1. Research literature and its perceived relevance to university librarians Dr Bob Pymm Dr Philip Hider School of Information Studies

2. Research and its application Role of research fundamental to development of a profession ALIA - underpins improvement of professional practice Difficulty of linking university-based research to practitioner’s world Concern over this ‘gap’ a subject of research over many years in LIS

3. Research and its application (cont.) Rayward - “difficulty of getting work read or assimilated” Maguire – “a lack of respect between the two” Van House “practitioners criticise research as irrelevant; researchers criticise practitioners for their lack of interest”

4. Research and other disciplines Psychology – concern over transfer of learning from journals into practice – should be a circular process Education – problem of narrowing the gap between research and practice Marketing – the research/ practice relationship a cause for concern

5. Recent LIS research Haddow and Klobas – 11 factors or gaps behind these barriers to communication These included: –Knowledge: lack of communication –Culture: different types of work –Motivation: lack of interest –Relevance: different needs and problems

6. Haddow and Klobas Continued –Immediacy: timeliness –Publication: little published by practitioners –Reading: separate literatures –Terminology: terminology not understood –Activity: few practitioners undertake research –Education: for practitioners in research –Temporal: practitioners lack time to read or do

7. Relevance and terminology Selected as two major factors Relevance –Perceived usefulness to practitioners –High value placed on research that can be applied to daily activities –A major reason for not reading research- based articles

8. Relevance and terminology (cont.) Terminology –Academic language and style –Briefer literature reviews –Presentation – excessive tables, stats etc –Need for clear, simple, concise prose

9. Research questions The range of LIS journals read by senior university library staff The extent to which such staff could clearly understand articles from top ranking LIS journals The extent to which such articles provided information that could be translated into positive actions in the broader LIS environment The stimulus such articles provided to thinking broadly about LIS practice

10. Methodology Paper questionnaire evaluating five abstracts randomly selected from 2006 top 25 LIS journals Limitation of abstracts vs full article Against nine criteria Also questioned re professional reading Sent to senior Library staff (top 5, 8 or 10) in 31 university libraries

12. Top 10 read journals AARL62 ALJ53 Jnl Academic Lib53 College & Research Libs39 Library Trends31 Library Quarterly21 First Monday16 Jnl Librarianship and Info Science15 Interlending and Document Supply13 Jnl of Information Science10

13. Relevance and terminology questions

14. Questions 5-9

15. Findings Level of professional reading wide ranging –only 12 of 91 reported no access High level of understanding of abstracts – only 10% unintelligible Generally, relevance was good - 68% reported moderate or significant relevance to profession

16. Findings (cont.) 55% reported moderate or significant relevance to academic libs But over 70% reported they would not, or was only a slight chance, of following up full article And only 26% reported they were moderately or significantly likely to consider the potential of this research to their own workplace

17. Conclusions Majority of abstracts were clearly understandable and described the purpose of the research well Most research was relevant to the broad LIS profession The relevance and terminology gap not significant Support for brief research reports in journals Issue of practitioners putting into practice Cooperative research should be highly possible