Microsoft Word - ART_Given.doc
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
15
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
FeatureArticle
Evidence‐Based Practice and Qualitative Research: A Primer for Library and
Information Professionals
Lisa Given
Associate Professor
School of Library & Information Studies
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Email: lisa.given@ualberta.ca
Received: 01 December 2006 Accepted: 06 February 2007
© 2007 Given. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Objectives ‐ This paper discusses the importance of qualitative research in evidence‐based
library and information practice (EBLIP), with a focus on practical tips for evaluating and
implementing effective qualitative research projects.
Methods ‐ The paper provides a brief introduction to the nature of qualitative inquiry and
its status within current models of evidence assessment. Three problems of excluding
qualitative research from the evidence‐base in library and information studies (LIS) are
identified: 1) ignoring the social sciences and humanities traditions that inform research in
the field; 2) privileging of quantitative and experimental methods over others in evidence
assessment; and, 3) focusing attention away from the best evidence for LIS research
problems.
Results ‐ Qualitative approaches commonly used in library and information contexts are
discussed, along with strategies for assessing quality in this work and some of the common
ethics‐related issues that researchers and professionals must consider.
Conclusions ‐ LIS professionals are encouraged to: 1) select research methods – including
qualitative approaches – that best suit LIS questions; 2) design collaborative projects that
combine quantitative and qualitative approaches, that will address research questions in a
more complete way; 3) consider qualitative measures of rigor in assessing quality – rather
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
16
than imposing quantitative expectations; and 4) revise existing models of “evidence” to
recognize the value and rigor of qualitative research projects. Objective: This paper
discusses the importance of qualitative research in evidence‐based library and information
practice (EBLIP), with a focus on practical tips for evaluating and implementing effective
qualitative research projects.
Introduction
Evidence‐based library and information
practice (EBLIP) seeks to formalize the links
between research and professional activities,
to enhance information services and
programs across library contexts. Arising
out of health sciences librarianship and
following in the traditions of evidence‐based
practice in medicine and related fields, the
number of conferences and publications that
support this work have seen a dramatic rise
in the last few years.
However, qualitative researchers and the
results of their work remain marginalized in
EBLIP (see Given 2006, for an in‐depth
discussion of these issues). Just as
qualitative research in nursing is often given
less weight when compared to clinical trials
and other experimental methods in
biomedical practice (Morse), so too is
qualitative research pushed to the edges of
EBLIP. Unfortunately, EBLIP’s grounding of
“rigor” and “best evidence” in its historic
biomedical/experimental framework often
excludes the results of qualitative research
due to the imposition of inappropriate
expectations of how data will be gathered
and analysed (Law). This approach raises a
number of problems for LIS professionals
who wish to develop an appropriate
evidence‐base for LIS contexts and problems:
1) It ignores the LIS field’s grounding in a
social sciences and humanities tradition of
scholarship (as opposed to biomedical /
experimental frameworks), which
commonly includes qualitative research
approaches;
2) It privileges particular types of data and
research approaches (namely, those that are
quantitative or experimental in nature) over
other, equally valid research paradigms; and,
3) It focuses the LIS field’s attention on the
wrong question by asking “what is the best
evidence?” based on models imported from
other (primarily health‐related) fields;
instead, LIS professionals should ask “what
is the best evidence for the problems faced
in library and information science?” in the
context of research models appropriate to
the field.
Qualitative Research ‐ a Central Role in
EBLIP
Although many LIS problems may indeed
benefit from systematic reviews and other
experimental approaches (such as the use of
pre‐ and post‐testing in information literacy
instruction), there is a great deal of
qualitative evidence in the field that
practitioners cannot and should not ignore.
It is not only inappropriate to measure the
results of qualitative research using the
standards of clinical trials and other
biomedical and experimental models, but
doing so also negates one of the core tenets
of the LIS profession – namely, selecting
appropriate, quality information to address
current problems or information gaps. As
LIS professionals formalize strategies for
including research evidence in daily practice,
the strengths of our existing body of work
must be addressed. This paper, then, calls
on LIS professionals to:
1) embrace those existing qualitative studies
which are rigorous and relevant to current
LIS practice;
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
17
2) contribute to this literature by conducting
and publishing studies using qualitative
methods; and,
3) revise existing models of “best evidence”
in LIS to include rigorous qualitative
research.
This paper is intended to guide LIS
professionals in these endeavors, and to
serve as an introductory primer for
evaluating and implementing qualitative
research in EBLIP.
Assessing the Quality of Qualitative
Research
Qualitative research in LIS provides credible
evidence about patrons’ perceptions of
library services, the effectiveness of
information literacy strategies, the design of
web portals, and other service‐related
questions (e.g., Saumure & Given). Other
projects use qualitative textual approaches
(such as discourse analysis) to assess library
policies and organizational structures, the
construction of classification systems, and
other questions that require textual forms of
data (e.g., Hedemark, Hedman & Sundin).
Increasingly, LIS researchers are also
combining these approaches (i.e., using
multiple qualitative methods), or
completing studies that use both
quantitative and qualitative approaches to
obtain the best possible evidence (e.g.,
Whitmire 2004). Research in the field of LIS
typically draws on the variety of methods
commonly used in social sciences and
humanities disciplines (including education,
sociology, anthropology, and other related
fields), with a strong emphasis on
qualitative and quantitative research
traditions. Indeed, there are many research
methods texts that can guide LIS
professionals in their assessment of
published qualitative research and in the
design and implementation of qualitative
research projects (e.g., Shank).
To conduct research of high quality
(regardless of paradigm) researchers must
use appropriate methods to address the
research problems at hand. To assess patron
satisfaction with an information literacy
instruction session, for example, a
researcher should start by asking:
1. “What do I want to know?”
2. “What method is best to address this
problem?”
Qualitative methods, by nature, can address
many of the “why” questions that librarians
and LIS researchers have in mind. Where
quantitative approaches are best for
addressing what has occurred or how many
events (e.g., counting the number of times a
patron used the library’s website), these
approaches cannot explain why these
behaviours happen. Qualitative approaches
do just that; they are used to describe things
about which little is known, especially in
natural settings. They capture meaning (in
the form of individuals’ thoughts, feelings,
behaviours, etc.) instead of numbers, and
describe processes rather than outcomes
(Mayan 5‐6). Where quantitative methods
(in attempting to maintain objectivity and
reduce bias), strive to eliminate or control
for contextual elements (such as cultural
background or personal history) so they will
not ‘contaminate’ the variables under study,
qualitative researchers embrace these
elements and design studies that will
examine the relevant issues within a broader,
social context.
Identifying Qualitative Studies
In compiling an evidence‐base for LIS
practice, then, it is important to understand
that the intended goals of qualitative
research – and the types of data and analysis
used in these projects – are markedly
different from those of quantitative studies.
The data that result from qualitative work
tend to be very rich in scope, providing an
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
18
in‐depth glimpse of themes and issues. This
is quite different from the results of
quantitative studies, which typically
provide a broader, surface‐level perspective.
A few key features to note:
• Hundreds of pages of transcripts
may result from a few in‐depth
interviews or dozens of field
journals may be documented in a
series of ethnographic observations.
The data are very rich in scope and
provide for detailed analysis.
• Data collection and analysis may
occur over a period of months, even
within one setting or with only one
small group of participants.
• The sample sizes used in qualitative
research are typically small, due to
the rich data that are gathered and
the depth of analysis required.
Researchers must balance financial
and time constraints against the
type of data required for
meaningful, transferable results
given the research questions being
addressed. Typically, transferable
data (i.e., where themes can be
applied across a larger population)
will result with sample sizes of 15 to
18 people – but this will vary
depending on the scale and scope of
the research problem.
• As researchers may use multiple
methods to explore one research
problem the length of time to
complete a study may also be much
longer than with other research
approaches; even a small‐scale
qualitative project, using only one
method, can be “labor intensive”
due to the rich nature of qualitative
data (Miles & Huberman 46).
• Results are typically published over
many months (or years) and in a
number of separate journal articles
or in a larger, book form. Taken
together, these research reports can
provide a clear and in‐depth picture
of the topics under study.
Qualitative Methods in LIS Research
Qualitative methods texts describe
numerous data collection strategies that can
be used in various settings and to address
different types of research problems (e.g.,
Flick). A few methods that are commonly
used in library settings are detailed here,
with examples from the LIS literature.
However, qualitative researchers are also
active in sociology, education, nursing, and
many other fields, and their results can
inform LIS practice; these should be
included in an evidence‐base for EBLIP (e.g.,
education research can inform the design of
information literacy programs).
Across all of these disciplines, models of
exemplary qualitative research have
emerged. Individuals who wish to learn
more may find journals specializing in
qualitative methods (e.g., International
Journal of Qualitative Methods; Qualitative
Inquiry; Qualitative Health Research) to be
particularly helpful in providing an
overview of issues and guidelines for
implementing and evaluating qualitative
work.
Methods Involving Human Participants
In‐depth, qualitative interviews allow
researchers to examine issues from the
interviewee’s perspective, with a particular
focus on “why” an individual acts a
particular way or makes certain decisions.
Qualitative interviews have been used in
many LIS contexts to explore various topics
and patron behaviors (e.g., Hart, Henwood
& Wyatt). In usability testing, for example,
qualitative interviews can be combined with
explorations of library websites and
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
19
databases to assess users’ preferences and
expectations regarding navigation and
information retrieval. A few key points to
note:
• Interview data consist of verbatim
responses to an interviewer’s
questions, which are designed to
elicit feelings, attitudes, descriptions
of behaviors, and other elements
relevant to the research problem
(see Seidman).
• Interviews typically last 60 to 90
minutes, though this will vary
depending on the scope and goals of
the project.
• Common themes and patterns
emerge from the data (especially
when more than 15 to 18 people are
interviewed).
• Group interviews (often called
“focus groups”) are typically run
with one or more groups of
approximately five to eight people.
• Focus groups are more challenging
to manage than individual
interviews, so should be conducted
by trained facilitators (see Patton).
• Ethics‐related issues will depend on
the nature of the interviews
(individual vs. group), the questions
asked (e.g., sensitive topics?), and
how data will be used (e.g., will
interviewees be identified – or will
pseudonyms be used?).
Observing human behavior in libraries
(such as watching patrons as they use
library computers) can elicit insightful data
that cannot be captured using other
qualitative methods. Observational methods
have been used in a variety of library
settings, to document the activities of
patrons and staff. In some cases,
ethnographic approaches have been used
(e.g., McKechnie), while other projects use
these methods in conjunction with
interviews, photographs, and other data
collection methods (e.g., Leckie & Hopkins).
Some key points to note:
• In observational work, researchers
may document details about the
individuals in the setting (e.g., age,
gender, or behaviors), as well as
physical resources, layout, or other
elements of the organization under
study.
• Observational data are typically
gathered over a long period of
ensure credibility. Some qualitative
researchers may be on site for many
months (especially participant
observers, who may work as
librarians while gathering data);
others may gather data in intensive
observational sessions (to capture “a
day in the life” or a “week in the
life” of the library).
• Observational methods can be overt
(e.g., where a reference librarian’s
colleagues know that s/he is
gathering data as a “participant
observer” during shifts on the
reference desk) or covert (e.g.,
where patrons are observed,
without their knowledge, while
searching for books in the stacks);
ethical issues will vary with the
types of data collected and analysis
strategies.
Textual Methods – with Participants or
Published Texts
These approaches can take two forms –
asking individuals to create texts that will
later be analyzed (e.g., patron journals of
library search habits), or analyzing existing
texts (e.g., reviewing published library
policies on internet filtering). Asking
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
20
patrons to document their activities can be
an effective way to examine patron behavior
without relying on individuals’ memories of
past events (e.g., Julien & Michels 2004).
Examining existing texts can point to
debates in the field or policies that may
inadvertently exclude certain patrons (e.g.,
Given & Julien). Some key points to note:
• Participants typically need some
instruction about how much detail
to provide, how often, and on what
topics, but journals – whether
written or made using digital
audio/video recorders – can often
produce more detailed responses
than interviews or other methods
will allow, as individuals can take
more time to craft a response.
• Journal entries can be combined
with other, complementary methods
(e.g., personal interviews), so that
the researcher can obtain a more
complete picture of the topics under
study.
• The proliferation of publicly
available annual reports, policy
documents, web portals, etc., makes
gathering textual data quick and
easy.
• As with other qualitative methods,
ethics‐related decisions with
participants will depend on the
nature of the investigation (e.g., will
participants be identified?) and the
type of data gathered.
• Publicly available materials,
however, may be assessed without
formal ethics review – however,
many researchers choose to
anonymize data to protect
individuals’ identities (e.g., in
analyzing postings to public
listservs).
Assessment Criteria for Qualitative
Projects
The criteria used to assess the quality and
rigor of quantitative and qualitative studies
are vastly different, and grounded in each
paradigm’s specific (and often contradictory)
end‐goals. In quantitative research, rigor is
judged in terms of a study’s validity,
reliability, generalizability, and objectivity.
Quantitative results are intended to be free
from bias, to be replicable across contexts,
and to generalize from the sample under
study to the full target population (e.g., to
all undergraduate students using Canadian
academic libraries, or to all seniors using
public library websites). Qualitative
research has its own, separate measures of
quality: credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln
& Guba 301‐328).
These criteria are no less rigorous than those
used to assess quantitative data; they are
simply different, and require different steps
and measures to ensure quality data. These
steps may include: prolonged engagement
in the field; persistent observation;
triangulation of methods; negative case
analysis; peer debriefing; member checks;
and many other techniques that are often
used together. Qualitative results are not
designed to generalize or be replicable as
with the results of quantitative studies.
Rather, qualitative results often point to
areas where a single representation of
reality does not hold, or where specific sub‐
populations have particular needs that are
not reflected in broad generalizations (e.g.,
Saumure & Given’s finding that university
students with visual impairments require
special services in the academic library).
Conclusion
As the EBLIP movement continues to gather
momentum in LIS, it would be ideal to put
the controversies to rest regarding the value
of qualitative evidence to support change in
practice. There are a number of steps that
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
21
professionals can take to ensure that the
research they use – and conduct – is of the
highest caliber:
1. Clearly articulate the research problem
and select methods that provide quality
evidence for that problem. Methods
texts provide great advice for matching
problems to methods, and tips for
implementation and evaluation of
quality work.
2. Design collaborative research projects,
where quantitative and qualitative
researchers – as well as LIS scholars and
practitioners – can work together to
build a solid and highly relevant base of
evidence for LIS practice.
3. Review measures of trustworthiness
(credibility, confirmability,
dependability, and transferability) in
reports of qualitative research – while
recognizing that not all writers will
address these markers, explicitly. Do not
presume a lack of rigor in these cases;
rather, examine sample size,
triangulation, etc. in assessing the
quality of the work.
4. Revise existing measures of “evidence”
to best incorporate qualitative research
into EBLIP. Rather than relying on
existing evidence‐base models and
hierarchies that are grounded in a
biomedical framework, develop new
measures that will reflect the social
sciences and humanities traditions of
the LIS field.
In the health sciences, numerous
publications examine the problems and
limitations of not incorporating qualitative
research into systematic review protocols
and other measures of quality evidence (e.g.,
Greenhalgh). It is important that EBLIP
follows this path and finds ways to include
qualitative research in the evidence‐base for
the LIS. As qualitative and quantitative
approaches examine the world from two
very different vantage points, our “best
practice” is one that recognizes and values
both perspectives. Existing EBLIP models
have created a valuable space for discussing
the relevance of research to practice; it is
now vital that those models evolve, to
ensure that all work of high quality will be
part of the EBLIP discourse.
Works Cited
Flick, Uwe. An Introduction to Qualitative
Research. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2006.
Given, Lisa M. “Qualitative Research in
Evidence‐based Practice: A Valuable
Partnership. Library Hi‐Tech: Evidence‐
based Librarianship 24.3 (2006): 376‐386.
Given, Lisa M. “The Academic and the
Everyday: Investigating the Overlap in
Mature Undergraduates’ Information‐
seeking Behaviors.” Library &
Information Science Research 24.1 (2002):
17‐29.
Given, Lisa M., and Heidi Julien. “Finding
Common Ground: An Analysis of
Librarians’ Expressed Attitudes
Towards Faculty. The Reference
Librarian 43.89/90 (2005): 25‐38.
Greenhalgh, Trisha. “Integrating Qualitative
Research into Evidence Based
Practice.” Endocrinology and Metabolism
Clinics of North America 31 (2002): 583‐
601.
Hart, Angie, Flis Henwood and Sally Wyatt.
“The Role of the Internet in Patient‐
Practitioner Relationships: Findings
from a Qualitative Research Study.”
Journal of Medical Internet Research 6.3
(2004). 30 November 2006
.
http://www.jmir.org/2004/3/e36/
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2007, 2:1
22
Hedemark, Ase, Jenny Hedman and Olof
Sundin. “Speaking of Users: On User
Discourses in the Field of Public
Libraries.” Information Research 10.2
(2005). 30 November 2006
.
Julien, Heidi & Michels, David. “Intra‐
individual Information Behaviour.”
Information Processing and Management
40.3 (2004): 547‐62.
Law, Margaret. “The Systematic Review: A
Potential Tool for Research‐grounded
Library Management.” Proceedings of
the 33rd Canadian Association for
Information Science Annual Conference
(2005). 30 November 2006
.
Leckie, Gloria, & Jeffrey Hopkins. “The
Public Place of Central Libraries:
Findings from Toronto and
Vancouver.” Library Quarterly 72.3
(2002): 326‐372.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., & Guba, Egan G.
Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, 1985.
Mayan, Maria J. An Introduction to
Qualitative Methods: A Training Module
for Students and Professionals. Edmonton:
International Institute for Qualitative
Methodology, 2001.
McKechnie, Lynne (E.F.). “Ethnographic
Observation of Preschool Children.”
Library & Information Science Research
22.1 (2000): 61‐76.
Miles, Matthew B., & A. Michael Huberman.
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
1994.
Morse, Janice M. “Beyond the Clinical Trial:
Expanding Criteria for Evidence
[Editorial].” Qualitative Health Research
15.1 (2005): 3‐4.
Palys, Ted. Research Decisions: Quantitative
and Qualitative Perspectives, 2nd ed.
Toronto: Harcourt Brace, 1997.
Patton, Michael. Qualitative Evaluation and
Research Methods, 2nd ed. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage, 1998.
Saumure, Kristie, and Lisa M. Given.
“Digitally Enhanced? An Examination
of the Information Behaviours of
Visually Impaired Postsecondary
Students.” Canadian Journal of
Information and Library Science 28.2
(2004): 25‐42.
Seidman, Irving. Interviewing as Qualitative
Research: A Guide for Researchers in
Education and Social Sciences, 2nd ed.
New York: Teachers College Press,
1998.
Shank, Gary. Qualitative Research: A Personal
Skills Approach. New Jersey: Prentice‐
Hall, 2002.
Whitmire, Ethelene. “The Relationship
Between Undergraduates’
Epistemological Beliefs, Reflective
Judgment, and Their Information‐
seeking Behavior.” Information
Processing and Management 40.1 (2004):
97‐111.
http://informationr.net/ir/10%E2%80%90
http://www.cais%E2%80%90acsi%00