentation and marketing of portal to ­cater for the needs of different sectors.

This is further complicated by the fact that here are a wide range of potential users for a portal in addition to information professionals across a number of sectors, for example, people engaged in teaching and research; professionals from other sectors; and decision makers.

This research is, of course, only the first stage of the process of developing an ­evidence portal for the sector. It has provided important insights, but the next stage is to consult more widely on the proposed model and develop specific examples to demonstrate the options suggested. It is anticipated that this will involve working with like-minded partners across the sector.

In addition to the survey reported above, feedback was obtained from a few representatives of stakeholder organisations through interviews. In general, these stakeholders were interested in, and supportive of, the idea of developing an evidence base for the LIS profession. This is a good indication, as the support of a range of stakeholder groups will be important in realising the vision of an evidence portal.

Stakeholders we engaged with stressed that a collaborative approach to funding would help to demonstrate value of the portal across different library and information sectors. Comments suggested that it is important that any CILIP portal is co-funded (or supported in-kind) by a range of organisations. These might include academic funders such as Research Councils; charitable funding organisations; and partners in the former Library Research Coalition.

Hopefully, an evidence portal developed using this research as a foundation will help to ensure that CILIP can contribute to providing an authoritative source of data and evidence about information management and libraries and be an active partner in providing a research and evidence framework for the sector as a whole.