Australian Library and Information Studies (LIS) researchers' ranking of LIS journals

The paper describes the processes and the outcomes of the ranking of LIS journal titles by Australia’s LIS researchers during 2007-8, firstly through the Australian federal government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) process and then its replacement, the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. The requirement to rank the journals titles used came from discussions held at the RQF panel meeting held in February 2007 in Canberra, Australia. While it was recognised that the Web of Science (formerly ISI) journal impact approach of journal acceptance for measures of research quality and impact might not work for LIS, it was apparent that this model would be the default if no other ranking of journal titles became apparent. Although an increasing number of LIS and related discipline journals were appearing in the Web of Science listed rankings, the number was few and it was thus decided by the Australian LIS research community to undertake the ranking exercise.

40 years of library and information studies education in Wales

Tedd, L.A. (2005). 40 years of library and information studies education in Wales. Education for Information, 23(1/2), 1-8.

An examination of Lotka's law in the field of Library and Information Studies

The purpose of this study was to test Lotka’s law of scientific publication productivity using the methodology outlined by Pao (1985), in the field of Library and Information Studies (LIS). Lotka’s law has been sporadically tested in the field over the past 30+ years, but the results of these studies are inconclusive due to the varying methods employed by the researchers. ^ A data set of 1,856 citations that were found using the ISI Web of Knowledge databases were studied. The values of n and c were calculated to be 2.1 and 0.6418 (64.18%) respectively. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) one sample goodness-of-fit test was conducted at the 0.10 level of significance. The Dmax value is 0.022758 and the calculated critical value is 0.026562. It was determined that the null hypothesis stating that there is no difference in the observed distribution of publications and the distribution obtained using Lotka’s and Pao’s procedure could not be rejected. ^ This study finds that literature in the field of Library and Information Studies does conform to Lotka’s law with reliable results. As result, Lotka’s law can be used in LIS as a standardized means of measuring author publication productivity which will lead to findings that are comparable on many levels (e.g., department, institution, national). Lotka’s law can be employed as an empirically proven analytical tool to establish publication productivity benchmarks for faculty and faculty librarians. Recommendations for further study include (a) exploring the characteristics of the high and low producers; (b) finding a way to successfully account for collaborative contributions in the formula; and, (c) a detailed study of institutional policies concerning publication productivity and its impact on the appointment, tenure and promotion process of academic librarians. ^

An Examination of Lotka’s law in the Field of Library and Information Studies

The purpose of this study was to test Lotka’s law of scientific publication productivity using the methodology outlined by Pao (1985), in the field of Library and Information Studies (LIS). Lotka’s law has been sporadically tested in the field over the past 30+ years, but the results of these studies are inconclusive due to the varying methods employed by the researchers. A data set of 1,856 citations that were found using the ISI Web of Knowledge databases were studied. The values of n and c were calculated to be 2.1 and 0.6418 (64.18%) respectively. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) one sample goodness-of-fit test was conducted at the 0.10 level of significance. The Dmax value is 0.022758 and the calculated critical value is 0.026562. It was determined that the null hypothesis stating that there is no difference in the observed distribution of publications and the distribution obtained using Lotka’s and Pao’s procedure could not be rejected. This study finds that literature in the field of library and Information Studies does conform to Lotka’s law with reliable results. As result, Lotka’s law can be used in LIS as a standardized means of measuring author publication productivity which will lead to findings that are comparable on many levels (e.g., department, institution, national). Lotka’s law can be employed as an empirically proven analytical tool to establish publication productivity benchmarks for faculty and faculty librarians. Recommendations for further study include (a) exploring the characteristics of the high and low producers; (b) finding a way to successfully account for collaborative contributions in the formula; and, (c) a detailed study of institutional policies concerning publication productivity and its impact on the appointment, tenure and promotion process of academic librarians.

Investigating the supply and demand relationship in a profession: the English and Welsh schools of librarianship and information Studies and the Higher Education Library and Information Services employment sector in England and Wales.

Concern has been expressed in the professional literature - borne out by professional experience and observation - that the supply and demand relationship existing between the 13 English and Welsh Library and Information Studies (LIS) Schools (as providers of `First Professional' staff) and the Higher Education Library and Information Services (HE LIS) sector of England and Wales (as one group of employers of such staff) is unsatisfactory and needs attention. An appropriate methodology to investigate this problem was devised. A basic content analysis of Schools' curricular and recruitment material intended for public consumption was undertaken to establish an overview of the LIS initial professional education system in England and Wales, and to identify and analyse any covert messages imparted to readers. This was followed by a mix of Main Questionnaires and Semi-Structured Interviews with appropriate populations. The investigation revealed some serious areas of dissatisfaction by the HE LIS Chiefs with the role and function of the Schools. Considerable divergence of views emerged on the state of the working relationships between the two sectors and on the Schools' successes in meeting the needs of the HE LIS sector and on CPD provision. There were, however, areas of substantial and consistent agreement between the two sectors. The main implications of the findings were that those areas encompassing divergence of views were worrying and needed addressing by both sides. Possible ways forward included recommendations on improving the image of the profession purveyed by the Schools; the forming of closer and more effective inter-sectoral relationships; recognising fully the importance of `practicum' and increasing and sustaining the network of `practicum' providers.

Are library and information professionals ready for evidence based practice?

Evidence based practice (EBP) is recognised as a way of improving the quality of professional practice in many disciplines however its adoption within library and information sciences (LIS) has been gradual. The term was first introduced into the library and information profession‟s vocabulary a decade ago but an impediment to its uptake is the lack of clear understanding regarding how LIS practitioners understand the concept. Partridge, Thorpe, Edwards and Hallam (2007) identified the need to understand how LIS professionals experience or understand evidence based practice and proposed a model of four categories of experience to describe how LIS professionals experience EBP. This paper extends that framework by refining the different conceptions of evidence based practice and identifying relationships which exist between the categories of experience to provide a rich description of the EBP phenomenon. The paper also argues that the phrase “evidence based librarianship” and its variations be abandoned as practitioners do not see a distinction between EBP as applied to librarianship and information practice and industry specific jargon like “evidence based library and information practice”. This research will help current and future LIS practitioners, leaders and educators engage more actively in the establishment of an evidence based culture to improve library and information practice in Australia and internationally.

neXus2. An investigation into the library and information services workforce in Australia: The institutional perspective. Final report prepared for the Australian Library and Information Association and National and State Libraries Australia

The neXus2 research project has sought to investigate the library and information services (LIS) workforce in Australia, from the institutional or employer perspective. The study builds on the neXus1 study, which collected data from individuals in the LIS workforce in order to present a snapshot of the profession in 2006, highlighting the demographics, educational background and career details of library and information professionals in Australia. To counterbalance this individual perspective, library institutions were invited to participate in a survey to contribute further data as employers. This final report on the neXus2 project compares the findings from the different library sectors, ie academic libraries, TAFE libraries, the National and State libraries, public libraries, special libraries and school libraries.

Becoming “Librarian 2.0” : the skills, knowledge, and attributes required by library and information science professionals in a Web 2.0 world (and beyond)

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. This article will discuss a research project that fills this gap. Funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, the project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. This article will provide a detailed discussion on each of these themes. The study’s findings also suggest that “librarian 2.0” is a state of mind, and that the Australian LIS profession is undergoing a significant shift in “attitude.”

Library and information science education 2.0: guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Sue Reynolds.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS educative practice in helping to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice : interview with John Terrell

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice : interview with Kate Davis.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Hilary Hughes.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.

Library and information science education 2.0 : guiding principles and models of best practice. Interview with Bob Pymm.

In 2005, Stephen Abram, vice president of Innovation at SirsiDynix, challenged library and information science (LIS) professionals to start becoming “librarian 2.0.” In the last few years, discussion and debate about the “core competencies” needed by librarian 2.0 have appeared in the “biblioblogosphere” (blogs written by LIS professionals). However, beyond these informal blog discussions few systematic and empirically based studies have taken place. A project funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council fills this gap. The project identifies the key skills, knowledge, and attributes required by “librarian 2.0.” Eighty-one members of the Australian LIS profession participated in a series of focus groups. Eight themes emerged as being critical to “librarian 2.0”: technology, communication, teamwork, user focus, business savvy, evidence based practice, learning and education, and personal traits. Guided by these findings interviews with 36 LIS educators explored the current approaches used within contemporary LIS education to prepare graduates to become “librarian 2.0”. This video presents an example of ‘great practice’ in current LIS education as it strives to foster web 2.0 professionals.