The model for EBLIP that we use in this book is based on doctoral research results (Koufogiannakis, 2013b). It is not meant to be a rejection of previous EBLIP theory, nor does it stand in opposition to the model as put forward by Booth and Brice and published in 2004. If anything, the model we propose in this book builds upon Booth and Brice's (2004b) model as it was first described but reaches further, to embrace other types of evidence as appropriate for librarianship and to consider how such a merging of different types of evidence can work in the context of librarianship. As such, the model is far more realistic with respect to the context in which librarians work and the appropriate forms of evidence on which to base decisions. At the same time, it attempts to encourage further research within our profession in order to strengthen the evidence base upon which we draw external validation of local practices.
Much credit must be given to Andrew Booth for envisioning this evolution of EBLIP through his reflection on evidence-based practice in librarianship following the EBLIP5 conference that was held in Stockholm, Sweden (Booth, 2009b). Booth, having been very involved with EBLIP since its start and a keen observer of the general change in the field's discourse, noted the following limitations of the original model as it stood at the time: ‘first it is oriented to individual, not collective, activity; and, second, it seeks to simplify and thus preserve the integrity of, the entire EBP process making no allowances for the realities of pragmatism and expediency’ (Booth, 2009b, 342). Koufogiannakis (2013b) validated these observations in her doctoral study of how academic librarians use evidence in their practice. Her thesis, based on qualitative research, proposed the use of Booth's ‘alternative’ model to move towards a process that would be more meaningful and pragmatic for practising librarians. This book provides the next step in making this model available for librarians of all sectors to use in their practice.
We doubt that any one model will perfectly fit all situations or explain the complexity of EBP in its fullness, because we can never look in detail at every situation or circumstance.