Chapter 3

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes:

An Analysis of the Adoption and

Interpretation of EBLIP in the Library

and Information Sector

Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

Abstract

Purpose — This article is inspired by sociology and institutionaltheory. It investigates how and why the adoption of Evidence-BasedLibrary and Information Practice (EBLIP) by public and academiclibraries in Europe reveals a remarkable variety and complexity.Primarily, it is observed differences in adoption and use of EBLIP —principles in different European countries that are in focus of thearticle.

Design/methodology/approach — The purpose of this article is to takea closer look upon these differences. The theoretical frameworkapplied is inspired by a sociological approach, especially the notionsdeveloped within the framework of Scandinavian institutional theory.This approach invites to deal with the topic in a nuanced way bydelivering fruitful concepts such as drivers for adopting new ideas,the importance of identity and organisational fields, concept migra-tion, adoption processes and travel routes of ideas including theimportance of imitation and translation of concepts. Furthermore, inthis article, we will also consider the significance of topics such asorganisational and information culture and leadership of adoptionprocesses. The methodology can be classified as desktop research and

Library and Information Science Trends and Research: Europe

Library and Information Science, Volume 6, 43–65

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1876-0562/doi:10.1108/S1876-0562(2012)0000006006

44 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

some of the findings are based on a government-supported study inDenmark.

Findings — What was found in the course of the work? This will referto analysis, discussion or results. The findings relate to the purposesand they are formulated in relation to six research questions. Findingsare that several factors influence the adoption and use of EBLIP. Thefactors are among others national culture, cultural traits embedded inthe value system of different types of library work and also related toinformation culture. The concept of organisational recipes appears tobe a rather strong concept in relation to, for example, which forms ofEBLIP a library adopt.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable)—The research clearlydemonstrates that the diversified theoretical approach taken in thisarticle would be fruitful as a starting point for further research.Practical implications (if applicable) — A practical implication is thatthe library and information sector could benefit from the establish-ment of institutions that produce systematic reviews and also that thesector ought to be aware of the different forms of evidence-basedpractices classified as either soft or hard.

Originality/value — The article is one of the few in the field thatintroduces several new theoretical approaches together with anemphasis on cultures at different forms and levels.

Keywords: Evidence-based practice; library and information science;public libraries; research libraries; information culture

3.1. Introduction

If one considers how the concept of evidence-based practice has beenadopted by different sectors, for example medicine, social work andeducation and then compares the impact of the concept with evidence-basedlibrary and information practice (EBLIP) considerable differences appear asto both the overall impact and also the way the evidence principles havebeen adopted. Compared to the already mentioned, larger sectors wherespecialised institutions based on international collaboration — Campbellwithin the social service sector and Cochrane within the medicine —produce systematic reviews on a large number of different topics, similarinstitutions have not been developed within EBLIP. Here, a more localmodel based on the integration of evidence in the daily practice has been

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 45

promoted. But also within the library and information sector, significantvariations appear.

Thus, there seems to be considerable differences between public andresearch libraries as to the interest of adopting EBP where the public librariesseem to be the most reluctant part. Also within the academic library sectordifferences occur. Medicine libraries are here among the most prominentsupporters in many countries and international conferences on EBLIP aredominatedby librarians frommedicine andhealth sector libraries.Add to thesedifferences, also national variations where EBLIP is much more developed incountries like the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canadathan elsewhere. In Scandinavia, there is also a significant difference betweenDenmark, Norway and Sweden as to EBLIP development, since the conceptis much more developed in Sweden and Norway than in Denmark.Indeed, Sweden was the host of the international EBLIP conference in 2010.

The purpose of this chapter is to take a closer look upon these mentioneddifferences. The theoretical framework applied is heavily inspired by asociological approach, especially the notions developed within the frameworkof Scandinavian institutional theory. This approach invites to deal with thetopic in a nuanced way by delivering fruitful concepts such as drivers foradopting new ideas, the importance of identity and organisational fields,conceptmigration, adoption processes and travel routes of ideas including theimportance of imitation and translation of concepts. Furthermore, in thisarticle, we will also consider the significance of topics such as organisationaland information culture and leadership on adoption processes.

3.2. Research Questions

Research questions are as follows:

1. What characterises the Scandinavian institutional approach and under-standing of adoption and migration of organisational ideals and recipes?

2. What characterises and explains the variety and complexity of theadoption of EBLIP in the library sector?

3. What characterises and explains the national differences as to EBLIPadoption in different European countries?

4. What is the role and importance of information culture as to EBLIPadoption?

5. What is the role and importance of leadership as to EBLIP adoption inthe library sector?

6. What characterises and explains the different transformations andinterpretations of EBLIP in European librarianship?

46 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

Research question one is dealt with in section, ‘Circulating ideas,organisational recipes and travel routes’ whereas question two is treated inthe section, ‘The many faces of EBLIP’. Question three in the section,‘Different national contexts’, question four in ‘Information culture’, five in‘Leadership issues’ and six in ‘Transformations and interpretations ofEBLIP in Europe’ This is also the outline of the chapter.

3.2.1. Circulating Ideas, Organisational Recipes and Travel Routes

Within institutional theory much research has focused on the adoptingorganisations and the processes through which organisations adopt ideas(Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996; Sahlin & Wedlin, 2008). Other researcherswithin this tradition are likely to focus on organisational recipes and travelroutes (Røvik, 1996). The authors of this article see and understand EBLIBas an organisational recipe. Research has clarified a number of aspectsconcerning the spread and adoption of organisational recipes. Weinvestigate EBLIP to see to which degree it has characteristics in commonwith a successful recipe. Successful recipes will normally originate inprestigious institutions in a close cooperation between academia, the privatesector and the practice. Further, there has to be some stories of success byimplementing the recipe. The recipe has to be authorised by importantstakeholders and the recipe will often claim that it is able to solve most ofthe existing organisational problems in an institutions. The diffusion of arecipe is also important; it has to offer the possibility of translations at thesame time as it has to hit a trend in time.

Diffusion and translation of recipes are important but just as pertinent isthe reception both in the national environment and in the single institution.A recipe has to fit into the organisational culture in the institutions. In thisrespect, we later introduce the concept of information culture to analysehow and why EBLIP has received such diverse receptions in differentinstitutions in Europe. Information culture is a broad concept but it isrelevant in this context as one of the features of the concept is howinstitutions and members in the institutions seek, interpret, make sense of,share and use information for different kinds of organisational decision-making processes. Other studies have indicated that the incorporation oforganisational recipes or tools in an organisation takes very different formsdepending on the values embedded in the translations process. An example,the very different configurations of quality measurement instruments indifferent European countries from another context, can illustrate this point

In this context, a consideration of EBLIP and its use or non-use would beinsufficient if we do not take leadership into account. Leadership andmanagement play important roles in relation to adoption of organisational

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 47

recipes and to the configuration of information culture. It is alsohypothesised that the leadership style and the perception of the mostimportant roles and challenges influence the selection and translation oforganisational recipes. An important figure within Scandinavian institu-tional theory, the Norwegian Professor Kjell Arne Røvik (Røvik, 1998)states that a management concept is not only a functional toolkit foridentifying and adjusting organisational dysfunctions to improve effective-ness and efficiency, but it is also a symbol that can give legitimacy andcredibility to organisations. According to Røvik, management conceptshave both a cognitive and a symbolic content. The cognitive content isnormally oriented towards efficiency, effectiveness and production while thesymbolic content is more oriented towards different forms of humanrelationships and legitimating of the organisation in the normative structureof society. A recipe or a standard that becomes a trend, typically, has thefollowing characteristics:

� It often originates in an academic setting but very often it is created incooperation with the professional world — be it libraries or business.� It is blueprinted or accredited by leading members of the academic andprofessional communities and it is taken up also by the consultancyindustry. Prestigious firms and companies use it.� The recipe incorporates the promise to solve serious problems in thecompanies and in the institutions they are interesting to work with.� They are marketed and they are frameworks for actions, but most of all,they are interpretable meanings that institutions can adopt and changeaccording to the national and organisational culture.� They are very often connected to stories of success; the story behind therecipe often takes the form of a drama.� Successful recipes tend to hit a trend in the time and use this as a kind ofvehicle for its travel across boundaries and cultures.

The life time of organisational recipes varies. Some recipes like BalancedScorecard have a rather long life. Others not as successful — for examplebusiness process re-engineering — have had a shorter lifespan. Otherexamples of recipes are total quality management, lean processes, and thelike; also more limited tools such as measurement instruments like Libqualand similar assessment tools share characteristics of recipes. They diffuse bycrossing boundaries and they are adopted by prominent members of aprofession. Recipes are interpretable meaning that professions or organisa-tions can use as a kind of framework utilising part of the recipe. Typically, aprocess of translation takes place before implementation. Later, in thischapter we focus on the forms and results of such translation processes inthe library sector. Recipes can also compete with each other. However, the

48 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

single organisation can easily adopt several recipes at the same time (Røvik,1996). Examples of recipes in the library and information sector could bephenomena like information literacy education, the library as a third place,library 2.0 and different measurements instruments surveying users orprocesses like Libqual, Equinox, Balanced Scorecard and the like.

The process of adoption of recipes in the single organisation can takemany forms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Some recipes are adopted due toinstitutional requirements. Others are adopted because they fit into thenormative structure of the profession and the single institution. Adoptioncan also happen as a mimetic or imitation process. A recipe is adoptedbecause other organisations use it and because it appears to work.

DiMaggio and Powell (1991) have worked with the concept in relation toorganisational changes, structures and services. They classify the dissemina-tion of recipes as normative, mimetic or forced. These concepts refer to theprocesses of dissemination and spread including the interpretationsinstitutions make in relation to the recipes. Their classification of recipesis useful. It is not surprising that the concept of recipes has been adopted byinstitutional theorists. A recipe is defined as a legitimised way to form andimplement elements and recipes are considered to be organisational idealsand points of benchmarking. Recipes are institutionalised implying that theyare considered and perceived as the best and most appropriate way to solveorganisational problems and organise structures and processes (Røvik,2007). Recipes and standards are very dependent on the institutionalisedenvironment. The institutionalised environments consist of the values,norms and conceptions related to organisations, their objectives and themost appropriate way to do things. One can argue that the institutionalisednorms can be seen as a kind of expectation pressure from the environmentimplying normative ideals for the operating mode.

However, recipe is not a particular very precise concept. Recipes exist ondifferent conceptual levels; some of them only address few elements in anorganisation or in a procedure. Others are more pervasive in characteraddressing the whole organisation. The very complex process of origination,social authorising, diffusion, translation and adoption of recipes has beenstudied in the context of both the national and the organisational culture.Several studies have indicated that the national culture influence both theselection of acceptable recipes but also the emphasis that are placed ondifferent elements in the recipe and the way the recipe is integrated into themanagement system. For example, the concept of total quality manage-ment has been studied in this context; here it is evident that differentcultures, either national or organisational, tend to translate the concept in adifferent way and emphasise the parts of the concept that is believed to bestfit the existing normative structure (Kekale, 1995; Mathews & Ueno, 2001;Pors, 2008).

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 49

In the library and information sector it appears that some recipesor organisational standards tend to dominate. It is, for example, aninteresting question why measurements instruments like Libqual obviouslyhave won the battle over competing instruments like the EuropeanCustomer Satisfaction Index or the predecessor the Servqual — instru-ment. Another example that fits into this context is the employment of theBalanced Scorecard. It forms the basis of quite a lot of measurement andmanagement systems in many libraries. However, the way it is usedappears to be rather distant to the recommendations put forward by itsinventors.

The Balanced Scorecard and the way it is implemented in the library andinformation sector, can illustrate some of the points above. The technicalpoints in the Balanced Scorecard are measurements that neutralise thedebate about inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact because the indicatorsthat the Balanced Scorecard introduce consist of all types of measures. TheBalanced Scorecard further states, that one only needs between 20 and 30measures or indicators to cover the performance of the whole organisationin a snapshot. It builds on the idea that it is possible to identify criticalsuccess factors that spring out of the strategy. It measures staff, potentialfor innovation and competencies. It also measures processes and products.It has measures concerned with customers and, finally, it has financialmeasures indicating the bottom line. The Balanced Scorecard is implemen-ted in several libraries and guidebooks for performance measurement(Pors, 2007).

It is also obvious, that the implementers often only use the features theyjudge relevant and tend to ignore other features. In this way, the BalancedScorecard has all the characteristics of a recipe or a standard in the sensedescribed above. In other words, the introduction of a standard likeBalanced Scorecard implies a higher degree of similarity among libraries atleast on the verbal or symbolic level. However, the very different way it isimplemented in organisations implies a more diversified focus anddiversification at another level. After having presented some central notionsconcerning the Scandinavian tradition of institutional theory and conceptmigration with examples from both the library and other societal sectors, wewill be more specific in the next section and deal with the results of theconcept migration as to EBLIP.

3.2.2. The Many Faces of EBLIP

The concept of evidence-based practice, EBP and EBLIP, differs in someimportant respects from the typical idea of organisational recipes in thesense used by Røvik. Indeed, evidence in public sectors such as health, social

50 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

welfare and education were actually developed in opposition to New PublicManagement inspired and economically oriented concepts:

During the late 1980s the preoccupation of monetarist governments with

‘value for money’ had done much to alienate professionals such as teachers,

doctors and nurses who prefer to focus on quality of service y Shifting the

emphasis from economy (i.e. cost-effectiveness) to effectiveness, while not

completely circumventing the cost debate, served to unite managers and

professionals in pursuit of a common goal (Booth & Brice, 2004b)

However, the conceptual differences between management and profes-sional concepts or recipes do not necessarily imply that they differsignificantly, in terms of diffusion, spread, and adoption, from organisa-tional recipes in Røvik’s sense although nuances may characterise the extentto which patterns of diffusion and adoption from organisational recipes canbe transferred to professional recipes. Another element to increasecomplexity derives from the different versions and basic understandings ofEBP and EBLIP. In the health, social welfare and educational sector EBP isclosely associated with the production of systematic reviews throughspecialised organisations (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2006).

Typically, such evidence producing organisations belong to international,collaborative networks such as the Cochrane (medicine) and the Campbell(social welfare) collaborations. The roles of such networks encompass anumber of different functions such as quality assurance of the reviewprocess through detailed and strict normative rules concerning the inclusionor exclusion of surveys and the application of sophisticated statisticalmethods for synthesising results from several surveys. The rules concerningthe inclusion and exclusion of surveys are, typically, based on well-definedtypologies of survey methods and hierarchical models (Pettigrew & Roberts,2006). Moreover, the systematic reviews are typically based upon thoroughand time consuming literature searches and investigations to assess andappraise the value of the often numerous surveys about the different topics.An estimate of the amount of time that one can expect to spend doing asystematic review, based on an examination of 37 reviews, found that theaverage amount of time needed was 1139 hours that is, about 7 months fulltime (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2006). Furthermore, the underlying researchquestions of the reviews are typically restricted to narrow and precisequestions of effectiveness related to the effectiveness of specific interventionsand processes. Typically, the key question aims to determine what worksand what does not work.

Concerning the application of EBP in the library and information sector,the systematic review approach to evidence has both strengths andweaknesses. An immediate strength seems to be the precise and well-defined

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 51

methodologies, leaving no doubt as to which methods are more appropriatethan others. Here, concepts such as the ‘hierarchy of evidence’ are relevant.In systematic reviews, particularly those carried out by healthcareresearchers, the hierarchy of evidence is used to select studies for inclusionin the review. The hierarchy is simply a list of study designs ranked in orderof decreasing validity. Typically, qualitative studies are placed at thebottom. Below, is an example of a hierarchy of evidence used withinevidence-based medicine (Pettigrew & Roberts, 2006):

1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses2. Randomised controlled trials (RCT)3. Cohort studies4. Case-control studies5. Cross-sectional surveys6. Case reports

For example, according to the evidence hierarchy, the quantitative socalled RCT (randomised controlled tests) studies are considered superiorto, for example, qualitative studies. Often, when carrying out systematicreviews, it is more useful to use ‘typologies’ of evidence instead ofhierarchies because typologies consider which type of study is the mostappropriate to answer a specific review question. Whereas, RCTs are mostsuitable for assessing whether an intervention or service works, qualitativestudies may provide valuable information about processes, for example, whya certain intervention works.

Another weakness, concerning absolute hierarchies, lies in the quitedifferent scientific traditions and paradigms characterising different societalsectors and contexts such as, on the one hand, medicine focusing onknowledge produced by natural science, compared to, on the other hand, thelibrary and information sector where the humanities and social sciences playa significant role. Whereas, RCT studies with randomised selection ofintervention and control groups are common practice in medicine, theapproach is seldom neither applied nor applicable within library andinformation sector surveys. One obvious reason is the quite differentcontexts characterising the two sectors. In the information sector, it is oftenimpossible, for ethical or practical reasons, to apply controlled trials andblinded and randomised interventions and control groups since theapplication of placebos are often impossible to implement in library servicecontexts and situations.

It is therefore a challenging task to translate the concept of systematicreviewing from a health or social sector context to a library and informa-tion sector. However, the considerable variety among the organisationsproducing systematic reviews indicate the challenges of translating concepts

52 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

from one context to another also appears among evidence producingorganisations. Therefore, to make the production of evidence more flexible,models such as the evidence typology has been invented. The maincharacteristic of the typology is its distinction between different types ofproblems and research questions. Whereas, also the evidence typologyrecognises that RCT is the optimal design concerning effectiveness andwhat-works-problems, it also acknowledges that regarding problems why acertain intervention or procedure works — or does the opposite —alternative designs such as qualitative methods are optimal.

An additional and maybe more serious problem concerning thetranslation of EBP to library and information sector environments, is thevariety of understandings of what EBP really means within the LIS sector.According to a widely applied textbook on EBP in libraries and informationcentres (Booth & Brice, 2004a), EBP and EBLIP are not, primarily,understood in terms of specialised evidence producing institutions andorganisations; rather, EBP, is seen as something integrated in the daily workof the practicing librarians. Booth and Brice speak about the migration ofthe evidence-based model to other sectors and they emphasise that theapplication of tools and techniques should be a ‘sensitive adaptation to yourlocal culture and environment’ (Booth & Brice, 2004). The implementationstrategy, recommended by Booth and Brice does not, however, include theuse of systematic reviews and evidence producing organisations andnetworks. Instead, it seems as if it is the professional librarian who shallcarry out the tasks, which in others sectors of the society are performed byspecialised evidence-producing organisations. Booth (2004) defines sixstages of evidence-based practice:

1. Define the problem2. Find evidence3. Appraise evidence4. Apply the results of appraisal5. Evaluate change6. Redefine problem

This process, in many respects, look like the more complex 12 stepsprocedure of the systematic review process (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006, pp.284–287) including the following steps:

1. Define the question2. Consider drawing together a steering or advisory group3. Write a protocol and have it reviewed4. Carry out a literature search5. Screen the references

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 53

6. Assess the remaining studies against the inclusion/exclusion criteria7. Data extraction8. Critical appraisal9. Synthesis of the primary studies

10. Consider the effects of the publication bias, and other internal andexternal biases

11. Writing up the report12. Wider dissemination

Here it is interesting that Petticrew and Roberts (2006, pp. 284–287)emphasise that as a systematic review is costly in terms of time, money, andreviewer’s energy. Therefore, it is important beforehand to consider whetherthe necessary resources are available. According to Booth, however, it seemsas if the practicing librarians can manage to meet the challenges of preparinga systematic review themselves. Here, the achievements of librarians at theCochrane Centres and universities of Sheffield, Southampton, Salford andBirmingham are interesting, since they have moved from a primarilysupporting role to developing research-based search methods and ‘conduct-ing systematic reviews in their own right’ (Brice & Hill, 2004, pp. 13–23).Although, it is not formulated directly that practicing librarians shouldprepare systematic reviews concerning their own professional issues, thehandbook, ‘Evidence-bases practice for information professionals’ seems tobe based on the underlying understanding that evidence is an integral part ofprofessional work of librarians. At least, it is not recommended, thatevidence-producing institutions should be established within the librarysector. On this background it is possible to distinguish between two basicapproaches to EBP: (1) through systematic reviews and evidence-producinginstitutions, and (2) through the evidence-based practice process performedby practising librarians.

Here, we will coin the first approach as hard and the second as softevidence. However, not only the distinction between hard and soft evidencecharacterises the reception of the evidence movement in the library sector.There are also remarkable differences between types of libraries. Theoccupational origin of EBLIP authors, the composition of participants inthe international EBLIP conferences and other sources indicate that theinterests of public and academic librarians in EBLIP are quite different.Although, considerable efforts were spent to integrate Swedish publiclibrarians in the EBLIP5 conference in Stockholm, interviews with publiclibrary participants indicate that EBLIP is still considered as a primarilyacademic library business.

Decleve’s (2011) research further indicates that the interest in andknowledge about EBLIP is more pronounced in academic libraries that it isin public libraries. A case study from Belgium confirms this (Decleve, ibid.).

54 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

Among the academic libraries, especially the medical libraries havepromoted EBLIP. Here, a look at the list of contributors to the handbook,‘Evidence-based practice for information professionals’ (Booth & Brice,2004) is instructively. Here, only two — out of 19 different contributors —were not related to health care, medicine, and nurse-related institutions,libraries and the like. The awareness of EBLIP as a concept and as practiceappears to be very limited among Belgium librarians.

3.2.3. Different National Contexts

Besides the differences dealt with above, the library sector contains moredistinctive categories with relevance in an EBP context. One is the significantnational differences, appearing when comparing the development of EBP indifferent countries. On a global scale, England, Canada and the UnitedStates take up prominent position, and within a Scandinavian context,Sweden and partly Norway, shine, compared to Denmark. In this chapterwe investigate both the national differences in approach and development ofEBP and also the importance of organisational characteristics such as thedifferences between public and academic libraries.

Decleve (ibid.) did a study of the diffusion of EBLIP investigatingespecially the participation and authorship at conferences arranged aroundthe evidence-based approach. It is not surprising that European countriesappear to be underrepresented in relation especially to the Americandominance in the field. She investigated the lists of delegates to the 4th and5th EBLIP — conferences taking place in Chapel Hill, United States andStockholm in 2007 and 2009. Ninety-five percent of the papers were inEnglish. Of the 368 delegates to the two conferences, half of them came fromthe United States. Canada and the United Kingdom had 27 and 23delegates. Sweden had 68 delegates and Norway had 17. However, the 5thEBLIP conference in 2009 was accommodated in Sweden and it had theeffect that many of the participants came from Sweden. Sweden had only 1delegate to the conference taking place in the United States. The 17delegates from Norway all participated in the Sweden conference. We sawthe same pattern with the 2007 conference in the United States. Onehundred and seventy-three delegates out of two hundred and eight camefrom the the United States.

Other European countries also had delegates to the two conferences.Belgium had three delegates to the two conferences. Denmark had six, andfive of these went to Stockholm. Finland had five, all of them participatingin the Stockholm conference. Germany had three, also in Stockholm. TheNetherlands had three delegates. Overall, the participation from Europe hasbeen very limited. However, it is worth mentioning that the United Kingdom

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 55

had 23 participants, 15 of which went to Stockholm. The conferenceparticipation indicates that the interest for EBLIP is most pervasive in theUnited States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. This is furtheremphasised if one looks at the members of the organisation committeesand keynote speakers. In both cases, the majority comes from the English-speaking countries. This can, of course, be related to the fact that only aminority of librarians regularly read the international academic literature.They rely very much on literature written in their native language, oftenprofessional in nature. As the major part of the research literature concerningEBLIP is written and published in English, it is an obstacle for professionalswith this language as their second or third.

Evidence-based practice has not really been on the agenda on theScandinavian library scene (Johannsen, 2011). However, in Sweden thereappears to be a growing interest, partly as a result from the 5th EBLIPconference taking place in Stockholm in 2009 and partly because a fewbigger research libraries have put it on the agenda. The Swedish LibraryAssociation has also taken a positive view on evidence-based practice andhas, for example, published comprehensive literature reviews in differentareas of librarianship. Sweden was also the Scandinavian country that firstintroduced the concept in medical libraries. In Norway, the concept was alsointroduced in relation to medical libraries and especially in the researchlibrary sector; the concept appears to be a permanent tool with continuingactivities. The public libraries have not played a significant role in thediscussions of the concept and its possible implementation in the processesof the library services.

Further, it is also interesting to note that the concept has changed itsname in the Scandinavian countries. In Norway, there is a preference forusing the term knowledge-based practice and in Sweden the term experience-based practice is preferred. These conceptual transformations are importantbecause they indirectly support a broader definition of the concept andlegitimise softer approaches and the use of softer types of data andprocedures. At the same time, the conceptual transformation also equalsresearch-based information with information derived from practice.

3.2.4. Information Culture

However, the single institution still has a wide choice of which recipes tofocus on. The organisational culture is an important factor in this context.There exist many different theories and models of organisational culture.Cameroun and Quinn (1999) have worked with a useful typology oforganisational culture. They look at organisations in terms of their generalorientation towards either stability or change and they combine this

56 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

orientation with the dominant focus in the organisation meaning that anorganisation can have a dominant orientation towards either internal orexternal issues. This typology is very useful to classify dominant traits andstructures on organisations. The result of this type of classification is that weget a list of four different organisational cultures. However, it is importantto emphasise that it is just a classifying instrument and no organisation onlyfits to one of the cells (Brown & Dodd, 1998).

The cultures are

1. Change-oriented with an internal focus: The Clan or the Family Culture2. Change-oriented with an external focus: The Innovation Culture or the

Adhocracy3. Stability-oriented with an internal focus: The Process and Efficiency

Culture4. Stability-oriented with an external focus: The Market Culture

It is of course very important to emphasise that the single library ororganisation incorporate elements from all the typologies; however, theweight and the perceptions of these elements are very different. One couldargue that it is the special configuration of the types of cultures that establishthe identity of the single organisation. It is also important to emphasise thatthe single organisation can have different orientations organised insubcultures.

An important element in the organisational culture is the wayorganisations and its members perceive information, interpret it and shareit. This is the information culture. This concept is probably very useful inrelation to analysing why and how different ideas and management toolsare accepted or rejected in the single organisations. The literature oninformation culture in the library and information sector is rather sparse. Ithas been used to analyse implementation of technological infrastructuresin organisations (Travica, 2008) and it has also been used to analyse theset-up and use of information management systems (Choo et al., 2006,Choo, Detlor, Bergeron, & Heaton, 2008). The concept has also been usedin relation to Hofstede’s more general theories concerning national culturesand has been used to analyse how communication structures and infor-mation management were implemented in different universities in differentparts of the world (Oliver, 2008). The study of information culture appearsto give interesting result concerning discussion of adoption of manage-ment tools and ideas as it more specific than the general discussion oforganisational cultures as it emphasises the perception of appropriate useof information and the way organisations perceive and value differenttypes of information related to the objectives of the organisation (Curry &Moore, 2003).

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 57

Oliver’s study (Oliver, ibid.) indicated that differences in use ofinformation and information systems in universities in Singapore, Australiaand Germany could be attributed to the specific configuration of nationalinformation strategies and policies, national cultural traits, the institutionalsetting and especially the way information in a broad sense was perceived,valued and used.

In relation to EBP, it would be important to focus on to which degreeformality concerns exist in the institution. Formality concerns are related tothe fact to which degree formalised sources of knowledge like researchare valued in relation to more informal sources. It can be hypothesisedthat the value assigned to information formality probably can explaindifferences in the adoption between public libraries and academic libraries.All in all, academic libraries are much closer to a culture embedded inresearch and educational institutions that value research and researchfindings than public libraries and this probably affects the election of toolsemployed.

3.2.5. Leadership Issues

Leadership is an important element in the configuration of informationculture and both leadership styles and the leaders’ approach to innovation,change and competency development are of importance in relation to thedirections of the organisation. Leaders are part of an organisational cultureand they also have the possibility to be change agents in relation tothe culture (Block, 2003; Brown & Dodd, 1998; Kaarst-Brown, Nicholson,von Dran, & Stanton, 2004; Lok & Crawford, 1999; Schein, 1992). This setof problems have been analysed in a comparison of Danish and the UnitedKingdom — leaders and managers in the library field (Pors, Dixon, &Robson, 2004). This chapter departed from the observation that theselection and implementation of management tools varied in differentEuropean countries. Previous research (Matthews & Ueno, 2011) had on amore general level discussed this problem in relation to theories ofdifferences in national cultures and overall the research indicated that thenational cultures were predictive in relation to a propensity for certain typesof management practices. This general conclusion was validated throughthe studies of leaders and managers in Danish and British libraries.Overall, the study indicated clearly both similarities and differences in theemployment of management concepts and tools. The general picture thatappeared through the research was that the main differences in employmentof management tools were connected to characteristics in the single tool.It was evident that Danish library leaders preferred ‘softer’ and ‘people-oriented’ management tools contrasted to their British colleagues that had

58 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

a preference for tools one could consider as ‘harder’ or more orientedtowards effectiveness, efficiency and value for the investments.

This difference was also related to the level of knowledge of managementtools. The research found a very remarkable difference in the knowledgelevel concerning tools that supported the findings mentioned above.Further, the study indicated that the culture of assessment were much morepervasive in Britain than we found in Denmark. It was also a remarkablefinding that the freedom in the job in relation to selection and introductionof management tools were much higher in Denmark than we found inBritain. Overall, it was found that institutional imperatives were stronger inthe United Kingdom, probably because assessment tools and strategicmanagement approaches at that time were more embedded in the culture ofthe organisations. The research further stipulated that reasons for thesedifferences could be discussed in relation to Hofstede’s (1991) theories ofnational cultural differences. Denmark and the United Kingdom are veryalike on most of the dimensions that measure the cultural dimensions apartfrom the dimension that measures masculinity versus femininity in society.The United Kingdom is a much more masculine society than Denmark andthe other Scandinavian countries. They all rank at the top of the scaleconcerning ‘feminine’ values. These values are related to softer managerialapproaches.

However, one has to acknowledge that the basis for this research are datafrom 2001 to 2003 and the development in societal structures can easily havechanged some of the features outlined above. EBLIP was not one of thetools that were investigated in the research. However, it is probable thatEBLIP is considered to be a complicated and maybe ‘hard’ approach to thepractice with its emphasis on systematic reviews and structured decision-making processes.

New research (Nordentoft, 2010) in the relationship between leaders andevidence-based approaches indicates that leaders and directors in theDanish public libraries have a much nuanced attitude towards evidence-based practice as a concept. The research was based on extensive interviewswith six library directors. The research indicated very clearly that none ofthe interviewees were familiar with EBLIP concepts and the researchfurther indicated that change processes and strategic reorientation only to aminor degree are based on the research literature. The impetus comes frompractice based networks and experienced shared with colleagues and similarforms of more informal communication. It was also evident that researchliterature was not employed in relation to change processes in a systematicmanner. Projects, innovations and change processes were very seldombased on research or systematic reviews. The library directors gave severalreasons for this. Time constraints were important. It was also emphasisedthat the amount of relevant research in Danish was very limited and that

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 59

quite a lot of the research did not have an immediate relevance in relationto change processes. Language was not mentioned as barrier but theexamples given by the directors indicated a lack of familiarity with researchjournal in the field.

It is important to emphasise that the attitudes to EBLIP and research-based innovation and change were rather positive; indeed, some of thedirectors also mentioned that the evidence-based approach could bebeneficial in relation to a documentation process. However, the mainresults from the research indicated that public library directors had not felt areal need for taking up this approach in a systematic way. This is inconformance with the earlier study mentioned above indicating that librariestakes management tools on when they are forced through institutionalrequirements to do it or if they can profile their institutions by adopting newand fashionable tools.

Finally, it ought to be mentioned that there exist minor indications thatEPLIP is becoming better known in the sector. In 2009 and 2010, the RoyalSchool of Library and Information Science offered a one-day workshop onEBLIP to the profession. Both years, the workshop had to be cancelled dueto a very limited number of registrations. The number of registrations wasless than 10. In 2011, it was possible to run the workshop with 40registrations. It is, of course, a very weak indicator of a growing interest.The main conclusion is that it is very difficult to imagine that public librariesto a greater extant will employ an evidence-based practice unless the librarydirectors actively participate in the process. Their participation in theprocess is dependent on their perception of merits and demerits of a tool inan organisational context.

3.2.6. Transformations and Interpretations of EBLIP in Europe

In the section on the institutional approach, it was emphasised that many ofthe concepts and ideals of this tradition were useful to describe and analysethe migration or rather the slow migration of EBLIP thinking and practiceinto the library sector. Whereas sociological surveys on fashionablemanagement ideas such as Total Quality Management (TQM), New PublicManagement (NPM) and service management, knowledge management andothers have focused on the way the concepts have been adopted — adistinction here is made between a ceremonial adoption often decoupledfrom the ongoing activities and day-to-day practices of the organisation(Nordentoft, 2010). The specific problems concerning libraries are why thespread of EBLIP has been so slow compared to other sectors such as health,social work and education. Probably, a part of the explanation lies in theself-increasing effect of slow and weak impact.

60 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

You might say that ideas not only flow widely because they are powerful,but rather that ideas become powerful as they circulate (Nordentoft, 2010).Also elements such as perceived appropriateness and fashion might play asignificant role. When adopting new ideas organisations often reason asfollows: Who am I? What situation is this? and What does an organisationsuch as this, do in a situation such as this? (Nordentoft, 2010). Suchmechanisms certainly explain why public libraries considering themselves tobe soft actors embedded in a cultural setting have been particularly reluctantto adopt EBLIP ideas and practices. However, this reluctance could alsolead to adoption since the nature of fashion following through adoption ofnew ideas and practices is contradictory driven by both the need fordifferentiation and the need for conformity with expectations and practicesof others. The interpretation by library sector actors of basic evidence-movement principles has revealed the following.

On the methodological level rigorous quantitative ideals have beentransformed into softer, sometimes even qualitative methodological norms.The typology of evidence has certainly been preferred compared to the morerigorous hierarchy of evidence. Finally, it seems as if the idea of systematicreviews based on thorough and time-consuming procedures and activitieshas been translated into less ambitious literature searches, although,prominent EBLIP proponents recommend a methodology, containing sixstages including appraisal and evaluation of retrieved literature searchresults (Booth & Brice, 2004a, pp. 61–143).

3.3. Conclusions

We will now return to our research questions and use them as a startingpoint for tentative conclusions and perspectives. What characterisesScandinavian institutional approach and understanding of adoption oforganisational ideals and recipes? The particular Scandinavian approach ischaracterised by its richness of relevant question opening up for researchand reflection focusing on adopting organisations and adoption processes,including processes such as imitation and translation and topics such asdrivers for adopting new ideas as concepts concerning the supply andtransfer of ideas, travel routes and organisational recipes. Applied onto thelibrary sector not only the importance of concepts like identity and fields butalso elements such as fashion and fashion-following seem appropriate tounderstand the spread or lack of spread of EBLIP and resistances towardsthe ideas of evidence-based practice.

What characterises and explains the variety and complexity of theadoption of EBLIP in the library sector? The variety of knowledge,

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 61

attitudes, and actions with the library sector has more than one dimension.First, it is obvious that the reception of EBLIP-inspired ideas and practicesamong academic libraries, in general, has been more enthusiastic and whole-hearted than among public libraries. An obvious explanation for thisdifference is certainly associated with the basic functions of the two librarytypes. Academic libraries, here, produce services for more science-orientedcommunities than public libraries.

However, also among the academic libraries there are differences as toenthusiasm towards EBLIP. Medicine libraries, here, belong to the mostdevoted followers. This trend is obviously associated with the relativelystrong position of evidence-based practice within the health sector. Finally,some differences might be caused by incidental circumstances associatedwith contacts and network. Finally, it is important to mention that EBLIPin libraries in one respect differs from the evidence-movement in larger,societal sectors such as health, social work and education by the lack ofspecialised, evidence-producing institutions providing systematic reviewson central and hot topics within the different sectors. This difference iscertainly associated with the relative size of the sectors. Anyway, we thinkthat it is important that this problem is also addressed by the librarysector.

What characterises and explains the national differences as to EBLIPadoption in different countries? The research indicates that there aredifferences related to national cultures. Hofstede’s conceptualisation ofthese differences indicates that there exist broad correlations between thedominant value systems in a country and its adoption and interpretation ofideas and management tools like EBLIP or EBP. These differences can atleast partly explain the success or lack of success in relation to tools fordecision-making. However, the broad correlations cannot explain alldifferences. For example, the differences found and outlined in theScandinavian countries appear to come from a specific configuration ofthe field of organisations and institutions in the library and informationfield. The Scandinavian prominence of Sweden in relation to EBLIP is theeffect of a Library Association, a few research libraries with staff membersworking intensely on the subject and the personal and institutionalisednetwork build up around conferences.

What is the role and importance of information culture as to EBLIPadoption? The very different adoption and knowledge about the topic foundbetween academic libraries and public libraries are probably connected tothe perception of the value of research as part of decision-making processes,but it is also related to the institutional cooperation between researchers andlibrary staff. An important element in this configuration is the perceptionand interpretation of the objectives of the profession. A pertinent questionis to which degree the members of a profession consider themselves and

62 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

their work based on experiences and routines or considers themselvesas an academic and more theoretical oriented profession. These perceptionsare embedded in the definitions of information culture and at least some ofthe differences between types of libraries can be explained — tentatively —by the way members of the profession access and use research literature.There are clear indications of the fact that public librarians and leadersin the public libraries have a rather relaxed attitude towards researchliterature.

What is the role and importance of leadership as to EBLIP adoption inthe library sector? There is no principal resistance to EBLIP among leadersor directors in libraries, but it is also evident that the knowledge levelabout EBLIP is low and that the introduction of it in decision-makingprocesses have to be connected to institutional imperatives or requirementscoming from outside the library. It is probably also worth to mention thatEBLIP as a movement or a travelling recipe has failed to produce successstories that demonstrates beneficial effects of an introduction and use.What characterises and explains the different transformations andinterpretations of EBLIP in European librarianship? Although, the Englishand American pioneers of EBLIP have emphasised its relationship topractices and understandings within the health sector a number oftransformations and interpretations have taken place. Among the mostimportant, we would mention the, obviously, dominating interpretationthat the library sector can do without evidence-producing (systematicreview) producing organisation. Rather, EBLIP is thought as an integratedpart of the information professionals’ daily work. In this article and earlierworks on the topic, we have chosen to distinguish between hard and softevidence where the former refers to the production of systematic reviewsand the work of specialised, international evidence-producing institutionsand networks (e.g. Cochrane and Campbell) and the latter characterises anapproach where EBLIP, primarily, is understood as a task for practicinglibrarians.

Another characteristic trait concerns the ongoing, more general,methodological debate and dispute between supporters of the rigorous‘evidence hierarchy’ and the more flexible ‘evidence typology’. Here, it isobvious that the prevailing library sector interpretation favour thinking interms of the typology. One reason might be the lack of surveys on thehighest levels of the hierarchy, especially RCT (Randomised ControlledTests), within the library literature. Another might be an interpretationemphasising the differences between the contexts and situations in the healthand the library sector. In many situations, it is either meaningless orimpossible or both to apply RCT methodologies on library sector situationsand contexts.

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 63

Finally, there are a number of examples within the library sector whereclassic evidence concepts have been interpreted and translated to makesense and understanding in library contexts. In both Norway and Swedenthe termed ‘knowledge-based’ has been used instead of evidence-basedsince it was believed that the term evidence-based was likely to createwrong and hostile attitudes and resistance especially among publiclibrarians. Finally, it should be mentioned the missing ‘burning platform’,for example in terms of outside pressure, unlike the health sector wherethe internet has increased the search for medical evidence by ordinary,non-professional people. Among common library users there don’t seemyet to have been a demand for library research and evidence-based librarypractices.

References

Block, L. (2003). The leadership–culture connection: An exploratory investigation.

Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24(6), 318–334.

Booth, A. (2004). Formulating answerable questions. In A. Booth & A. Brice (Eds.),

Evidence-based practice for information professionals: A handbook (pp. 61–70).

London: Facet Publishing.

Booth, A., & Brice, A. (Eds.). (2004a). Evidence-based practice for information

professionals: A handbook. London: Facet Publishing.

Booth, A., & Brice, A. (2004b). Why evidence-based information practice? In

A. Booth & A. Brice (Eds.), Evidence-based practice for information professionals:

A handbook (pp. 1–12). London: Facet Publishing.

Brice, A., & Hill, A. (2004). A brief history of evidence-based practice. In A. Booth &

A. Brice (Eds.), Evidence-based practice for information professionals: A handbook

(pp. 13–23). London: Facet Publishing.

Brown, F. W., & Dodd, N. G. (1998). Utilizing organizational culture gap analysis to

determine human resource development needs. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 19(7), 374–385.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational

culture: Based on the competing values framework. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Choo, C. W., Furness, C., Paquette, S., van den Berg, H., Detlor, B., Bergeron, P., &

Heaton, L. (2006). Working with information: Information management and

culture in a professional services organisation. Journal of Information Science,

32(6), 491–510.

Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., Bergeron, P., & Heaton, L. (2008). Information culture and

information use: An exploratory study of three organizations. Journal of the

American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 792–804.

Curry, A., & Moore, C. (2003). Assessing information culture: An exploratory

model. International Journal of Information Management, 23, 91–110.

64 Carl Gustav Johannsen and Niels Ole Pors

Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska&G. Sevœn

(Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

DeclOve, G. (2011). Evidence-based library and information practice: Bridging the

language barrier. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and

Libraries, 7(1), 12–17.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organisations: Software of the mind. London:

McGraw-Hill.

Johannsen, C. G. (2011). Evidensbevægelsens spredning til biblioteker i Danmark,

Norge og Sverige [The Spread of the evidence-movement in Denmark, Norway,

and Sweden]. Dansk Biblioteksforskning, 6(2/3), 83–88.

Kaarst-Brown, M. L., Nicholson, S., von Dran, G. M., & Stanton, J. M. (2004).

Organizational cultures of libraries as a strategic resource. Library Trends, 53(1),

33–54.

Kekle, T. (1995). A mismatch of cultures: A pitfall of implementing a total quality

approach. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 12(9),

210–220.

Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (1999). The relationship between commitment and

organizational culture, subculture, leadership style and job satisfaction in organi-

zational change and development. Leadership & Organizational Development

Journal, 20(7), 365–373.

Maggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism

and collective rationality in organizational fields. In I. W. Powell & P. DiMaggio

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Mathews, B. P., & Ueno, A. (2001). European quality management practices:

The impact of national culture. International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management, 18(7), 692–707.

Nordentoft, C. (2010). Evidens og kreativitet [Evidence and creativity]. Dansk

Biblioteksforskning, 6(2/3), 49–65.

Oliver, G. (2008). Information culture: Exploration of differing values and attitudes

to information in organisations. Journal of Documentation, 64(3), 363–365.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A

practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Pors, N. O. (2007). Strategi, værdi og kvalitet 1&2 [Strategy, value and quality].

København: DanmarksBiblioteksforeningsforlag.

Pors, N. O. (2008). Management tools, organisational culture and leadership: An

explorative study. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 9(2), 138–152.

Pors, NO, Dixon, P., & Robson, H. (2004). The employment of quality measures in

libraries: Cultural differences, institutional imperatives and managerial profiles.

Performance Measurement and Metrics, 5(1), 20–27.

Røvik,K.A. (1996).Deinstitutionalization and the logic of fashion. InB.Czarniawska

& G. Sevœn (Eds.), Translating organizational change (pp. 139–172). Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter.

Røvik, K. A. (1998). Moderne Organisasjoner: Trender i Organisasjonstenkningen ved

TusenIrsskiftet [Modern Organisations: Trends in Organisational Theory by the

Turn of the Century]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

EBLIP and Organisational Recipes 65

Røvik, K. A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner – Idder som former det 21. Irhundrets

organisasjon [Trends and translations – Ideas that constitute organisation in the 21

century]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Sahlin, K., & Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing.

In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook

of organizational intuitionalism. (pp. 218–242). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Organizational culture and leadership.

Travica, B. (2008). Influence of information culture on adoption of a self-service

system. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 3,

1–15.