Relating Research and Practice in Information Literacy

Relating Research and Practice in

Information Literacy

Sheila Webber (University of Sheffield), Ola Pilerot

(University of Borås), Louise Limberg (University of

Borås), Bill Johnston (Strathclyde University)

ECIL

Dubrovnik

October

2014

Structure

• Introduction

• Sheila Webber

• Ola Pilerot

• Louise Limberg

• Bill Johnston

• Continuing the conversation with you!

Introduction • IL research is a developing field: issue of how is it

developing, where does it fit

• Critical mass of practitioners seem to agree

research is necessary

• Perceived “gap” between library practitioners & LIS

researchers predates IL research i.e. background of

LIS research not being seen (by librarians) as

sufficient to needs of librarians

• Ambiguous relationship between librarians and LIS

academics in some countries

What we talk about when we talk

about the IL research agenda

Sheila Webber

(Information

School,

University of

Sheffield)

Scope of my contribution • Examined selected articles and conference papers

explicitly talking about the IL research agenda/priorities

• Identifying the context in which the authors are placing

their discussion of research agenda/ priorities; how

they position it, introduce it etc.

• May help to explain differences in the actual priorities /

agenda proposed (the latter will only be dealt with

briefly here)

• Contributes to the scene setting of subsequent panel

presentations

• Is connected to question of “Why do research in IL”

• Examined selected articles and conference papers

explicitly talking about the IL research

agenda/priorities

• Researchers: Lloyd and Bruce (2011); Lloyd and

Williamson (2008); Partridge et al. (2008); Sundin

(2011)

• Librarians/ professional organisations; ACRL (2011);

Gibson and Jacobson (2014); Starr (2012)

• Contrasting 2 perspectives

• Exclusions and limitations of the study

Researchers

• Talk about the meaning of IL itself; their own stance

on what IL is about, and the meaning of IL as a

subject of research

• IL as not just the territory of librarians

• Positioning themselves

– theoretically or philosophically

– methodologically

– in terms of what populations investigated

– in terms of what research questions pursued

Researchers

• Position themselves and proposed agenda/priorities

in relation to:

– researchers in IL, in other LIS fields, or in “LIS” generally

– researchers in other disciplines

– the timeline/development of IL as a field

• Talk about discussion/collaboration in context of

specifying, conducting, disseminating research

• Conditions for research (e.g. funding, how you

develop a research agenda)

Librarians/ library organisations

• These 3 articles are all focused on teaching IL in

higher education

• They position the proposed agenda/priorities as a

reaction to changes in learners’ behaviour and in

the environment (e.g. “instruction environment”

(ACRL, 2011); technology changes) i.e. IL and its

research agenda need to change because the

learners & their environment has changed

• Methodologies not discussed in depth

Librarians/ library organisations

• Do not propose IL itself as object of study: in ACRL

(understandably) and in Starr (2012) nature of IL

also not discussed.

• Related to previous research mainly by identifying

deficiencies of previous research e.g. lack of

generalisable evidence (exception PIL)

• “Context” as limitation or problem rather than a focus

for research

• Discussion and collaboration focused on faculty &

other institutional groups, mainly to improve practice

• Researchers establishing the field: positioning,

laying foundations, testing and expanding

boundaries,

“here we are still working at exploring/ investigating

/ uncovering the phenomenon” (Partridge et al,

2008)

• Main emphases in librarians’ agendas: improving

practice, testing and developing IL frameworks,

getting quantified evidence that what they do is

valuable and works - working towards a robust

scalable framework for teaching IL

Connections between research

and practice in the IL narrative

a mapping of the literature

Ola Pilerot, PhD, Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås

The IL narrative

• Opinions, best practice, debate, policies and

guidlines, research findings etc

• Articles, reports, blogs, conference presentations,

book chapters and books etc

“Information Literacy” on three levels

• A “label” describing a field of research or a

narrative on IL

• An empirical concept used for capturing

information seeking and use activities

• An analytical/theoretical concept used as a tool

for analyzing or theorizing a phenomenon (e.g.

information seeking and use activities)

Three strands in the IL narrative

1. “[T]he information literacy movement” (e.g., Garner, 2006) is

manifested in the broadest of these strands: texts written by

practitioners, predominantly librarians at universities and other

educational institutions, who (often) give evidence of best practice

2. Policy-making texts that explicitly stress the importance of all

people becoming information literate, e.g. documents published or

supported by organizations such as IFLA and UNESCO

3. A growing body of empirically and theoretically grounded research

texts produced at university departments within the fields of

educational science and library and information science

Pilerot & Lindberg, 2011

Different goals

Professional practice Policy-making Research

”The information literacy movement”

IL as a goal for educational activities

IL as goal and means for politics

IL as a study object

e.g. ACRL e.g. UNESCO, IFLA e.g. The International Information Literacies Research Network


Conceptualizations and understandings

of IL Professional practice/Policy-making Research

• Normatively prescribed • A rather fixed set of generic skills • Predominantly cognitive, emphasizing

critical thinking • Primarily related to digital and textual

sources • An individual and measurable

competence • Transferable across practices

• Analytically described • Situated, related to contexts • Social, discursive, corporeal (and

cognitive) • Related to a manifold of sources • A social, collective competence

embedded in practices • Variational according to situations,

activities, and practices


Interconnections between strands

• For example, manifest intertextual elements

(Fairclough, 1992, p. 84) such as references linking

together documents

• Example

Web of Science (WoS) literature referred to by IL researchers (n=1000)

The total of 389 references from two recent volumes published by UNESCO

The total of 452 references from two recent books authored by librarians

Database: Social Sciences Citation Index + Arts & Humanities Citation Index Time span: all years Subject area: Information Science & Library Science Search term: “information literacy” as Topic = 1081 records (in 69 journals) All the references (n=21233) cited in the 1081 records The 1000 most cited out of the above

Conceptual relationship of information literacy and media literacy in knowledge societies: Series of research papers (2013) UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://tinyurl.com/nks6bku

+ Media and information literacy: Policy and strategy (2013) UNESCO. Retrieved from: http://fr.unesco.org/node/183761

Noe, N.W. (2013). Creating and maintaining an information literacy instruction program in the Twenty-First century: an ever-changing landscape. Oxford: Chandos.

+ Mackey & Jacobson (2014). Metaliteracy: Reinventing information literacy to empower learners. London: Facet Publishing

Are they interconnected?

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Sample of IL records inWoS (n=1000)

2 recent volumes fromUNESCO (2013)

(n=389)

Noe (2013) andMackey & Jacobson

(2013) (n=452)

UNESCO in WoS (n=37) Noe and Mackey &Jacobson in WoS

(n=48)

Noe and Mackey &Jacobson in UNESCO

(n=29)

# Journal Records Percent

1 JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 146 13,5

2 PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY 72 6,7

3 COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 71 6,6

4 INFORMATION RESEARCH 51 4,7

5 JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 47 4,3

6 ELECTRONIC LIBRARY 46 4,3

7 LIBRARY TRENDS 44 4,1

8 LIBRI 43 4,0

9 REFERENCE & USER SERVICES QUARTERLY 42 3,9

10 JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 39 3,6

11 HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL 36 3,3

12 LIBRARY & INFORMATION SCIENCE RESEARCH 35 3,2

13 PROGRAM-ELECTRONIC LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS 32 3,0

14 AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY JOURNAL 31 2,9

15 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION AND LIBRARY SCIENCE 26 2,4

16 ASLIB PROCEEDINGS 24 2,2

17 AUSTRALIAN ACADEMIC & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 22 2,0

18 LIBRARY HI TECH 21 1,9

19 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE

AND TECHNOLOGY

20 1,9

20 LIBRARY JOURNAL 17 1,9


1 JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 12 6,9

2 COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 11 6,3

3 REFERENCE SERVICES REVIEW 9 5,2

4 COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES NEWS 7 4,0

5 JOURNAL OF INFORMATION LITERACY 6 3,4

COMMUNICATIONS IN INFORMATION LITERACY 6 3,4

6 COLLEGE & UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARIES 5 2,8

7 PUBLIC SERVICES QUARTERLY 4 2,3

JOURNAL OF LIBRARY ADMINISTRATION 4 2,3

PORTAL-LIBRARIES AND THE ACADEMY 4 2,3

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 4 2,3

8 COMMUNITY & JUNIOR COLLEGE LIBRARIES 3 1,7

CHANGE: THE MAGAZINE OF HIGHER LEARNING 3 1,7

9 COMPUTERS & EDUCATION 2 1,1

REFERENCE & USER SERVICES QUARTERLY 2 1,1

RESEARCH STRATEGIES 2 1,1

COMPUTERS IN LIBRARIES 2 1,1

LIBRARY JOURNAL 2 1,1

REFERENCE LIBRARIAN 2 1,1

LIBRARY REVIEW 2 1,1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 2 1,1

COLORADO LIBRARIES 2 1,1

EDUCAUSE REVIEW 2 1,1


1 JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION 4 4,4

2 JOURNAL OF DOCUMENTATION 3 3,3

JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 3 3,3

COMUNICAR 3 3,3

3 FIRST MONDAY 2 2,2

INFORMATION RESEARCH 2 2,2

COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES 2 2,2

COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES NEWS 2 2,2

INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION & LIBRARY REVIEW 2 2,2

MEDIA, CULTURE & SOCIETY 2 2,2

NTI 2 2,2

ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY 2 2,2

HARVARD EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 2 2,2

Journals in the UNESCO volumes referred to two or more times

Journals in Noe and Mackey and Jacobson referred to two or more times

The 20 most frequently used journals in the IL research literature

www.lincs.gu.se

CHALLENGING THE DISCOURSE OF THE

RESEARCH ‒ PRACTICE GAP

RELATING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE IN IL

Louise Limberg SSLIS

Limberg, ECIL panel, Oct. 2014

www.lincs.gu.se

PREVIOUS RESEARCH


•Nature of and reasons for the gap

–lack of relevance

–lack of interest

–lack of mediational means (e.g. journals)

–too theoretical

BUT

• common interests

• school librarianship different from other LIS areas, more active in using research in and for practice

www.lincs.gu.se

PROPOSED REMEDIES TO THE GAP


• increase practitioners’ involvement in research

• improve the dissemination of research to practice

• add in-depth discussions in research papers on implications for practice

• evidence based librarianship (EBLIP)

• apply research approaches relevant for practice

Need for further empirical research on relationship between research and practice (e.g. DReaM; Roberts et al. 2013)

www.lincs.gu.se

IN SUPPORT OF SCHOOL LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT – STRUCTURE AND DESIGN


• SSLIS programme designed to support local school (library) development projects

• Schools’ local development projects aimed at improving teaching and learning of language and literacies

• Participating schools had chosen school libraries as important tools for reaching this aim (cf. above)

• Programme participants in teams of 4-5 people

www.lincs.gu.se

AIM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS


To present and discuss findings from professional development programme targeted at putting research into practice in school librarianship

1) What activities of putting research into practice happened?

2) How can the findings be interpreted in relation to previous research on the research-practice gap in LIS?

3) What meanings were constructed with regard to putting research into professional practice?

www.lincs.gu.se

FINDINGS: WAYS OF USING RESEARCH


1) to design and carry out a project

2) to develop teaching methods

3) to create a common understanding within the team or school

4) to inspire further activities aimed at school library development

5) for professional development

6) to conduct research

www.lincs.gu.se

FEATURES OF FINDINGS


• concrete, hands-on view of using research

• strong focus on the mediation of research via using and producing texts

• interaction between different communities of professional practice for reshaping common school practice

• putting research into practice emerged as the appropriation of purposeful tools for acting in a community of practice

www.lincs.gu.se

IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH

∑ strong and varied interest in putting research into professional practice. Interest shared by practitioners and researchers/SSLIS team

Practioners expressed demand for

–knowing about research,

–analysing potential relevance of certain research,

– in-depth discussions about implications for practice,

– suggestions about how to use findings


www.lincs.gu.se

CONCLUDING REMARKS


• The relationship between research and practice needs to be revisited for a more solid and nuanced knowledge base

• Professional development programme = purposeful tool for mediating ways of putting research into practice

• Future programmes should be directed at the object of learning as ”knowing how to use research in professional practice for library development”

Building Capacity

Bill Johnston

(University of Strathclyde)

Capacity Building by ….

1. Research on teaching & learning.

2. Practical Educational Development: staff support & organizational change.

3. International and European Collaborations.

Asking Big Questions:

what are universities for?

Research:

teaching & learning Research traditions

• Phenomenography

• Social Constructivism

• Transformational

learning

• Threshold Concepts

Applications

• Active,collaborative,

inquiry-based methods

• Blended learning

landscapes

• Whole year & whole

course re-design

• ACRL revision

Educational Development in

Practice:

Staff support

• Research infused Post

Graduate Certificates.

• Course re-design teams.

• Role expansion -

lecturer/tutor as designer

• Research collaborations

Organizational change

• Structures/leaders

• External quality assessment

• Bologna process

• Planning/funding

• Decisions/evaluation

• Career trajectories

• Research/teaching

dynamics

International & European

Collaborations • Identify a big, fundable

topic

• Adopt a research-based design

• Break it down and divide the labour

• Create thematic working groups

• Keep it simple and efficient

• Where are the funding sources?

• Who is currently research active?

• Where are the centres / units?

• How would findings be disseminated?

• Can we leverage the ECIL network?

Continuing the conversation with

you!

• Can we leverage the ECIL network?

• Would a project on relating research and

practice be a suitable topic?

• Discuss with your neighbours

Sheila Webber

Information School

University of Sheffield, UK

[email protected]

Twitter & SL: Sheila Yoshikawa http://information-literacy.blogspot.com/

http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/

Orcid ID 0000-0002-2280-9519

Dr Ola Pilerot

Swedish School of Library

and Information Science,

University of Borås,

Sweden

[email protected]

Bill Johnston

Honorary Research Fellow

University of Strathclyde

Glasgow, Scotland

[email protected]

Professor Louise Limberg

Swedish School of Library

and Information Science,

University of Borås, Sweden

[email protected]

References 1 • Association of College and Research Libraries IS Research and Scholarship Committee.

(2011). Research agenda for library instruction and information literacy. (Rev. ed.) Chicago, Il:

ACRL.

http://www.ala.org/acrl/aboutacrl/directoryofleadership/sections/is/iswebsite/projpubs/research

agendalibrary

• Booth, A. (2003). Bridging the Research-Practice Gap? The Role of Evidence Based

Librarianship. New review of information and library research, 9(1), 3-23.

• Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin.

• Entwistle, N. and Tomlinson, P. (Eds.), Student learning and university teaching. Leicester,

England: British Psychological Society.

• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

• Garner, S. D. (Ed.). (2006). High-level colloquium on information literacy and lifelong learning.

Report of the meeting in Bibliotheca Alexandrina, November 6-9, 2005.

http://archive.ifla.org/III/wsis/High-Level-Colloquium.pdf

• Gibson, C. and Jacobson, T. (2014) Informing and extending the draft ACRL Information

Literacy Framework for Higher Education: an overview and avenues for research. College and

research libraries, 75 (3), 250-254.

• Haddow, G. & Klobas, J.E. (2004). Communication of research to practice in library and

information science: Closing the gap. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 29-43.

• Hall, H., Irving, C. & Cruickshank (2012). Improving access to Library and Information Science

research: maximising its relevance and impact to practitioners. Business Information Review,

29 (4), 224-230.

• Julien, H. & Williamson, K. (2010). Discourse and practice in information literacy and

information seeking: gaps and opportunities. Information Research, 16(1), paper 458.

http://www.informationr.net/ir/16-1/paper458.html

• Klobas, J. E. & Clyde, L. A. (2010). Beliefs, attitudes and perceptions about research and

practice in a professional field. Library & Information Science Research, 32, 237-245.

• Limberg, L. (2010). Information Literacies at the intersection between information seeking and

learning: contexts and values. In Information Literacies Research Network Seminar: COLIS

2010 Conference: London. Boras: University of Boras. Retrieved March 5, 2014 from

http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/6536/1/ILRS_2010_Louise_Limberg_introductory_paper.pdf

• Limberg, L. & Sundin, O. (2006). Teaching information seeking: relating information literacy

education to theories of information behaviour. Information Research, 12(1), paper 280.

http://www.informationr.net/ir/12-1/paper280.html

• Lloyd, A. & Bruce, C.S. (2011). State of the art and future challenges for information literacy

research. In Social Media and Information Practices Workshop, 10-11 November 2011,

University of Borås, Sweden. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47207/2/47207.pdf

• Lloyd, A. and Williamson, K. (2008). Towards and understanding of information literacy in

context. Journal of librarianship and information science, 40(1), 3-12.

• McKechnie, L., Julien, H., & Oliphant, T. (2008). Communicating research findings to library

and information science practitioners: A study of ISIC papers from 1996 to 2000. Information

Research. 13(4). http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper375.html

• McNicol, S. & Dalton, P. (2004). Striking a balance: priorities for research in LIS. Library

Review, 53(3), 167-176.

• Partridge, H., Bruce, C. and Tilley, C. (2008) Community information literacy: developing an

Australian research agenda. Libri, 58, 110-122.

• Pilerot (in press). Connections between research and practice in the information literacy

narrative: a mapping of the literature and some propositions. Journal of Librarianship and

Information Science.

• Pilerot, O. & Lindberg, J. (2011). The concept of information literacy in policy-making texts: an

imperialistic project? Library Trends, 60(2), 338-360.

• Powell, R. R., Baker, L. M. & Mika, J. J. (2002). Library and information science practitioners

and research. Library & Information Science Research, 24, 49-72.

• Roberts, A., Madden, A.D. & Corrall, S. (2013). Putting Research into Practice. Library Trends,

61 (3), 479-512.

• Starr, S. (2012). Editorial: Improving instruction in medical libraries: the research agenda.

Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(4), 236-238

• Sundin, O. (2011) From the periphery to the centre: some aspects regarding the future of

information literacy research. In Social Media and Information Practices Workshop, 10-11

November 2011, University of Borås, Sweden.

• Webber, S. (2007). Information literacy research map.

http://www.slideshare.net/sheilawebber/map-of-information-literacy-research