LRRT (Library Research Round Table)

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599 

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599 

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599 

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599 

That's an interesting question, Norm, and I don't have an evidence-based answer for you: only some guesses. Many of us work with people, and so perhaps turning to people (and surveying them) is a more comfortable idea than turning to more system-based data collection. Sometimes we may not be good at recognizing existing data that we're already collecting which could be analyzed, and/or we may lack the rigorous statistical knowledge/skills to analyze existing data in appropriate ways. Depending on what educational and career trajectory folks experience before entering libraries, we may have highly varied levels of training in actual research methods (including no training at all); although many LIS graduate programs offer a research methods course, many do not require it, and what those courses cover may vary between programs.

Evidence synthesis methods like systematic and scoping reviews definitely do appear in LIS literature but are still not highly common/familiar outside of health topics. Xu, Kang, & Song (2015) evaluated the state of systematic reviews in LIS and observed some increasing frequency but still "low quantity and poor quality." Stapleton, Carter, & Bredahl (2020) noted the lack of "current investigations into the effectiveness of databases and search methods for non-health, LIS research topics" and sought to begin addressing that gap with their work.

I was one of those folks who did not have a proper research methods course in graduate school, and even after 15 years conducting LIS research, I was still only generally aware of (and fairly intimidated by) the systematic review method until I participated in the Evidence Synthesis Institute this summer. Now I find I'm quite intrigued to try it out. But this leads me to another thought regarding time commitments and career stage. High-quality systematic reviews conducted by a well-equipped team (e.g., minimum 2 people for screening) can require a long time commitment, especially if you must focus on other projects and duties at the same time. Even academic librarians with research responsibilities can often dedicate only a relatively small portion of their time to research activities, and if they are in tenure-track positions, they may be trying to achieve some minimum quota of publications during a limited number of years. This may dis-incentivize the selection of methods with high time commitments in favor of things they foresee finishing more quickly. Furthermore, the extent to which an individual librarian continues to engage in research after tenure will vary based on their institutional requirements and their own personal interests; at my institution (definitely not an R1), we are expected to keep up some research activity post-tenure, but for many people it is often at a lower level than pre-tenure (while they may instead dedicate more time to service), unless like me they just discover that they enjoy research. But if a post-tenure librarian de-emphasizes research based on their own personal interests and commits even less of their labor hours in that direction, then they may still be dis-inclined to take up methods which, again, have a relatively significant time commitment. And if the mid/late-career tenured librarians are not versed in the method to mentor or join a team with their early-career counterparts-or if their early-career counterparts aren't keen to jump in with them on learning a new method that will take so long-then that may contribute further to a lack of engagement at both early and late career stages. Sorry if my thoughts in this last paragraph are rather muddled, but I do think there are logistical issues here.  

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and ideas that occur to me! I'd love to hear other folks' thoughts, especially if they disagree with any of my loose hypotheses or see some factors I haven't noticed.

Erin Owens (she/her/hers)

Professor, Access Services Coordinator & Scholarly Communications Librarian

Associate Editor (Research Articles), Evidence Based Library & Information Practice

Newton Gresham Library | Sam Houston State University

SHSU Box 2179, Huntsville, TX 77341

936-294-4567 | eowens@shsu.edu

Schedule an appointment! https://shsu.libcal.com/appointments/owens

View my ORCID Researcher Profile: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-9314

My work hours are sometimes flexible - so while it may suit me to email outside normal working hours, I do not expect a response or action outside of your own working hours.

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599 

That's an interesting question, Norm, and I don't have an evidence-based answer for you: only some guesses. Many of us work with people, and so perhaps turning to people (and surveying them) is a more comfortable idea than turning to more system-based data collection. Sometimes we may not be good at recognizing existing data that we're already collecting which could be analyzed, and/or we may lack the rigorous statistical knowledge/skills to analyze existing data in appropriate ways. Depending on what educational and career trajectory folks experience before entering libraries, we may have highly varied levels of training in actual research methods (including no training at all); although many LIS graduate programs offer a research methods course, many do not require it, and what those courses cover may vary between programs.

Evidence synthesis methods like systematic and scoping reviews definitely do appear in LIS literature but are still not highly common/familiar outside of health topics. Xu, Kang, & Song (2015) evaluated the state of systematic reviews in LIS and observed some increasing frequency but still "low quantity and poor quality." Stapleton, Carter, & Bredahl (2020) noted the lack of "current investigations into the effectiveness of databases and search methods for non-health, LIS research topics" and sought to begin addressing that gap with their work.

I was one of those folks who did not have a proper research methods course in graduate school, and even after 15 years conducting LIS research, I was still only generally aware of (and fairly intimidated by) the systematic review method until I participated in the Evidence Synthesis Institute this summer. Now I find I'm quite intrigued to try it out. But this leads me to another thought regarding time commitments and career stage. High-quality systematic reviews conducted by a well-equipped team (e.g., minimum 2 people for screening) can require a long time commitment, especially if you must focus on other projects and duties at the same time. Even academic librarians with research responsibilities can often dedicate only a relatively small portion of their time to research activities, and if they are in tenure-track positions, they may be trying to achieve some minimum quota of publications during a limited number of years. This may dis-incentivize the selection of methods with high time commitments in favor of things they foresee finishing more quickly. Furthermore, the extent to which an individual librarian continues to engage in research after tenure will vary based on their institutional requirements and their own personal interests; at my institution (definitely not an R1), we are expected to keep up some research activity post-tenure, but for many people it is often at a lower level than pre-tenure (while they may instead dedicate more time to service), unless like me they just discover that they enjoy research. But if a post-tenure librarian de-emphasizes research based on their own personal interests and commits even less of their labor hours in that direction, then they may still be dis-inclined to take up methods which, again, have a relatively significant time commitment. And if the mid/late-career tenured librarians are not versed in the method to mentor or join a team with their early-career counterparts-or if their early-career counterparts aren't keen to jump in with them on learning a new method that will take so long-then that may contribute further to a lack of engagement at both early and late career stages. Sorry if my thoughts in this last paragraph are rather muddled, but I do think there are logistical issues here.  

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and ideas that occur to me! I'd love to hear other folks' thoughts, especially if they disagree with any of my loose hypotheses or see some factors I haven't noticed.

Erin Owens (she/her/hers)

Professor, Access Services Coordinator & Scholarly Communications Librarian

Associate Editor (Research Articles), Evidence Based Library & Information Practice

Newton Gresham Library | Sam Houston State University

SHSU Box 2179, Huntsville, TX 77341

936-294-4567 | eowens@shsu.edu

Schedule an appointment! https://shsu.libcal.com/appointments/owens

View my ORCID Researcher Profile: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-9314

My work hours are sometimes flexible - so while it may suit me to email outside normal working hours, I do not expect a response or action outside of your own working hours.

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599 

That's an interesting question, Norm, and I don't have an evidence-based answer for you: only some guesses. Many of us work with people, and so perhaps turning to people (and surveying them) is a more comfortable idea than turning to more system-based data collection. Sometimes we may not be good at recognizing existing data that we're already collecting which could be analyzed, and/or we may lack the rigorous statistical knowledge/skills to analyze existing data in appropriate ways. Depending on what educational and career trajectory folks experience before entering libraries, we may have highly varied levels of training in actual research methods (including no training at all); although many LIS graduate programs offer a research methods course, many do not require it, and what those courses cover may vary between programs.

Evidence synthesis methods like systematic and scoping reviews definitely do appear in LIS literature but are still not highly common/familiar outside of health topics. Xu, Kang, & Song (2015) evaluated the state of systematic reviews in LIS and observed some increasing frequency but still "low quantity and poor quality." Stapleton, Carter, & Bredahl (2020) noted the lack of "current investigations into the effectiveness of databases and search methods for non-health, LIS research topics" and sought to begin addressing that gap with their work.

I was one of those folks who did not have a proper research methods course in graduate school, and even after 15 years conducting LIS research, I was still only generally aware of (and fairly intimidated by) the systematic review method until I participated in the Evidence Synthesis Institute this summer. Now I find I'm quite intrigued to try it out. But this leads me to another thought regarding time commitments and career stage. High-quality systematic reviews conducted by a well-equipped team (e.g., minimum 2 people for screening) can require a long time commitment, especially if you must focus on other projects and duties at the same time. Even academic librarians with research responsibilities can often dedicate only a relatively small portion of their time to research activities, and if they are in tenure-track positions, they may be trying to achieve some minimum quota of publications during a limited number of years. This may dis-incentivize the selection of methods with high time commitments in favor of things they foresee finishing more quickly. Furthermore, the extent to which an individual librarian continues to engage in research after tenure will vary based on their institutional requirements and their own personal interests; at my institution (definitely not an R1), we are expected to keep up some research activity post-tenure, but for many people it is often at a lower level than pre-tenure (while they may instead dedicate more time to service), unless like me they just discover that they enjoy research. But if a post-tenure librarian de-emphasizes research based on their own personal interests and commits even less of their labor hours in that direction, then they may still be dis-inclined to take up methods which, again, have a relatively significant time commitment. And if the mid/late-career tenured librarians are not versed in the method to mentor or join a team with their early-career counterparts-or if their early-career counterparts aren't keen to jump in with them on learning a new method that will take so long-then that may contribute further to a lack of engagement at both early and late career stages. Sorry if my thoughts in this last paragraph are rather muddled, but I do think there are logistical issues here.  

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and ideas that occur to me! I'd love to hear other folks' thoughts, especially if they disagree with any of my loose hypotheses or see some factors I haven't noticed.

Erin Owens (she/her/hers)

Professor, Access Services Coordinator & Scholarly Communications Librarian

Associate Editor (Research Articles), Evidence Based Library & Information Practice

Newton Gresham Library | Sam Houston State University

SHSU Box 2179, Huntsville, TX 77341

936-294-4567 | eowens@shsu.edu

Schedule an appointment! https://shsu.libcal.com/appointments/owens

View my ORCID Researcher Profile: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-9314

My work hours are sometimes flexible - so while it may suit me to email outside normal working hours, I do not expect a response or action outside of your own working hours.

Whoops! That pasted the entirely wrong link (facepalm). I was trying to give you THIS link:  Footnotes.docx

Also, here is one that didn't make it in there (and is a bit dated)-but you may be able to citation trace for more recent papers that cite this one:

Buttlar, L. (1991). Analyzing the Library Periodical Literature: Content and Authorship. College and Research Libraries, 52(1), 38–53. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/14599