Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL): A content analysis of journal articles

Shuichi Ueda, Junko Shiozaki, Chihiro Kunimoto, Yosuke Miyata, Sawako Hayashi, Shinji Mine, Emi Ishita, Keiko Kurata

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The evidence-based librarianship (EBL) approach promotes the application of research results to library services and at the same time, is a promising methodological frame-work for further improving the quality of research in library science. In this paper, the issues surrounding EBL and its application are discussed. Method: One hundred Japanese journal articles on library and information science were coded according to the level of their EBL evidence (one of seven levels), the three types of EBL questions, and the domain of the article as defined in the EBL approach. Results: Thirty three articles were identified as case studies (Level 6) and fifty three articles were identified as expert opinion (Level 7). Only two articles were coded as summing up (Level 2) which are said to have high EBL evidence. Thirty percent of the papers did not contain questions; therefore, they were not able to be assigned to one of the three types of questions. Fifteen of the articles were in the "collections" domain and twenty three were in the " management" domain; however, no articles were in the "marketing/ promotion" domain. Since the concept of EBL is derived from evidence-based medicine (EBM), it can be difficult to apply it to articles in library and information science.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-115
Number of pages11
JournalLibrary and Information Science
Issue number59
Publication statusPublished - Oct 20 2008

Fingerprint

librarianship
content analysis
examination
evidence
information science
research results
marketing
promotion
medicine
expert

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

Ueda, S., Shiozaki, J., Kunimoto, C., Miyata, Y., Hayashi, S., Mine, S., ... Kurata, K. (2008). Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL): A content analysis of journal articles. Library and Information Science, (59), 105-115.

Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL) : A content analysis of journal articles. / Ueda, Shuichi; Shiozaki, Junko; Kunimoto, Chihiro; Miyata, Yosuke; Hayashi, Sawako; Mine, Shinji; Ishita, Emi; Kurata, Keiko.

In: Library and Information Science, No. 59, 20.10.2008, p. 105-115.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ueda, S, Shiozaki, J, Kunimoto, C, Miyata, Y, Hayashi, S, Mine, S, Ishita, E & Kurata, K 2008, 'Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL): A content analysis of journal articles', Library and Information Science, no. 59, pp. 105-115.
Ueda S, Shiozaki J, Kunimoto C, Miyata Y, Hayashi S, Mine S et al. Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL): A content analysis of journal articles. Library and Information Science. 2008 Oct 20;(59):105-115.
Ueda, Shuichi ; Shiozaki, Junko ; Kunimoto, Chihiro ; Miyata, Yosuke ; Hayashi, Sawako ; Mine, Shinji ; Ishita, Emi ; Kurata, Keiko. / Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL) : A content analysis of journal articles. In: Library and Information Science. 2008 ; No. 59. pp. 105-115.
@article{fa2a490109e64ff19acb295dba6bfafa,
title = "Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL): A content analysis of journal articles",
abstract = "Purpose: The evidence-based librarianship (EBL) approach promotes the application of research results to library services and at the same time, is a promising methodological frame-work for further improving the quality of research in library science. In this paper, the issues surrounding EBL and its application are discussed. Method: One hundred Japanese journal articles on library and information science were coded according to the level of their EBL evidence (one of seven levels), the three types of EBL questions, and the domain of the article as defined in the EBL approach. Results: Thirty three articles were identified as case studies (Level 6) and fifty three articles were identified as expert opinion (Level 7). Only two articles were coded as summing up (Level 2) which are said to have high EBL evidence. Thirty percent of the papers did not contain questions; therefore, they were not able to be assigned to one of the three types of questions. Fifteen of the articles were in the {"}collections{"} domain and twenty three were in the {"} management{"} domain; however, no articles were in the {"}marketing/ promotion{"} domain. Since the concept of EBL is derived from evidence-based medicine (EBM), it can be difficult to apply it to articles in library and information science.",
author = "Shuichi Ueda and Junko Shiozaki and Chihiro Kunimoto and Yosuke Miyata and Sawako Hayashi and Shinji Mine and Emi Ishita and Keiko Kurata",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
day = "20",
language = "English",
pages = "105--115",
journal = "Library and Information Science",
issn = "0373-4447",
publisher = "Mita Society for Library and Information Science",
number = "59",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL)

T2 - A content analysis of journal articles

AU - Ueda, Shuichi

AU - Shiozaki, Junko

AU - Kunimoto, Chihiro

AU - Miyata, Yosuke

AU - Hayashi, Sawako

AU - Mine, Shinji

AU - Ishita, Emi

AU - Kurata, Keiko

PY - 2008/10/20

Y1 - 2008/10/20

N2 - Purpose: The evidence-based librarianship (EBL) approach promotes the application of research results to library services and at the same time, is a promising methodological frame-work for further improving the quality of research in library science. In this paper, the issues surrounding EBL and its application are discussed. Method: One hundred Japanese journal articles on library and information science were coded according to the level of their EBL evidence (one of seven levels), the three types of EBL questions, and the domain of the article as defined in the EBL approach. Results: Thirty three articles were identified as case studies (Level 6) and fifty three articles were identified as expert opinion (Level 7). Only two articles were coded as summing up (Level 2) which are said to have high EBL evidence. Thirty percent of the papers did not contain questions; therefore, they were not able to be assigned to one of the three types of questions. Fifteen of the articles were in the "collections" domain and twenty three were in the " management" domain; however, no articles were in the "marketing/ promotion" domain. Since the concept of EBL is derived from evidence-based medicine (EBM), it can be difficult to apply it to articles in library and information science.

AB - Purpose: The evidence-based librarianship (EBL) approach promotes the application of research results to library services and at the same time, is a promising methodological frame-work for further improving the quality of research in library science. In this paper, the issues surrounding EBL and its application are discussed. Method: One hundred Japanese journal articles on library and information science were coded according to the level of their EBL evidence (one of seven levels), the three types of EBL questions, and the domain of the article as defined in the EBL approach. Results: Thirty three articles were identified as case studies (Level 6) and fifty three articles were identified as expert opinion (Level 7). Only two articles were coded as summing up (Level 2) which are said to have high EBL evidence. Thirty percent of the papers did not contain questions; therefore, they were not able to be assigned to one of the three types of questions. Fifteen of the articles were in the "collections" domain and twenty three were in the " management" domain; however, no articles were in the "marketing/ promotion" domain. Since the concept of EBL is derived from evidence-based medicine (EBM), it can be difficult to apply it to articles in library and information science.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=53849115366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=53849115366&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:53849115366

SP - 105

EP - 115

JO - Library and Information Science

JF - Library and Information Science

SN - 0373-4447

IS - 59

ER -