Research can be a mysterious domain, especially if you are approaching it from a practice perspective. Traditionally, research has been undertaken by academics in higher education, faculty members of the professoriate who often have a 40/40/20 work assignment split between teaching, research and service. However, the perennial gap that exists between research and practice in various disciplines, including library and information science (LIS), has encouraged practitioners to conduct research to help inform their own practices. EBLIP and reflective practice have also provided impetus for librarians to take up the research mantle. Practitioners have questions that need answering, and often the timelines are tight. Research undertaken by LIS scholars (academics working in university library and information science departments) can take a long time to produce published, accessible results. There is also the potential of such research not being relative to practice. Johannes Balslev, the former Director of Ringsted Public Library in Denmark, wrote about this issue within LIS research, stating that ‘[to] a practitioner with very down-to-earth needs, the research being done at the Royal School of Librarianship at that time seemed rather remote’, and went on to say that if he ‘wanted the gaps to be filled’ he would ‘have to start filling them’ himself (Balslev, 1989, 4). As noted in the first part of this book, EBLIP is a way of working that incorporates research evidence with user preference and professional expertise to aid in decision making. Conducting research can be part of that process should the published research evidence in a particular area be lacking: librarians essentially filling the gaps themselves as practitioner-researchers (see Table 4.4).

Crumley and Koufogiannakis’ definition of evidence-based librarianship speaks to the notion of librarians conducting research to enhance the evidence base:

Defining EBLIP as a way to improve the profession of librarianship suggests that conducting research extends further than our own libraries. We have an obligation to the profession and to others in situations similar to our own. Who is going to represent what we do if we don't represent what we do?