Library And Information Science Academics Research Articles

Supported Australian LIS Practitioners are Confident LIS Practitioner Researchers: Insights from a National Survey

ABSTRACT This paper presents findings from a survey of 291 Australian library and information science (LIS) practitioners, examining their research capacity by identifying attitudes towards, and experiences of research activities, including support needs and barriers. This study found that supported LIS practitioners will be confident LIS practitioner-researchers. Findings reveal that in addition to fostering research skills and knowledge strategies to build LIS practitioners’ research capacity, the profession must acknowledge and address the feelings that underlie resistance to research. In addition, before mentoring can be used as a meaningful research support mechanism, LIS practitioners need to first develop confidence that their experiences are sufficient to provide support to others and receive training in research methods to bridge the gap between research as service, and research as partnership. LIS academics, with their expertise in research, are well placed to take an active role in collaboration with LIS practitioners to provide research training and mentoring. For LIS practitioner-researchers’ potential to be realised, developmental interventions need to be addressed within LIS institutions. As a supportive research culture within a workplace is enhanced, mistrust in research and anxiety about research practices will diminish, and practitioners will build their identities as practitioner-researchers.

Google Scholar Citation metrics of Pakistani LIS scholars: an overview

Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the use of Google Scholar Citations’ profiling platform by library and information science (LIS) scholars in Pakistan. Design/methodology/approach Purposive sampling was used to collect Google Scholar Citations profiles between 15 November 2017 and 31 January 2018. Resultant data were analyzed in SPSS Version 21. Findings In terms of demographical data, the study results were consistent with previous studies of Pakistani LIS scholars. There were strong correlations between Google Scholar Citations metrics (publications, citations, h-index and i10-index). The results indicate that, compared with a 2011 survey of LIS academics in Pakistan, the overall uptake for this cohort remains relatively low. This cohort is not maximizing the opportunity provided by this specific online profiling system to increase research visibility. Research limitations/implications As the study was limited to those Pakistani LIS scholars who already had a profile on ResearchGate, it would be useful to broaden the research to encompass all Pakistani LIS scholars. Practical implications The role of the librarian as an adviser in scholarly communication and impact can be extended to support scholars in the adoption of new online platforms for scholarly communication and visibility. Originality/value There have been no published research studies on Google Scholar Citations metrics in the context of Pakistani LIS scholars as a whole.

LIS Practitioner-focused Research Trends Toward Open Access Journals, Academic-focused Research Toward Traditional Journals

A Review of:
 Chang, Y-W. (2017). Comparative study of characteristics of authors between open access and non-open access journals in library and information science. Library & Information Science Research, 39(1), 8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2017.01.002
 
 Abstract 
 Objective – To examine the occupational characteristics and publication habits of library and information science (LIS) authors regarding traditional journals and open access journals.
 Design – Content analysis.
 Setting – English language research articles published in open access (OA) journals and non-open access (non-OA) journals from 2008 to 2013 that are indexed in LIS databases.
 Subjects – The authorship characteristics for 3,472 peer-reviewed articles.
 Methods – This researcher identified 33 total journals meeting the inclusion criteria by using the LIS categories within 2012 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to find 13 appropriate non-OA journals, and within the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) to identify 20 appropriate OA journals. They found 1,665 articles by 3,186 authors published in the non-OA journals, and another 1,807 articles by 3,446 authors within the OA journals.
 The researcher used author affiliation to determine article authors’ occupations using information included in the articles themselves or by looking for information on the Internet, and excluded articles when occupational information could not be located. Authors were categorized into four occupational categories: Librarians (practitioners), Academics (faculty and researchers), Students (graduate or undergraduate), and Others. Using these categories, the author identified 10 different types of collaborations for co-authored articles.
 Main Results – This research involves three primary research questions. The first examined the occupational differences between authors publishing in OA journals versus non-OA journals. Academics (faculty and researchers) more commonly published in non-OA journals (58.1%) compared to OA journals (35.6%). The inverse was true for librarian practitioners, who were more likely to publish in OA journals (53.9%) compared to non-OA journals (25.5%). Student authors, a combined category that included both graduate and undergraduate students, published more in non-OA journals (10.1%) versus in OA journals (5.0%). The final category of “other” saw only a slight difference between non-OA (6.3%) and OA (5.5%) publication venues.
 This second research question explored the difference in the proportion of LIS authors who published in OA and non-OA journals. Overall, authors were more likely to publish in OA journals (72.4%) vs. non-OA (64.3%). Librarians tended to be primary authors in OA journals, while LIS academics tend to be primary authors for articles in non-OA publications. Academics from outside the LIS discipline but contributing to the disciplinary literature were more likely to publish in non-OA journals. Regarding trends over time, this research showed a decrease in the percentage of librarian practitioners and “other” authors publishing in OA journals, while academics and students increased their OA contributions rates during the same period. 
 Finally, the research explored whether authors formed different types of collaborations when publishing in OA journals as compared to non-OA journals. When examining co-authorship of articles, just over half of all articles published in OA journals (54.4%) and non-OA journals (53.2%) were co-authored. Overall the researcher identified 10 types of collaborative relationships and examined the rates for publishing in OA versus non-OA journals for these relationships. OA journals saw three main relationships, with high levels of collaborations between practitioner librarians (38.6% of collaborations), between librarians and academics (20.5%), and between academics only (18.0%). Non-OA journals saw four main relationships, with collaborations between academics appearing most often (34.1%), along with academic-student collaborations (21.5%), practitioner librarian collaborations (15.5%), and librarian-academic collaborations (13.2%).
 Conclusion – LIS practitioner-focused research tends to appear more often in open access journals, while academic-focused researcher tends to appear more often in non-OA journals. These trends also appear in research collaborations, with co-authored works involving librarians appearing more often in OA journals, and collaborations that include academics more likely to appear in non-OA journals.

Understanding the document selection rationale of Library and Information Science students

PurposeThe study aims to investigate the document selection rationale of library and information science students to satisfy their academic needs.Design/methodology/approachThe descriptive survey design was used for the study using questionnaire as the data collection instrument. The collected data are analysed by frequency distribution and presented using charts and tables.FindingsThe results of the study reveal the preferences of Library and Information Science (LIS) students and hints what they want from LIS literature. A majority of students prefer books in comparison to journal articles as reading material. The survey revealed a high preference towards books written by authors from national origin than international authors. Similarly, students prefer books published by the national publishers than the international publishers. The findings further suggest that the affiliation of the author is a major factor, as the students prefer books written by authors from central universities more than those written by authors belonging to state universities or authors from industry. Further, students seem to be more impressed with the books written by LIS academics than the books written by practising librarians.Research limitations/implicationsOne limitation of the study is that it was conducted in India, taking the case of LIS students from only two universities. To generalise the impact, similar studies should be replicated by taking a larger sample to gain a complete perspective of LIS students.Practical implicationsThe findings of the study have both theoretical and practical implications. The theoretical understanding of the behaviour of LIS students will help faculty members to understand the selection rationale of students. The practical aspect of this study is that the findings will help the acquisition librarians to take informed decisions in collection building for LIS collection in their libraries.Originality/valueMost of the studies available in LIS literature related to reading preferences, study the general aspects such as frequency of library visit, the favourite place of reading, the purpose of library visit, gender-wise distribution of library visit, and time spent in the library. There are very few studies investigating the document selection rationale of LIS students.

The effects of the research excellence framework research impact agenda on early- and mid-career researchers in library and information science

Early- and mid-career researchers will shape the future of library and information science (LIS) research and it is crucial they be well placed to engage with the research impact agenda. Their understanding of research impact may influence their capacity to be returned to research excellence framework (REF), the UK’s research quality assessment tool, as well as their ability to access research funding. This article reports the findings of a qualitative study exploring how the research impact agenda is influencing early- and mid-career researcher behaviour. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 early- and mid-career researchers. While enthusiastic about creating lasting impact, participants lack effective institutional support to maximise their own research impact. Participants demonstrate uncertainty about what REF impact is. The authors conclude that while there is evidence LIS academics engage with practice to maximise impact, they lack support in building impact and the discipline needs to do more to create opportunities for the academy and the profession to coalesce to identify objects for and deliver impactful research.

The pedagogical challenges of creating information literate librarians

PurposeThis study aims to investigate the challenges of developing information literacy (IL) competencies and approaches to overcome the challenges among library and information science (LIS) students in Iran.Design/methodology/approachTaking an exploratory approach, the study used semi-structured interviews to gather the data. Using the 2000 ACRL standards as a framework, the fieldwork questions were designed around the five areas of IL competencies. A total of 15 academics teaching 18 different LIS courses from six universities were interviewed. They were asked the challenges they faced in teaching these competencies and the approaches they took or suggested in overcoming the challenge(s). A thematic approach was used to analyze the data.FindingsSome of the challenges for students mentioned by the interviewees were ambiguity about the discipline, inability to match subject relevance with appropriate sources of information and lack of familiarity with databases.Research limitations/implicationsThis study is limited to LIS academics; studying students’ reflections can bring broader perspectives to IL education in LIS programs. Owing to the nature of the design of this study, which is a single case study, the teaching experiences of IL are limited to the ones which emerged and were addressed in the context of the case. Although the case selection was made in a way that can be representative of the “general” in the “particular” bounded system of the case (Stake, 1998), studying more cases could certainly have brought broader perspectives to IL which could have been to wider contexts.Originality/valueThe results of this study contribute to our understanding of challenges in teaching IL in the LIS discipline, an area that has not been researched directly. This contributes to IL teaching in disciplinary areas and it brings new perspectives to the elements of IL teaching which emerged from the experiences of people who are directly experienced in the context of the discipline.

LIS Research in India: An Overview

The present paper is an analysis of the growth of library and information science (LIS) research in India. It presents a brief history of the LIS research in India gradually moving up to the present scenario. Along with the review of various studies in this area, an analysis of ‘University News’ and major Indian and a few International LIS journals is done to identify the primary areas of research in LIS, probed by Indian LIS academics and professionals. The author also looks into the issues and difficulties faced by LIS research in India.

Library and Information Science Research Literature is Chiefly Descriptive and Relies Heavily on Survey and Content Analysis Methods

A Review of:
 Aytac, S. & Slutsky, B. (2014). Published librarian research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and perspectives. Collaborative Librarianship, 6(4), 147-159.
 
 Objective – To compare the research articles produced by library and information science (LIS) practitioners, LIS academics, and collaborations between practitioners and academics. 
 
 Design – Content analysis. 
 
 Setting – English-language LIS literature from 2008 through 2012.
 
 Subjects – Research articles published in 13 library and information science journals.
 
 Methods – Using a purposive sample of 769 articles from selected journals, the authors used content analysis to characterize the mix of authorship models, author status (practitioner, academic, or student), topic, research approach and methods, and data analysis techniques used by LIS practitioners and academics. 
 
 Main Results – The authors screened 1,778 articles, 769 (43%) of which were determined to be research articles. Of these, 438 (57%) were written solely by practitioners, 110 (14%) collaboratively by practitioners and academics, 205 (27%) solely by academics, and 16 (2%) by others. The majority of the articles were descriptive (74%) and gathered quantitative data (69%). The range of topics was more varied; the most popular topics were libraries and librarianship (19%), library users/information seeking (13%), medical information/research (13%), and reference services (12%). Pearson’s chi-squared tests detected significant differences in research and statistical approaches by authorship groups. 
 
 Conclusion – Further examination of practitioner research is a worthwhile effort as is establishing new funding to support practitioner and academic collaborations. The use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the results, particularly to international and non-English LIS literature. Future studies could explore motivators for practitioner-academic collaborations as well as the skills necessary for successful collaboration. Additional support for practitioner research could include mentorship for early career librarians to facilitate more rapid maturation of collaborative research skills and increase the methodological quality of published research.

A Political and Economic Climate of Crisis?: Perceptions of the Academe at ALA-Accredited LIS Schools

Academia is an ever-evolving institution. Where once it was viewed as a body primarily charged with educating students, many instances universities now consider research to be their primary raison d’être. This research surveyed library and information science (LIS) faculty members employed at institutions accredited by the American Libraries Association (ALA) in order to discern their views and opinions regarding contemporary academe and the expectations placed upon them. 140 tenured or tenure-track professors responded to an online questionnaire that concerned topics such as perceptions of academia, job duties, and the institutional expectations that were placed upon them. Respondents generally agreed that they were very satisfied with their jobs, even as they raised doubts as to the manner in which they were evaluated. In addition, the responding faculty members indicated that they were generally highly motivated to perform research, despite reports of changing and increasing pressures on higher education, generally, and LIS education, specifically. The results can be used to inform the further refinement of higher education and its rewards. This will provide an opportunity for educating prospective LIS academics about the expectations that will be placed upon them and to build appropriate career support.

Resource-sharing through an inter-institutional repository

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to be concerned with the motivations and resistance among an institutional repository (IR) stakeholder – the Library and Information Science (LIS) academicians – with respect to Green Road open access publishing in an inter-institutional repository.Design/methodology/approach– The answers were identified from 47 LIS faculty from three library schools in Malaysia who reported awareness of what an IR is and having had experience in contributing resources to digital repositories. Data were collected using survey and interviews.Findings– The results highlighted the LIS faculty on their motivation to share their intellectual profile, research and teaching resources in an inter-institutional repositories and why the reluctance in contributing. The study reveals that the major motivation to share resources for those practicing self-archiving is related to performance expectancy, social influence, visible and authoritative advantage, career benefit and quality work. The major resistance to share scholarly research output through self-archiving in institutional repositories for those practicing self-archiving is concern on plagiarism, time and effort, technical infrastructure, lack of self-efficacy and insularity.Practical implications– Knowing what conditions predict motivation and resistance to contribute to IRs would allow IR administrators to ensure greater and more effective participation in resource-sharing among LIS academic community. If this resistance is addressed aptly, IRs can be of real benefit to their teaching, scholarship, collaborations, and publishing and to the community that they serve.Originality/value– The first study that has explored the ways LIS academics respond to a situation where knowledge sharing in academe has now been made mandatory through an IR and what makes them resist to do so.

Exploring LIS academics' responses to knowledge management

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate how and why library and information science (LIS) academics have responded to the advent of knowledge management (KM).Design/methodology/approachThe study employs an “experience survey” as a research strategy. Besides a review of scientific literature, this study conducts an e‐mail survey of 106 LIS academics of the world who have adopted KM education in their schools. A structured questionnaire comprising of both closed and open questions is used as the data collection instrument. The study analyses 57 filled‐in valid questionnaires following a mixed‐method approach of research.FindingsThe ways of knowing and degrees of understanding of KM concepts among the LIS academics are varied. Although KM is distinct from LIS, there exists a strong link between the two knowledge domains. LIS academics have positively responded to KM and considering its long root in LIS, they have argued for a serious consideration of the adoption of KM in LIS. The significant reasons for why the academics have responded to KM are the role of global knowledge economy, the natural evolution of the information field, interdisciplinarity, domain expansion, survival issues, and trends in technological innovations, etc.Research limitations/implicationsMany LIS schools do not come under investigation due to lack of their web accessibility.Practical implicationsIt is suggested that LIS academics apply a holistic approach of KM and expand the knowledge domain of LIS by providing a sound understanding of the underlying concepts, theories, principles, techniques, and technologies of KM.Originality/valueThe empirical findings of the study are the original views and responses of LIS academics who are experienced in KM.

Incorporating KM education into LIS curriculum: perspectives from LIS academics

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine how and to what extent knowledge management (KM) has been incorporated into the library and information science (LIS) curriculum.Design/methodology/approachThe study is conducted using an e‐mail questionnaire survey of LIS academics world‐wide who adopted KM education in their schools. Based on a preliminary survey of 600 LIS schools' homepages, a structured questionnaire is sent out to 106 LIS academics via e‐mail. In total, 58 filled‐in questionnaires are received, of which 57 are valid for analysis. The analysis follows a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches of research with a primary focus on qualitative analysis.FindingsLIS has assimilated the core content of KM based on the combination of varying proportions of major perspectives and skill‐sets of KM with an emphasis on information management and information technology‐oriented courses. The study also finds that LIS has incorporated KM following a partial adoption process through mutual borrowing of knowledge between LIS and KM.Research limitations/implicationsMany LIS schools, especially from non‐English speaking countries, do not come under investigation due to their lack of web accessibility.Practical implicationsThis paper reinforces the curriculum renovation of LIS with the incorporation of KM. It suggests a strong interdisciplinary collaboration with other disciplines having KM interests, and the adoption of a balanced approach to KM that would consider wider audiences and market demand.Originality/valueThe study presents the practical experiences of LIS academics who adopted KM education. The study also explores the concept of “mutual borrowing of knowledge” between LIS and KM.

The Social Space of Metadata: Perspectives of LIS Academics and Postgraduates on Standards-Based and Socially Constructed Metadata Approaches

This article aims to contribute to the discussion on user-generated metadata. It presents the perspectives of eleven purposefully selected library and information science (LIS) academics and postgraduates on optimality of standards-based versus socially constructed metadata approaches and develops conceptual themes that emerged, which include the obsolescence of the Online Public Access Catalogue (OPAC) in relation to web search engines, the preference of users for searching versus browsing, and the proliferation of extant metadata standards resulting in interoperability challenges. This study also reveals the role ascribed to Web 2.0 and to semantic web technologies in libraries and the importance of enriching information objects with metadata that better conveys the various perspectives of users. Finally, the importance of underpinning metadata decisions with sound theoretical foundations is identified.

E‐learning in LIS education: an analysis and prediction

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the significant factors which encourage and motivate the library and information science (LIS) academics to respond to and embrace e‐learning (EL), to explore how EL tools and technologies support the LIS education process, and to measure weights of factors constraining the use of EL in LIS education. It also reports perceptions of how LIS academics manage EL‐knowledge resources, the problems they face in managing those resources, the ways to solve those problems, and their predictions about future usage of EL in LIS education.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology includes a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The authors used an exploratory online e‐mail interview method to gather experiences and data from LIS academics worldwide. The authors also used (www.docs.google.com) to prepare a questionnaire, and sent a link to the questionnaire to 85 LIS academics globally to gather their perceptions regarding EL in LIS schools.FindingsThe findings confirmed that EL overcomes location and time constraints, provides opportunities for employed and/or busy people, etc. is a driving force in education, which encourages and motivates LIS academics to respond to and embrace EL in LIS education, and EL accelerates accessibility of a wide range of knowledge, supports the process of exchanging knowledge, and increases knowledge storage capacity to enhance the LIS education process. This paper concludes that the respondents hold highly positive perceptions regarding the future of EL in LIS schools.Originality/valueThe paper explores the original perceptions of LIS academics, and their predictions regarding future usage of EL in LIS schools.

Fifty years of LIS education in Australia: Academization of LIS educators in higher education institutions

Extensive data document the distribution of library and information science (LIS) educators in Australia from 1959 to 2008: from a slow beginning in the 1960s, to rapid growth in the 1970s, relative stability in the 1980s, and a persistent decline from the 1990s. Other characteristics of Australian LIS educators over the 50-year period are presented, including: previous positions held before entering academia, what and where academic qualifications were obtained, academic positions/ranks by gender, mobility within Australian higher education institutions, and years spent as Australian LIS educators. Although there has been a steady decline in the number of Australian LIS educators since the 1990s, the level of academic qualifications and percentage with doctorates have risen, thus conforming to a major requirement of academia; however, the relative decline in junior academic positions is a worrying trend. The analysis of changed characteristics over time helps define who Australian LIS academics are, and additionally provides data that contributes to LIS academic workforce planning.

Practitioners and academics as authors and readers: the case of LIS journals

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics in scholarly communication in library and information science (LIS) journals.Design/methodology/approachThe research is based on a reader survey, a citation analysis and an editor survey. The reader survey identifies both differences in journal rankings between practitioners and academics and the contribution of practitioners to LIS journals. The editor survey provides the proportions of practitioners and academics for the journals. The citation analysis shows the disparities in information exchange between the journals mainly preferred by practitioners and those more favoured by academics. Furthermore, it is possible to explore if practitioner journals differ from academic journals in the citation indicators and in other data collected in the editor survey.FindingsIt is found that: practitioners play an active role both as readers and as authors of articles in LIS journals; there is only a low level of information exchange between practitioner and academic journals; the placement of advertisements, the size of the editorial board, requirements concerning an extensive bibliography, the number and the half‐life of the references show a clear distinction between practitioner and academic journals. Interestingly, the impact factor did not turn out to be a good indicator to differentiate a practitioner from an academic journal.Research limitations/implicationsThis research is only exploratory because it is based on separate studies previously conducted. Further research is also needed to explore the relationship between practitioners and academics more deeply.Originality/valueThe value of this paper lies in bringing together the findings from complementary studies (reader survey, editor survey and citation analysis) and identifying hypotheses for future research, especially with regards to the roles of and interactions between LIS practitioners and academics in scholarly communication.

Viewing information needs through a Johari Window

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to apply to the study of information needs the Johari Window framework that has long been accepted as a useful model for understanding interpersonal communication.Design/methodology/approachThe work presents a newly‐constructed version of the Window to delineate a typology of information needs and to identify implications that emerge for information professionals.FindingsThe paper finds that information needs can be seen to fall into five broad categories: needs that are known to the individual but not to the information professional; needs that are known to both parties; needs that are known to the information professional but not the individual; needs that are misunderstood by the individual; and needs that are not known to either the individual or the information professional.Practical implicationsConceptualising information needs in terms of the revised Johari Window highlights how information professionals are of crucial importance in helping clients satisfy their information needs, even in an era in which much information searching is done by end‐users themselves.Originality/valueNo previous paper has applied the Johari Window to the investigation of information needs and few authors have made an attempt to use the framework in any area of library and information science (LIS) whatsoever. The fact that the work deals with both theoretical and practical dimensions will interest LIS academics and library professionals who work regularly with information users.

On continuity, culture, competition – cooperation and convergence, too

This keynote paper considers each of the three facets included in the title of the conference: continuity, culture and competition. Each facet, it is argued, challenges the academic community in library and information science (LIS) to retreat from a narrow view of knowledge transfer in society founded on textual documentation as the channel of communication, and libraries as the means of gaining access to such documentation. The case against continuity in the design and teaching of LIS curricula is made by forecasting the likely socioeconomic context of information resource management in 2005. The widening availability of digitally‐integrated cultural artefacts signals the need for a convergence of librarianship with professional activity within other forms of memory institution. Competition from the subject discipline of computer science to provide the knowledge and skills deemed most appropriate for the information professional of the future suggests that LIS academics should collaborate, rather than compete within their community, the better to present a strongly unified discipline provision as the basis for a convergence of interests and influence with information system developers.