EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes?
As Booth notes in a recent commentary on the conceptual and practical links between performance measurement and evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP), there has been a discernable creep among segments of the library community that seemingly existed as two solitudes: those in eviden...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
University of Alberta
2006-12-01
|
Series: | Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/136/177 |
id |
doaj-cd2119b9e7d0498f8c520f03e8df8d01 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-cd2119b9e7d0498f8c520f03e8df8d012020-11-24T21:49:55ZengUniversity of AlbertaEvidence Based Library and Information Practice1715-720X2006-12-01147780EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes?Pam RyanAs Booth notes in a recent commentary on the conceptual and practical links between performance measurement and evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP), there has been a discernable creep among segments of the library community that seemingly existed as two solitudes: those in evidence based librarianship (EBL) circles and those in the library assessment practitioners group (“Counting What Counts” 63). Beginning in 2005, individuals from one group have been showing up at the others’ conferences and events to discuss their methods, frameworks and processes. Are these separate movements within librarianship forming theoretical bridges? Is some sort of merger, fusion or takeover in the future? Or are these simply collegial discussions about our evidence‐based leanings in librarianship? Is all evidence based practice in librarianship, that is, some form of research‐derived data guiding the decision‐making of practitioners, subject to the theoretical framework proposed by the EBL movement? If so, are the tools and practices of library assessment rigorous enough, by EBL theory standards, to afford equal participation in these evidence‐based practice circles or will assessment practitioners forever be relegated to wallow as devotees of the lowest cells of Eldredge’s(2002) exploratory research evidence chart? If we are just now coming to understand our similarities, will our differences be enough that we wish never to be one movement and therefore forever remain as two solitudes in evidence‐based practice?http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/136/177Evidence Based PracticeOperations ResearchMission Oriented Research |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Pam Ryan |
spellingShingle |
Pam Ryan EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Evidence Based Practice Operations Research Mission Oriented Research |
author_facet |
Pam Ryan |
author_sort |
Pam Ryan |
title |
EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes? |
title_short |
EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes? |
title_full |
EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes? |
title_fullStr |
EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes? |
title_full_unstemmed |
EBL and Library Assessment: Two Solitudes? |
title_sort |
ebl and library assessment: two solitudes? |
publisher |
University of Alberta |
series |
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice |
issn |
1715-720X |
publishDate |
2006-12-01 |
description |
As Booth notes in a recent commentary on the conceptual and practical links between performance measurement and evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP), there has been a discernable creep among segments of the library community that seemingly existed as two solitudes: those in evidence based librarianship (EBL) circles and those in the library assessment practitioners group (“Counting What Counts” 63). Beginning in 2005, individuals from one group have been showing up at the others’ conferences and events to discuss their methods, frameworks and processes. Are these separate movements within librarianship forming theoretical bridges? Is some sort of merger, fusion or takeover in the future? Or are these simply collegial discussions about our evidence‐based leanings in librarianship? Is all evidence based practice in librarianship, that is, some form of research‐derived data guiding the decision‐making of practitioners, subject to the theoretical framework proposed by the EBL movement? If so, are the tools and practices of library assessment rigorous enough, by EBL theory standards, to afford equal participation in these evidence‐based practice circles or will assessment practitioners forever be relegated to wallow as devotees of the lowest cells of Eldredge’s(2002) exploratory research evidence chart? If we are just now coming to understand our similarities, will our differences be enough that we wish never to be one movement and therefore forever remain as two solitudes in evidence‐based practice? |
topic |
Evidence Based Practice Operations Research Mission Oriented Research |
url |
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/136/177 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT pamryan eblandlibraryassessmenttwosolitudes |
_version_ |
1725886458415284224 |