Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. Facet Publishing
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

5856 results in Facet Publishing

Page 291 of 293

  • 5 - Why don't librarians use research?

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Paul Genoni, Department of Media and Information at Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia, Gaby Haddow, Research Project Officer for the Western Australia Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery, Ann Ritchie, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners as the Project Officer for the National Standing Committee, Education
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 49-60

  • Summary

    Introduction

    It is frequently asserted that librarians do not use research findings when making decisions related to their professional practice. It is claimed that their decisions are based on little more than instinct or colleagues’ opinions, and that as a result their decision making may be ill-informed and high-risk. It is further claimed that this situation indicates a ‘communication gap’ between researchers and practitioners, and that this gap inhibits the maturation of librarianship, as many practitioners operate without an adequate understanding of the theoretical foundations to their practice.

    This chapter examines the evidence related to the use of research by practitioners and the nature of the communication gap. In doing so it provides an overview of reasons advanced to explain why librarians do not use research data. It also explores the characteristics of the literature of librarianship, and the part played by education in preparing practitioners for the use of research-based evidence. Finally, it presents suggestions for improving the use of research by practitioners.

    Scenario

    The research

    Considerable research has been conducted that compares and reviews information retrieval systems’ features. Much of this research is conducted and published by researchers associated with the field of information science. Their aim is to identify systems’ features that make information searching as easy and relevant to the searcher as possible. The findings of this research tend to be published in scholarly journals and is presented at research-oriented conferences.

    The practice

    The automated system of a medium size government library needs upgrading to incorporate new and improved features, such as Internet links and better searching capabilities. The librarian gains approval from the department to purchase a new system within a specified budget. Advertisements for automated systems in recent issues of the professional association's newsletter provide the contact details for local agents. However, before contacting the agents the librarian calls colleagues at other government libraries to ask for their opinions about systems to which they have upgraded in the last few years and posts a message to a discussion list requesting information about the relative merits of systems being used in other libraries.

  • Special Topic (F) What are the characteristics of a good searcher? (Critically Appraised Topic)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Catherine Beverley, Senior Information Officer/ HTA Information Unit Manager at the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 247-250

  • Summary

    Indicative Title

    Men may be more effective internet searchers than women.

    Abstract

    Abstracted from: Ford, N., Miller, D. and Moss, N. (2001) The Role of Individual Differences in Internet Searching: an empirical study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (12), 1049–66.

    Objective

    This exploratory study aimed to investigate the role of ‘individual differences’ in internet searching. In particular, the authors wanted to determine whether there was any statistically based evidence that retrieval effectiveness is affected by:

    (a) psychological differences between individuals, consisting of:

  • (i) cognitive (cognitive styles and levels of experience)

  • (ii) affective (internet and study attitudes and perceptions)

    • (b) demographic differences (age and gender).

    Setting

    Department of Information Studies, University of Sheffield, England.

    Participants

    Volunteers drawn from two cohorts (1999 and 2000 entry) of three taught Masters programmes (MA Librarianship, MSc Information Management and MSc Information Systems). The two cohorts consisted of 250 students.

    Method

    Students were asked to search for information on a prescribed topic using the AltaVista search engine via the Netscape Navigator browser. The following scenario was used:

    A technician cuts his finger badly in the Information Studies departmental office. What are the legal implications of this for the university? Find relevant information on the web.

    Searchers were free to choose the simple search option, which provides best match (or keyword) searching, and/or the advanced search option. A JavaScript front-end recorded all search data submitted to the search engine, and this was automatically sent to the researchers. There was no time limit or restriction on the number of queries students could submit.

    Outcome measures

    A 63-item self-completed ‘individual differences’ questionnaire, based on several different scales (e.g. Tait and Entwistle, 1995; Ford and Miller, 1996). Riding's (1991) psychometric measure, Cognitive Styles Analysis.

    Details of age and gender were obtained via a form on the opening screen of the web-based search interface.

    Data analysis

    The first two screens of retrieved items resulting from each successive query were categorized using a dichotomous ‘relevant/not relevant’ classification. A single relevance estimate was calculated in relation to each participant's search across all queries. Multiple regression and factor analysis were applied to the data.

  • 14 - Examining the evidence base for reference services and enquiry work

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 148-158

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter briefly defines the essentials of reference services and enquiry work before identifying questions that users or funders of such a service might seek to answer. From here the chapter considers sources that might yield answers to such questions before making a brief assessment of relevant studies that have already examined this area, assessing them for quantity and quality.

    The chapter concludes with a description of priorities for future research. This chapter is followed by a special topic illustrating what research evidence tells us about current awareness services.

    What is evidence-based reference/enquiry work?

    The first domain identified by Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) is Reference/ enquiries by which they mean ‘providing services and access to information that meets the needs of library users’. Reference services fall into three distinct types:

  • • information service – providing answers to enquirers’ questions

  • • instructional service – teaching people to find information on their own

  • • guidance – advising and assisting users to identify and select appropriate materials on particular topics.

    • Instructional service potentially overlaps with the education domain (Chapter 15). However, a workable distinction is to consider that an instructional service offers task-specific instruction to achieve a specific information need whereas the educational domain covers more general non task-specific activities as required for skills transfer or lifelong learning. The complexity increases further with technological developments whereby a straightforward bibliographic enquiry might be resolved as document delivery. Technology has further complicated things as ‘subject portals’ are developed to support reference work.

    Asking the question

    On first appearance this domain appears to lie completely within the evidence base of the library literature. However, is the reference interview truly unique to librarianship? The consultation in medical practice is a well researched interaction between a service provider and a service user. Similarities between the reference interview and the consultation reveal intriguing areas for investigation. The literature concerning the problem or ‘heartsink’ patient has parallels in that of the difficult user (Blessinger, 2002; Fescemeyer, 2002). Interestingly, the movement towards evidence-based patient choice (EBPC) has stimulated research interest in the consultation. In a qualitative study Ford et al. (2003) conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants to identify the elements and skills required for a successful EBPC consultation.

  • Special Topic (C) Electronic or paper: how do I manage my journals collection? (Evidence Digest)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By David Peacock, Knowledge Services Manager at the Northern England Workforce Development Confederation
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 196-199

  • Summary

    Question

    To what extent should library and information services move from providing a physical printed journal collection to providing access to remote and distributed electronic journals?

    Why is it important?

    Initially librarians viewed e-journals as supplementary to the print title but increasingly a hybrid mix of journal formats is seen as complementary. Few library and information services have replaced print titles with an electronic-only option, arguing that their users expect easy, anytime, anywhere access (Goodman, 2002). Most examples are in the academic and corporate sectors. In asking whether ‘replacing print journals with electronic versions is either feasible or, indeed, desirable for the end-user’ this topic excludes associated issues regarding managing the serials acquisition process. It focuses on studies published between 2000 and 2002.

    What is required?

    Users are assumed to prefer electronic access to print resources. A small international survey of all types of libraries revealed relatively few standardized or best practices. A larger survey of all types of library users is required.

    Likely cost consequences

    It is frequently assumed that e-journals are cheaper to produce and distribute than paper counterparts. In reality, the cost of electronic-only subscriptions ranges considerably from between 85% and 115% of the paper price (Bevan et al., 2001). Another assumption is that availability of e-journals allows geographically separate sites/campuses to share the cost of single deals and reduce the cost of duplicating titles. In reality, this will depend on the definition of ‘site’ and access restrictions by individual publishers.

    Publishers make it difficult for libraries to take electronic-only options (Bevan et al., 2001). At the present, the primary issue concerns the additional cost of obtaining electronic access over and above the existing print subscription. Online access can range from being completely free and unrestricted to costing up to 50% more and with various access restrictions.

    Drexel University, which has moved to purchase only the electronic version whenever possible, has not yet proven that converting to the electronic version lowers costs over paper versions. The universities per title subscription costs are lower for e-journals, but the University has maintenance costs. Although several mainly clerical tasks were eliminated, new tasks were created for more highly skilled staff (Montgomery, 2000). Despite the costs of binding and physically storing paper archives, electronic archiving still has ‘considerably higher’ costs (Drewes and Guzi, 2001).

  • Special Topic (D) How do I measure the impact of my service? (Guideline)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Christine Urquhart, Programme Director of the distance learning Health Information Management MSc programme, at the Department of Information Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 210-222

  • Summary

    Statement of the question under consideration

    This guideline examines how to measure the impact of your service, with an emphasis on impact studies from the health sector. It seeks to identify what works and what is less successful and to translate general lessons to other sectors (See also Wavell et al., 2002).

    Impact measurement has a long history. Reports by Flowerdew and Whitehead (1974) and King Research Inc. (1984) may appear old-fashioned but arguments about cost-benefit analysis for information services, the value of information, and the cost of user time, remain fresh. Although the social impact of public libraries is now seen in terms of community identity, lifelong learning and support for local business and culture (Kerslake and Kinnell, 1998), the social impact (Harris, 1998), or the social audit (Linley and Usherwood, 1998) of public libraries is not a new concern.

    In the education sector, the impact of the information and library service on learning is often taken for granted. It is only when new electronic information services require an investment in hardware support, networking, additional licences, and new ways of working, that such assumptions are questioned. In the UK, the eVALUEd project reviewed a variety of manuals useful to those evaluating digital library services (Thebridge and Hartland-Fox, 2003), including American (Bertot et al., 2001; Hernon and Dugan, 2002; Lindauer, 2000; Shim et al. 2001), UK (Crawford, 2000) and European manuals (EQUINOX). The JUSTEIS project (Urquhart et al., 2003) (and its companion JUBILEE project at Northumbria University) is part of the monitoring and evaluation framework set up by the Joint Information Systems Committee to assess how electronic information services affect the information behaviour of staff and students in higher and further education. Its remit covers possible impacts on learning, teaching and research.

    Health library services operate within a wide variety of organizational structures, with various funding sources. They may serve undergraduate students; postgraduate students; staff undertaking formal and informal continuing professional development; clinical and biomedical researchers; health service managers and administrators; and patients and their carers. A library in an NHS Trust must consider impacts on staff learning and clinical research activities, as well as the direct and indirect impacts on improved quality of patient care. Increasingly, it needs to consider its social impact, through services designed to liaise with patients, providing information and advice on their condition, its treatment and appropriate support services.

  • 1 - Why evidence-based information practice?

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Anne Brice, Head of Knowledge and Information Sciences, in the Public Health Resource Unit, Oxford
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 1-12

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Evidence-based practice is rightly described as one of the ‘success stories of the 1990s’ (Trinder, 2000). Its growth in popularity is demonstrated by its spread from medicine to related health fields and, more importantly, by its migration to other disciplines and professions.

    This chapter begins with a discussion of evidence-based practice, outlining the political and social context within which it has developed as a major part of public policy (Weiss, 1998; Nutbeam, 2001). It then moves to consider evidence-based information practice in particular, and concludes by discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence-based practice paradigm as they apply to information practice.

    Scenario

    You are a member of a city-wide action group set up by the Education and Leisure Services to tackle concerns regarding the city's 14–16 year olds. There is an increasing perception that this age group is not being addressed by local facilities and amenities and, rightly or wrongly, this lack is being linked to a high prevalence of vandalism, drug use and teenage pregnancy. Working in a subgroup involving representatives of school, public, educational charity and further education college libraries, you are devising an action plan focusing on the specific contribution libraries might make.

    You decide to look for evidence from the research literature to inform your decision making. A search on the internet, complemented by bibliographic databases,

    identifies work funded by the UK organization Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (then Resource) as part of the ‘Start with the child’ initative. A research report reviews primary and secondary research and is usefully subdivided by age group. Each section models the child's world, then identifies the needs and motivations of that age group before outlining the implications for services.

    On the basis of this evidence the subgroup devises an action plan which includes the following strategies:

  • • to provide a more welcoming atmosphere with a more sophisticated ambience and a variety of dedicated spaces – quiet, loud and chill-out

  • • to involve young people in the design and in staffing and interfacing

  • • to broaden content to reflect popular/contemporary/commercial culture, including music and fashion

  • • to allow young people to plug their own music into workspaces, through headphones and listening posts.

  • 16 - An evidence-based approach to collection management

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 185-195

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter outlines the main components of collection management within the increasingly popular concept of the ‘hybrid’ collection which brings together both paper and electronic sources. It identifies a range of questions that management of such collections needs to address. The evidence base is characterized in terms of useful sources and important research studies. This chapter is followed by a special topic examining the research evidence on managing the electronic/ paper mix in connection with journal holdings.

    What is evidence-based collection management?

    The third domain identified by Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) is Collections by which they refer to the activity of: ‘building (and we could add maintaining) a high-quality collection of print and electronic materials that is useful, cost-effective and meets the users’ needs’.

    The broad term ‘collection management’ includes collection development, maintenance and withdrawal. Collection development involves ‘planning, goalsetting, decision-making, budgeting, and acquiring materials and evaluating them’ (Gessesse, 2000). Richards and Eakin (1997) emphasize the centrality of this domain to information practice: ‘The library's collection is its heart because it is the collection that is the central information resource upon which most library activities rely …. Today's vision of the collection must incorporate both a broader range of materials … and a greater sense of connectivity’.

    The first impression on reviewing this domain is the tremendous spectrum encompassed, from management-oriented tasks of collection development to the physical (or even electronic) sciences involved in preservation or restoration of printed or electronic materials. Some observers identify the specific field of archive management as one of the most unequivocally ‘evidence-based’ areas of information practice. On the other hand, Scott Plutchak, in reviewing collection development, affirms that ‘as with so much else in librarianship (and medicine, for that matter), [it] remains more of an art than a science’ (Plutchak, 2003). If evidence-based information practice is the science of making decisions then our view of evidence-based collection management has to be reconciled with the observation of Richards and Eakin (1997) that: ‘Librarians make decisions about collections …. Some claim these decisions are primarily an art; others argue that they are, or should be, grounded in scientific methods’.

  • 3 - Evidence-based information practice: a prehistory

  • from Part 1 - The context for evidence-based information practice
    • By Jonathan Eldredge, Assistant Professor in the School of Medicine and Coordinator of Academic and Clinical Services in the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center at the University of New Mexico
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 24-35

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Although the contribution of evidence to information practice has only been recognized in recent years, librarianship has a long pedigree in practitioner-based research. The first known cohort study in health librarianship was reported in 1946 and other health librarians adapted the basic cohort design to answer important questions during the 1950s and early 1960s. The first randomized controlled trial (RCT) in health librarianship took place during the late 1970s. A small but identifiable stream of such studies continued during the early 1990s (see Box 3.1).

    Thus, health librarians can point to use of research designs such as cohort studies or RCTs even before ‘evidence-based medicine’ was first reported.

    This chapter charts the development of practitioner-led research as a fundamental platform for evidence-based librarianship (EBL) and the broader, evidence-based information practice (EBIP). It considers where EBIP has come from, examines major historical developments, and highlights a few individual contributions in our search for the early origins of EBIP.

    In the beginning …

    … was a question. Evidence-based information practice (EBIP) existed as a concept long before it became a label. A long time ago someone working in a library asked, ‘Is this really the best way to do this?’ Or, perhaps they wondered, ‘Why don't we try doing this a new way instead of the way we have always done it?’ Or, perhaps they asked, ‘Why don't more people use our library?’ What happened next probably depended upon how their manager (or some other person in authority) reacted to their questioning of conventional wisdom. The identity of that first librarian is lost to the obscurity of time.

    Early EBIP antecedents

    The roots of EBIP pre-date the modern international movement and may be traced in the histories of the profession and biographies of noted librarians, professional ‘ancestors’ who exhibited, at times, one or more of its defining characteristics. Surveying the past 5500 years, however, historian James Thompson (Thompson, 1977) makes the humbling observation that: ‘The development of libraries and librarianship has not been some kind of evolutionary process whereby these have grown better and better’.

  • 19 - Introducing an evidence-based approach to marketing and promotional activities

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 257-271

  • Summary

    After defining evidence-based marketing this chapter considers questions that those marketing their service might need to answer. After briefly considering sources that address marketing and promotion, such as business and psychological databases, it critically examines studies that have examined this area. The chapter concludes with a look at the need for complementarity of research techniques within this domain.

    What is evidence-based marketing and promotion?

    By marketing and promotion, Crumley and Koufogiannakis (2002) refer to the activities of ‘promoting the profession, the library and its services to both users and non-users’. In a recent article on ‘information marketing’ Rowley (2003) rehearses the following definition: ‘Marketing is the management process, which identifies, anticipates and supplies customer requirements efficiently and profitably (Chartered Institute of Marketing).’

    Although the library profession generally resists the term ‘customer’, preferring ‘reader’, ‘user’ or ‘client’, the recent expansion of marketing from goods and products to services has made business analogies more acceptable. This has opened the way for the domain of marketing and promotional activities to accommodate a wider knowledge base from the business and commercial literature.

    Within its wider context marketing includes affecting behaviour (Rowley, 2003) and changing attitudes. In this sense marketing occupies a niche of perennial concern for libraries as a mechanism for raising awareness of a service amongst its stakeholders. Senior managers need to be convinced that they should spend resources on information services in preference to other activities or services. A prerequisite to successful marketing is ‘premarketing’ (Booth, 2003) (i.e. the identification of users’ information needs). Hence this domain includes the information needs analysis or information (or marketing or communications) audit (Cram, 1995; Weingand, 1997).

    Asking the question

    As Rowley (2003) remarks: ‘The large majority of the literature on the marketing of libraries and information services is in the form of either ‘‘how to’’ guides, or case studies of practice in specific contexts. This needs to be countered by an acknowledgement that there are unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions relating to marketing.’ This concisely highlights two key issues when applying evidence-based practice to this domain – first, the poor quality of usable literature, as already characterized in the broader, yet associated, domain of management and, second, the mismatch between questions addressed by the literature and those posed by the practitioner. Despite such an unpropitious verdict there is sufficient literature in marketing to merit consideration.

  • 20 - A future for evidence-based information practice?

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Anne Brice, Head of Knowledge and Information Sciences, in the Public Health Resource Unit, Oxford, Andrew Booth, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Ellen Crumley, Clinical Librarian with the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Alberta, Canada, Denise Koufogiannakis, Collections Manager at the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta, Canada, Jonathan Eldredge, Assistant Professor in the School of Medicine and Coordinator of Academic and Clinical Services in the Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center at the University of New Mexico
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 279-292

  • Summary

    This concluding chapter, bringing together perspectives from evidence-based information practice in the UK, US and Canada, takes stock of achievements so far. It considers the main challenges facing the movement as it gathers momentum, and suggests some short and long-term priorities. After defining progress made, both nationally and internationally, it records personal aspirations for the evidencebased practice paradigm, linked to some ‘quick wins’ to be achieved if such a culture is to develop and grow.

    The EBIP journey

    The successful planning, delivery and experience of the first Evidence Based Librarianship Conference in Sheffield in September 2001 may be viewed, in retrospect, as a major landmark in the progress of the movement (Eldredge, 2001). It brought together individuals from the UK, Canada and the USA, already pioneers in EBL, with a shared awareness of the potential activities and goals required by a global initiative. In charting the unique contribution of each country, alongside complementary developments already underway, the conference presented an opportunity to test EBIP with a broader audience, and to identify practical steps to be planned and taken forward internationally. These included agreement on planning a second conference.

    Since then the EBIP movement has moved forward on sometimes divergent and sometimes parallel tracks, culminating in a second International Conference held in Edmonton, Canada in June 2003. Several key themes have emerged as a potential focus for future strategies and actions.

    Any movement seeking ‘critical mass’ must be active in awareness raising and dissemination. Initiatives to date include publishing, community building and teaching and learning activities.

    Publishing

    A plethora of conceptual literature has been published, bringing EBIP to the forefront of professional concerns and generating interest in its development. Leading articles have promoted EBIP in the major health libraries journals and, perhaps more significantly, in generalist library journals (Booth and Haines, 1998; Koufogiannakis and Crumley, 2002; Marshall, 2003).

    After several years of hosting a quarterly ‘Research’ column the editorial team of Health Information and Libraries Journal (formerly Health Libraries Review) decided that the principles of research-based practice were beginning to be integrated within the main body of the journal to the extent that a separate column was no longer required.

  • Special Topic (B) How can I train my users? (Evidence Digest)

  • from Part 3 - Using the evidence base in practice
    • By Alison Brettle, Research Fellow (Information) at the Health Care Practice R&D Unit (HCPRDU), University of Salford
  • Edited by Andrew Booth, Anne Brice
  • Book:
    Evidence-based Practice for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    15 March 2004, pp 178-184

  • Summary

    Why is it important?

    Finding evidence is an essential skill for students and practitioners. With increasing numbers of end-users independently searching electronic resources there is a need to acquire information skills to support lifelong learning. Librarians and information professionals, with their knowledge of sources and searching, are well placed to teach these skills.

    Evidence-based healthcare requires clinicians to find information to keep up-to-date in order to make better informed treatment decisions. They need skills in asking the right questions, identifying sources and selecting the best quality evidence (Hicks, 1998). Accessing research evidence in electronic databases also requires new skills in information technology (Pyne et al., 1999). Research has shown that medical professionals are less effective at searching than librarians, finding less relevant information and missing important information, for example conflicting conclusions about treatment effectiveness (Haynes et al., 1990). Optimizing search skills is therefore a worthwhile goal (Erickson and Warner, 1998). Information skills training can help practitioners recognize and use evidence, and make more efficient use of their time (Hicks, 1998).

    This chapter draws on evidence from the health sector. However, it is likely that the lessons and experiences learned are relevant and transferable to other sectors.

    What is required?

    Teaching methods

    Teaching information skills, or user education, is undertaken in a wide variety of settings, using a range of methods (Brettle, 2003; University Health Sciences Librarians Group, 2001). These include:

  • • didactic sessions

  • • demonstration of techniques

  • • hands-on sessions

  • • one-to-one sessions

  • • small and large groupwork

  • • interactive web packages

  • • sessions delivered via e-mail

  • • various combinations of the above.

    • However, a systematic review of career grade doctors (Davis et al., 1995) concluded that training using enabling or reinforcing elements is more effective in improving outcomes than are formal and didactic teaching methods. Teaching strategies used in evidence-based medicine (question formulation, searching for evidence, critical appraisal, implementing evidence and evaluation of performance) have also been shown to be effective (Rosenberg and Donald, 1995; Rosenberg et al., 1998).

    The NHS Executive (1999) advises that education providers should: consider access to ICT facilities; allow individuals to set their own learning objectives (as they have better ownership and motivation towards learning than those whose objectives are set for them); establish fixed areas of learning and flexibility to respond to individual needs; enable clinicians to use new information skills to reinforce and retain them; and take the clinicians’ normal environment into account when developing programmes.

  • 4 - Creating and capturing records

  • Elizabeth Shepherd, Geoffrey Yeo
  • Book:
    Managing Records
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 December 2003, pp 101-145

  • Summary

    Much organizational activity leads naturally to the creation of records, but few organizations seek to record everything that they do. Written communications generate records, but most spoken communications leave no record unless a written note is made, and manual and physical tasks can also pass unrecorded. However, new ways of working and new technologies often make it simpler to create records where none were created in the past. With the growth of e-mail, many messages that might once have been verbal are now written; digital telephony and voicemail have made it easier to capture evidence of telephone communications when records are required. The first part of this chapter examines organizational needs for the creation of records, and discusses the intellectual and practical aspects of managing records at the point of their creation or receipt.

    The characteristics that records need (authenticity, integrity, usability and reliability) have been discussed in Chapter 1. Records that have these qualities provide a full and accurate representation of the processes and activities that give rise to them. They serve the purposes of business users, lawyers, auditors and regulators. They underwrite the organization's requirements for accountability and transparency as well as providing for its business needs and corporate memory. A records creation strategy helps to ensure that records meet the appropriate standards of quality, but it is also essential that they are captured into a secure and effective records management system so that these qualities will remain intact over time. The second part of this chapter considers principles and procedures for identifying what needs to be captured and for managing the systematic capture of records in paper and digital form.

    Principles of records creation and capture

    Identifying where records are needed

    Some writers assert that a record should be created and captured for every organizational activity, or at least for every transaction involving more than one party (Bearman, 1994, 300). Others suggest that some processes or some steps within a process may not need to generate records, and that the role of records management is to identify how far each process should be recorded (Reed, 1997, 221–2). In practice this depends on the needs of the organization. Highly regulated industries and organizations whose work is publicly sensitive may need to ensure that every telephone call and every verbal transaction is documented, but in most organizations this is neither necessary nor practical.

  • 3 - Structure of AACR2 and of the MARC 21 format

  • J. H. Bowman
  • Book:
    Essential Cataloguing
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 December 2003, pp 12-19

  • Summary

    AACR2 divides cataloguing into the two main processes that I mentioned on p. 6:

  • • description

  • • access points.

    • The arrangement of the code depends on this basic distinction.

    The whole of AACR2 Part I covers description. Because of the way the chapters are laid out there is considerable repetition, and it is usually necessary to look at two chapters at the same time.

    This is because Chapter 1 is written in very general terms. It is intended to apply to any kind of material that might need to be catalogued: it is not specifically about books, or videos, or electronic resources, or anything else. But because these specific formats – and the rest – each have unique features they need chapters of their own, to elaborate on Chapter 1 and to give more specific examples.

    In order to avoid too much repetition, each of Chapters 2–12 keeps referring back to Chapter 1, and uses the same numbering system for its sections. This means that once you know that section. 4 of Chapter 1 refers to the Publication, distribution, etc., area of the description, you automatically know that section. 4 of Chapter 7 will refer to the Publication, distribution, etc., area for videorecordings.

    AACR2 Chapter 13 is an exception to this scheme. It does not follow the same arrangement as Chapters 1–12, but deals solely with the making of analytical entries.

    The access points aspect of cataloguing can be further broken down, as follows:

  • • Selection of access point

    • For example, in cataloguing an edition of Macbeth, who is the author? Answer: Shakespeare, but at this stage we are not concerned about how to spell his name.

  • • Selection of name to be used as basis for heading

    • Continuing with the same example, although there was a long period when the spelling ‘Shakspere’ was common, we shall use the form ‘William Shakespeare’ because that is how his name is usually spelt nowadays. Note that in choosing this form we may be departing from the form that appears in the item itself.

Managing Records
  • A Handbook of Principles and Practice
  • Elizabeth Shepherd, Geoffrey Yeo
  • Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 December 2003
  • Many organizations do not yet have a formal programme of records management, but increasingly they are recognizing the benefits of well managed records and the serious consequences of inadequate records systems. Establishing records management and maintaining an effective programme requires specialist expertise. This essential manual of practice provides a detailed guide to the concepts, skills and techniques of records management for organizational staff who have a responsibility for setting up, maintaining or restructuring a records management programme. It offers invaluable advice on the management of records in both electronic and traditional paper media, and focuses on the following areas: understanding records management; analysing the context for records management; classifying records and documenting their context; creating and capturing records; managing appraisal, retention and disposition; maintaining records and assuring their integrity; providing access; implementing records management. The appendices provide a wealth of additional information including a list of standards for records management, an annotated bibliography and sources of further information, and details of professional and advisory bodies. This much needed manual is an indispensable purchase for organizations wishing to introduce better practices for managing their records. The book is intended to be of value to experienced records managers as well as LIS practitioners and newcomers to the field. It should be on the desk of every manager and every information professional with responsibility for records management.

  • 6 - Multipart works

  • J. H. Bowman
  • Book:
    Essential Cataloguing
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 December 2003, pp 128-136

  • Summary

    Considering how common they are, AACR2's treatment of multipart works is deplorable and quite inadequate. In this chapter I will look first at the problems of description, and will then conclude with a short section on access points.

    Description

    Throughout this discussion I use the term ‘multipart title’ to mean the title that applies to all the parts, and ‘part number’ and ‘part title’ to refer to the number and title of the individual part. In the case of books we would usually use the term ‘volume’ for ‘part’.

    Two possible models are provided:

    1 Part number and/or part title included in Title and statement of responsibility area

    Multipart title. Part number [GMD] / statement of responsibility [etc.]

    This could presumably be extended to include the part title also (or instead of the part number), and it appears from elsewhere that the punctuation to introduce the part title is ‘comma space’, and that the part title must have a capital letter.

    This model is also implied by the rules about uniform titles for parts of a work, where examples of cross-references are given in the same form.

    2 Part number and/or part title moved to separate area

    Multipart title [GMD] / statement of responsibility [etc., followed by the rest of the description] Part number: Part title

    i.e., the description of the individual part is relegated to a separate area of the description which is not otherwise used. The whole description of the multipart title comes first.

    Notice that in this system the part title is introduced by ‘colon space’ rather than ‘comma space’.

    The second system appears only under the heading ‘Multilevel description’ in AACR2 Chapter 13, which otherwise deals with analytical entries. It has the advantage of being infinitely extensible, in cases where the parts are further divided. It is also easier to place edition statements and statements of responsibility correctly so that they appear with the title to which they refer.

    The implication is that the latter rule would not normally be used. You are therefore recommended to use the first system. There is another problem, however.

  • 7 - Providing access

  • Elizabeth Shepherd, Geoffrey Yeo
  • Book:
    Managing Records
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 December 2003, pp 216-245

  • Summary

    Records are kept so that they can be made available to authorized users when required. Users may include the staff of the business unit where the records were created, other business units within the organization or authorized users from outside the organization.

    At the time of their creation, records are normally accessible only to their creators and perhaps to other members of a workgroup. When they are captured into a records management system, they normally become more widely accessible: capture is often the moment when the existence of the records is publicized, although it may also be the point at which formal access controls are applied to protect confidentiality.

    Since most organizations hold large numbers of records, systems must be in place to allow different users, and records management staff, to ascertain what records exist and to find those that are relevant to a particular need. Along with access control mechanisms, these need to be planned when records management programmes and systems are set up. This chapter examines the issues and offers some solutions to the questions of records retrieval.

    Meeting the needs of users

    Users and their requirements

    In order to design effective retrieval systems, records managers need an understanding of user requirements. Users articulate requests for retrieval in a variety of ways. For example, they may state that:

  • • a particular record exists, and they want to see it

  • • a particular process or activity took place in the past, and they want to find evidence or information about it

  • • they are gathering information about a particular topic to support the activity that they are currently engaged on

  • • they are undertaking broadly based research, and want to see if the records contain material that may be relevant.

    • Most of these requests allow several degrees of uncertainty. Some users may know that a record exists and be able to identify it precisely; others may seek the same record but be ignorant or uncertain of its title or location. Users may know that an activity took place but have varying degrees of uncertainty about when it occurred, who participated in it or what records it gave rise to. Access mechanisms must be able to satisfy a range of users, including those who have little or no prior knowledge of the records.

    In addition, retrieval systems must be able to handle records at different levels of aggregation.

Page 291 of 293