Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  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
×

6023 results in Facet Publishing

Page 139 of 302

  • 13 - Special libraries

  • from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
    • By Bill Fisher, professor with the School of Information at San Jose State University.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 151-164

  • Summary

    Evidence-based library and information practice; who could argue or take issue with an idea like that? If asked, almost all of us would say that we make rational decisions based on current practice as described in the professional literature, conference presentations/proceedings, or from our conversations with colleagues from our own organization as well as other organizations. After all, who is going to admit to making irrational decisions, employing conjecture-based practice or flying by the seat of their pants in order to get by in the workplace? From the other chapters in this book, one can assess the extent to which EBLIP has had an impact on the recognized LIS subfields: academic libraries, public libraries, school libraries and health sciences libraries (where things began). This chapter will put EBLIP into context for the remaining subfield of special, or non-traditional libraries.

    As with any endeavour of this nature, a few definitions are in order so as to establish the scope of what follows. For the purposes of this chapter, a special library may be part of a larger, parent organization; typically has a collection that is focused on one or more topic areas; and has a defined population of customers, so that it may not be available to the general public. Indeed, in a very large organization the special library may be funded by certain segments of the larger organization, so that the library may be available only to those affiliated with those segments of the organization that actively support/fund the library. There are also a couple of generalizations that we can make about special libraries. First, no two special libraries are alike. While most public libraries will offer very similar services and have very similar collections, if this happens with special libraries it is more by chance than by design. Second, special libraries don't have to exist; there are rarely things like accreditation standards or mandates that compel an organization to maintain a special library. Special libraries exist to provide specific services and develop/maintain a specific collection. If the library fails to do this or those services/collections are no longer needed by the organization, that special library will cease to exist.

  • 3 - Articulate

  • from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
    • By Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK., Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 19-26

  • Summary

    EBLIP begins with a question, a need to understand the problem, which is then articulated or clarified. For librarians this may be an area where service improvement is required, or it may be related to the management of the library's collection, for example. It could be a question about how an instruction or academic librarian should best teach information literacy concepts, or it could involve a big decision such as the reconfiguration of reference services in the library. Different stakeholders may have different types of questions; for example, practitioners’ questions may well be about practice, whereas managers, funders or policy makers may want evidence to demonstrate the use or value of a service. This chapter will outline the importance of a clear question and describe methods that have been used to clarify and situate questions within EBP.

    The importance of a clear question

    Eldredge notes that ‘Questions drive the entire EBL process. […] The wording and content of the questions will determine what kinds of research designs are needed to secure answers’ (Eldredge, 2000b, 292). This is true to a certain extent, but, as noted in the previous chapter, this book follows a holistic approach to EBLIP. We need to ensure that the question allows us to capture what we already know and incorporates local evidence and our professional knowledge. Therefore, it is more appropriate that the wording and content of the question will allow us to consider all the relevant evidence that we may want to use in order to answer the question.

    A clear question will enable us to find the appropriate evidence to help us make the decision (Booth, 2006). Just as when embarking on a research project it is important to have a clear research question, because vague research questions tend to lead to vague results, with EBLIP, clear questions will help us make better-informed decisions.

    Davies (2011) suggests that articulating the question also involves a period of reflection, considering issues such as ‘Is this really what I'm looking for?’, ‘Why am I looking for this information?’ and ‘Is there another option to pursue first?’ As well as being clear about the question or problem itself, we need to think about what we know already, the ultimate purpose of the decision (or question), and we must be honest about assumptions or difficulties that may present obstacles.

  • 3 - Existing ontologies

  • David Stuart
  • Book:
    Practical Ontologies for Information Professionals
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    09 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 53-78

  • Summary

    Introduction

    There are a large number of ontologies already available, and more are being developed all the time. This chapter primarily focuses on some of the dominant ontologies being used online. There are many additional ontologies that are associated with specific research projects but have not been more widely adopted, and ontologies that are highly subject-specific. These are generally avoided in this chapter, as there is little advantage in being aware of these ontologies unless it is your field. The one exception that has been made is the inclusion of the Bible Ontology, as the transformation of a narrative work to an ontology provides an interesting comparison with the other ontologies in this chapter, all of which, with the exception of DBpedia, are ontology element sets. The list in this chapter is the best-seller list of ontologies, ignoring the long tail of Bradfordian distribution where most ontologies have limited reuse.

    After a brief note on the topic of ontology documentation, the chapter is split into four parts. The first part covers the most important ontologies that are used to construct ontologies themselves: RDF, RDFS, SKOS, and OWL2. The next part considers some of the ontologies that are associated with more traditional library and information roles, representing books and other types of resources. This is followed by a look at the upper ontology Basic Formal Ontology and two of the dominant cultural heritage data models: the Europeana Data Model, and CIDOC-Conceptual Reference Model. Finally, some of the most widely adopted ontologies on the web are considered.

    Ontology documentation

    When making use of existing ontologies, the information professional is likely to be met with one of two problems. Either there is very little documentation, if any, associated with an ontology, or there is a vast amount of documentation available for an ostensibly simple ontology. The lack of sufficient documentation is the bane of much of the open web, whether open data, open source software, or open ontologies, whereas the second problem can be caused by the need for ontologies to be unambiguous.

  • 14 - Conclusion

  • from PART 2 - EBLIP IN ACTION
    • By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 165-170

  • Summary

    In this book we have attempted to provide you with an overview of the current state of EBLIP, as well as tools to help you develop an evidence-based approach. EBLIP has shifted over the years, developing from roots in EBM into a model that takes the unique context of LIS professionals into account. The model we have presented is one that was derived from observation, tested and developed by empirical research and, through the case approach in this book, has been demonstrated to be widely applicable across library sectors. The model takes a more holistic view of evidence as well as of the cyclical nature of professional decision making. It also considers barriers to practising in an evidence-based way. While we have presented a model with various stages, we want to emphasize that it is not the exact stages that are important. Having a model is a helpful way to consider and discuss aspects of the process and to break it down into steps that seem manageable. However, we hope that this book has emphasized that EBP is more about approaching practice with a particular mindset, rather than about checking off steps in a process.

    Being evidence based means that you consider your practice from a curious and questioning perspective, with a view to continuous improvement. As such, you question what you are currently doing and think about possible ways to do things better. This questioning leads you to gather evidence sources that are best to help answer your questions. Where no good evidence sources exist, or to make sense of your context, you engage in gathering local evidence or in doing research that is appropriate to the question at hand. You share what you learn with others in order to improve the knowledge of the profession and grow a community of practice that ultimately changes the profession for the better. You implement solutions that you believe are the best, based on the evidence you have found, and then reflect on and further evaluate whether your new implementation has worked. You talk about what you are doing with your community of users, and listen to and incorporate their feedback, adapting services over time.

  • 5 - Archival preservation

  • Margaret Crockett
  • Book:
    The No-nonsense Guide to Archives and Recordkeeping
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    10 September 2022
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 171-192

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Preservation: the function of ensuring archives are managed, stored and used under conditions that ensure their longevity.

    Preservation is the function which underpins everything we do when we commit to keeping archives. In selecting archives, organizing them and making them available for use we should always be aware that our goal is to keep these records for ever. This entails a range of management functions and skills which must be in place to protect and preserve the archives, no matter what their age or medium. Preservation management is something everyone in the team, including support staff and volunteers, should be doing. There is an innate tension between most of the work of managing archives – particularly the provision of access – and the preservation goal. But keeping that goal in mind can improve the other areas of our work. For example, assessing preservation requirements as part of the accessioning process ensures that conservation and packaging needs are being logged as part of one handling of the material, thus preventing unnecessary wear and tear. At the same time, management data is being collected to feed into strategy and priority setting for preservation purposes. Figure 5.1 shows the relationship between preservation and the main archival functions discussed in Chapter 4, indicating the archives management activity that both affects and is affected by preservation considerations.

    Preservation planning consists of many elements and Table 5.1 gives a brief overview of the separate elements and what they involve, also noting digital record preservation issues.

    In all of these areas we are seeking to prevent damage and/or deterioration, minimize damage that cannot be prevented, to treat damaged material and above all to ensure that the archives remain legible and accessible. Preservation is a complicated regime of care and maintenance where we identify what can be done routinely and what needs special attention. If done correctly, it ensures that the archives we have inherited, together with the archives of our own time, will survive for future generations

    Policy and strategy

    A preservation policy is an agreed statement on the repository's aims and strategic approach to preserving archives. As with all policies, it provides the framework rather than the detail of what to do and how.

  • Introduction

  • Margaret Crockett
  • Book:
    The No-nonsense Guide to Archives and Recordkeeping
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    10 September 2022
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp xi-xii

  • Summary

    This book is written for all those working in archives and records management, especially those without formal training, but also people managing archives and records management staff and those working closely with archives and records management, such as IT professionals, librarians and museum curators. It is intended as a practical how-to-do-it guide to managing archives and records and covers all aspects of recordkeeping and archives management following the records’ journey through the lifecycle. Because of this, the chapters are not of equal length, but divide into the four main work areas: current records; records management; archives management; and archives preservation. The book deals with records and archives in all formats and unless specifically mentioned as paper or digital, the guidance is format-neutral. Reference to ‘corporate’ records is not intended in the narrow private enterprise sense, but rather the more general ‘body corporate’. Similarly when ‘business’ is mentioned, it is in the sense of the wider work and goals of any organization.

  • 6 - Agree

  • from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
    • By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 59-70

  • Summary

    After assessing and weighing all the evidence, you need to determine what would be the best course of action in answering your question and implementing a solution in practice. We call this point in the process Agree because, more often than not, you will not be the only one making the decision. Quite often library-based decisions are made in groups, which could consist of an internal group of librarians assigned to come up with a solution. Even if you do work on something by yourself, at the point of decision, others may be involved.

    At this point in the process you must determine the best way forward, based on your assessment of the various sources of evidence (Chapter 5). It is important to remember that we all bring biases to our interpretation of the evidence as a whole, so recognizing this is an important step toward making better decisions. In this chapter we discuss some of these factors that may influence the decision-making process.

    As you are working through this process, some of the questions you need to ask include whether you have looked at all the evidence openly and without prejudice; what is the best decision based on everything we know from the problem, the context and the evidence; and whether you have considered all reasonable alternatives.

    Ultimately, you will need to determine a course of action and begin implementation of the decision. Ideally, you would be able to reach consensus among those making the decision, based on the strength of the evidence found and considered. However, it is unlikely that this will always be the case. The more clearly you can present to others the reasons for your decision, the evidence that was reviewed and how it led you to the decision made, the easier your implementation will be at an organizational level. In this chapter we will explore some of the factors within individual and group decision making that librarians should be aware of in order to ensure that the process and implementation are as smooth as possible. Figure 6.1 illustrates the influences on effective decision making that we will discuss in this chapter.

  • 2 - A new framework for EBLIP

  • from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
    • By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 11-18

  • Summary

    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.

  • 1 - Introduction

  • from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
    • By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 3-10

  • Summary

    This book brings together recent theory, research and case studies from practice environments across the broad field of librarianship to illustrate how librarians can incorporate the principles of evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) into their work. EBLIP is an approach to professional decision making; however, we wish to emphasize an overall approach to practice that is about being evidence based, which is not limited only to decision making. Being evidence based involves:

    • questioning our practice:

  • — are we doing things in the best way, and is there a better way?

  • — do we have the information we need to do our jobs?

  • — do we have the evidence we need to make well-informed decisions?

  • — why are we making the decisions that we are making?

    • • gathering or creating the evidence (through research or evaluation) if we don't have it already

    • using information or evidence wisely:

  • — to make decisions about our own practice

  • — to improve our practice by testing out new ideas and implementing them based on the evidence we find

  • — to make decisions about our services

  • — to help others make decisions about our services (by demonstrating our effectiveness, value, impact or worth)

    • • using our professional skills to help others (often to make their own evidencebased decisions).

    This book develops and rethinks the original EBLIP model. It takes an open and inclusive approach to exploring EBLIP and the ways in which it can improve the practice of librarianship. Since EBLIP's inception in 1997 the understanding of what evidence is, as well as how and why librarians use evidence, has grown more mature. Correspondingly, this book puts forward a model and approach to evidence that has evolved but is more realistic and practical for librarians in their everyday work.

    This book builds upon the seminal work of Booth and Brice (2004b) by incorporating recent research and practice- based examples to illustrate the natural progression of EBLIP since Booth and Brice's work was published. This book seeks to provide librarians with an accessible new reference point for how they can use and create evidence within their practice to better meet the needs of their communities. It is organized into two sections; the first is structured around Koufogiannakis’ revised framework for EBLIP (Koufogiannakis, 2013), which embraces a wider breadth of evidence sources and understanding of how librarians use evidence.

  • 4 - Assemble

  • from PART 1 - BACKGROUND AND MODEL
    • By Denise Koufogiannakis, Associate University Librarian at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Alison Brettle, Reader in Evidence Based Practice and Director of Post Graduate Research in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Research at the University of Salford, UK.
  • Edited by Allison Brettle, Denise Koufogiannakis
  • Book:
    Being Evidence Based in Library and Information Practice
    Published by:
    Facet
    Published online:
    08 June 2018
    Print publication:
    31 August 2016, pp 27-44

  • Summary

    Working within the EBLIP process, librarians need to assemble evidence from a variety of sources that are most appropriate to the problem or question at hand. Assembling evidence is key to the whole concept of EBP, and determining the sources of evidence that one will draw upon when making practice-based decisions is paramount. We must use professional judgement to determine the best and most appropriate sources of evidence, depending upon what we want to know. Evidence may come from external sources, locally gathered data or our own professional knowledge. This chapter will start with an overview of the concept of evidence and how it relates to librarianship, explore different types of evidence and look more specifically at sources of evidence within librarianship and how to find the needed evidence. The goal of this chapter is to expand your thinking about what evidence is and to help you determine some of the sources that you can draw upon. Being evidence based means that we consider many forms of evidence in conjunction with one another to form a well informed and considered professional opinion.

    The concept of evidence

    To begin considering what types of evidence we should seek and then use as part of decision making within librarianship, we first need to ask ‘what is evidence’ within our field. This is no small question, but one that underlines the whole evidence-based approach.

    The Oxford Dictionary (2010) states that evidence is ‘the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid’. Scholars agree that evidence is that which serves as a form of proof (Hornikx, 2005; Reynolds and Reynolds, 2002; Twinning, 2003; Upshur, Van Den Kerkhof and Goel, 2001). Schrum (2011) notes that evidence has three major properties – relevance, credibility and inferential force or weight (p. 19). This means that, to be considered as evidence, pieces of information must be relevant to the question at hand, must be considered credible or trustworthy and must show strength in comparison to other pieces of information that are being considered. We will consider how to assess the credibility and weight of evidence in more detail later, in Chapter 5.

Page 139 of 302