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

dc.contributor.authorCoates, Heather L.
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-17T21:23:06Z
dc.date.available2015-12-17T21:23:06Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-17
dc.descriptionevidence summaryen_US
dc.description.abstractObjective – 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationCoates, H. (2015). Library and Information Science Research Literature is Chiefly Descriptive and Relies Heavily on Survey and Content Analysis Methods. Evidence Based Library And Information Practice, 10(4), 215-217. Retrieved from https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/25480/19250en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/7771
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherEvidence Based Library and Information Practiceen_US
dc.rightsAttribution 3.0 United States
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us
dc.subjectlibrarianshipen_US
dc.subjectresearch methodsen_US
dc.subjectresearchen_US
dc.subjectstatistical techniquesen_US
dc.subjectpublishingen_US
dc.subjectprofessional developmenten_US
dc.subjectresearch skillsen_US
dc.subject.lcshLibrary science -- Researchen_US
dc.subject.lcshInformation science -- Researchen_US
dc.subject.lcshLibrary science -- Statistical methodsen_US
dc.subject.lcshInformation science -- Statistical methodsen_US
dc.subject.lcshScholarly publishingen_US
dc.titleLibrary and Information Science Research Literature is Chiefly Descriptive and Relies Heavily on Survey and Content Analysis Methodsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Coates_2015_EBLIP_LISResearchLit.pdf
Size:
265.32 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
article PDF
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.96 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: