The relationship between importance of an activity and its impact/visibility is not always clear. Certainly, an important activity should make a visible difference.
However, it is difficult to measure impact, especially since research may be shared and digested, but not actually thought of as research when the findings or conclusions become part of professional ways of doings things or common understandings.
For scholarly research, citation mapping may show how particular research has had an impact on other research by showing which research has been most frequently cited. While it seems reasonable that frequently cited research has had the most impact, that does not necessary mean that this research is the most important. Sometimes, important research is published in a less visible source or it make take some time for its importance to be recognized.
For applied or action research, decision-makers may be interviewed or may be asked to keep logs to record how information or evidence was gathered and later used in decision-making. It may be possible to work backwards from the creation of a policy or a procedure to discover what sorts of information was used to justify this approach rather than another.
Research may tell us what relationships have existed between variables in the past. Findings may be generalizable and persuasive. However, the conclusions, the "so what" reflects interpretive thinking which may not be generalizable. This means that research may not tell us HOW to improve what exists. The linkage between what is and what should be is often difficult. Still, decisions made upon valid and reliable research are usually better guides to improvement than relying upon intuition or folk wisdom.
Although researchers and librarians have made lists of topics where research is needed, they have not done a good job of identifying those variables most critical to library or information agency success and then funding that research. When research monies, time, and effort are limited, it would be best for focus on those variables most related to measures of success.
There is general agreement that library-based research has had relatively little impact on professional practice. "Library research is non-cumulative, fragmentary, generally weak and relentlessly oriented toward immediate practice." "Significant studies appear spasmodically, usually after a crisis, and are quickly forgotten." Much of the published research is of the "how we did it good" type which is often not generalizable and the methodology is frequently not replicatable. The aspect of library service to receive the most attention is the academic library, especially the research oriented ones. "Library schools" are typically located in academic research libraries and academic libraries are more likely to be supported and required to conduct research.
One frequently voiced reason is that the wrong sort of research is done. "No research should be initiated unless it is clear that the results will answer a question which will enable users to get what they want more quickly, efficiently or economically." Research needs to be devoted to problems most likely to impact user and library success. While all research is of some utility to someone, we need to do a better job of conducting research on topics most likely to make a difference.
Too often, research is simply data gathering and quick decision-making and lacks an appropriate structure and methodology. Little attempt is made to discover research findings that can be replicated and generalized to a larger population.
"Research is long-winded and much of it goes over my head. The application of abstract, math-based theories to practical processes seems not only incomprehensible, but also unhelpful in the real world...." Here, the problem is with research reporting. Both the language of research and the use of statistical tools might be in a foreign language for the ordinary professional. For professionals, research findings and conclusions must be reported in a direct, clear manner using understandable language rather than researchy jargon. This can be a problem since editors and referees expect the traditional research format and language.
Many feel that research is done by academics who have little interest in or knowledge of the day-to-day world of library and information service. It certainly is true that much of the research in our field is done by academics, especially since the Ph.D. is a research degree and published research is a requirement for continued employment. It is also true that some academics have had limited professional experience and it may have been years since they have had substantial contact with the daily activities of information professionals. Thus, they may be disconnected from the profession in some important ways.
Since researchers develop an intuitive understanding of phenomenon through familiarity and extensive experimentation, closeness to the subject stimulates and enriches research. Thus, the distance from the information agency by many academic researchers, who are quite busy with teaching and service, may be a major problem.
Since so much research is done by faculty or academic librarians in research universities, there is considerable imbalance in the published research.
While it is difficult to understand how an information professional would fail to understand the need for good information or evidence in decision-making, "research" is often not seen as helping to solve problems by providing decision-makers with thoughtfully gathered findings. Stereotypical notions about the nature of research and its utility remain a substantial barrier.
"Too much research is poorly designed, poorly carried out, poorly interpreted and poorly written up." Often, research is too ambitious and consequently cannot be properly done before time, money, and enthusiasm run out. Many researchers are not familiar enough with statistics to select the appropriate procedures. This is especially true with the wide-spread availability of statistical software packages that make it easy to select and run an inappropriate test.
Publishing (sharing the results of the research) is an integral part of the research process. Research is incomplete if the results have not been shared. Yet, much of the research done in an information agency to solve a particular problem is not shared or made visible to others likely to be interested.
When asked how they learn about research findings/conclusions:
Only four percent felt well-informed about current research in their own field, 31 percent felt they were not informed at all, and 46 percent had a rough idea of what was going on. Clearly, we need to do a much better job of providing working professionals with succinct, understandable information about the "state of the art."
Most information professionals are not especially interested in reading about research. They are also likely to be poorly informed about what constitutes good research so they are not very effective research consumers. When asked, typical responses have been:
Interestingly, about 27 percent had done some research, usually solving an immediate problem in-house. I suspect that if a broader definition of what constituted research was used, this percentage would be considerable higher, especially for managers.
Informal evidence strongly suggests that where an information professional works plays an important role in how professionals react to the conduct and consumption of research. Some libraries, for example, encourage research both to solve problems and also as an important part of being a professional. In others, research receives little attention or perhaps negative attention. The visible attitude of senior administrators, especially THE librarian make a dramatic difference.
Return to 540 Page