Reflections on Library and Information Science Research

Reflection on a journal article I wrote 21 years ago is a difficult task, especially as I retired three years later. That the intervening years have been spent on other activities, such as fly fishing in New Zealand, rather than those connected to my professional career, makes it even more difficult.

First of all I want to give some background to the article ‘Library and Information Research in Australia 1985–1994’ (Rochester, 1995) and an associated one titled ‘Who Are the Authors?’ (Rochester, 1997). The 1997 paper showed that most of the authors of the research articles wrote alone, few overseas authors published in Australian journals, and not one of the articles was the result of international collaboration. The intellectual isolation of Australian Library and Information Studies (LIS) researchers was noted.

This analysis of research articles using content analysis methodology is still being widely used in LIS. It has been endorsed as a ‘systematic, rigorous approach to analysing documents obtained or generated in the course of research’ (White & Marsh, 2006, p. 41).

The methodology and definition of the 1995 and 1997 articles were used for a survey of historical research by Australian librarians and archivists (Boadle, 2006). He used findings from the LIS analysis and added analysis of the journal Archives and Manuscripts and also papers from the seven Australian Library History Forums convened between 1984 and 1996.

As noted in the 1995 article, the work I carried out to examine research in LIS in Australia was prompted by the work being undertaken by members of the Section of Library Theory and Research of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). I was a member of the Section in the 1990s, and its Chair 1993–1995. The project was based on the approach used by Scandinavian researchers (Jarvelin & Vakkari, 1990) to examine topics, approaches and methods in international research by analysing the core journals in LIS. The scheme involved deciding on the scope of LIS and its subfields, reflecting the understanding of the field in the 1980s. It was used in later comparative studies, and unchanged in the research undertaken in 1995.

The purpose of the Section project was to discover the main trends in LIS research nationally, to observe similarities and differences, to see if there were neglected areas, and of course to encourage research in LIS to improve the national research innovation systems. At the IFLA annual conferences from 1993 to 1997, a series of papers using the same definitions, classifications and methodologies were delivered, reporting on national LIS research for Spain, Australia, China, Turkey and the UK. In 1997, Vakkari and I gave a paper bringing together and comparing the results of the original international study and the national studies (Rochester & Vakkari, 1998). We recommended that a new topic classification scheme was needed for the new century. We also said about the research definition ‘Today we would use some additional criteria: a sound frame of reference, exact problem formulation, and connection to earlier research.’ (p. 167). Nevertheless, the definition of research used was strict enough to differentiate research from professional papers. This paper was reprinted in 2008 in International and Comparative Studies in Information and Library Science: a Focus on the United States and Asian Countries, by Yan Quan Liu and Xiaojun Cheng, Lanham, Md. Scarecrow Press.

The members of the Section of Library Theory and Research and the audience at our paper urged us to seek the reasons for the similarities and differences in the national research results in the economic, social and cultural differences in the developed and developing countries which affected the higher education and research innovation system. This was done for Scandinavia, Australia, China, Spain, Turkey and the UK in the IFLA Professional Report No 82 (Rochester & Vakkari, 2004).

Developments in Australian LIS research

There have been many positive developments in the Australian LIS research field since 1995. The love affair with library history continues. The Forums on Australian Library History are regularly held every two years, the most recent, the 12th, this year. The papers given and the participants at the Forums are drawn from a wide background of academics, librarians, archivists, record managers and historians.

The number of higher degree students in LIS has increased, despite the number of LIS students overall declining and a number of LIS schools closing. Maguire (1998) surveyed the 10 library schools offering degrees by research at both PhD and Masters level, most of which had started only in the 1990s. She reported 40 PhDs and 194 Masters by research degrees had been awarded. There were good enrolment figures for research degrees: 47+ in PhD programs and 78+ in Masters programs.

This growth in numbers of completed PhDs not only from LIS schools but in related schools was clearly shown in 114 completions of LIS-related theses from all faculties of 27 Australian universities by 2006. A database of all completed PhDs from 1948 to 2006 revealed the number of theses completed in the 10 library schools was 56 and from non-LIS schools was 58. The number of theses awarded annually was low until 1993, reached a peak in 1997 and then declined gradually (Macauley, Evans, & Pearson, 2010).

Although the number of faculty in the LIS schools has declined since the 1990s, they have become better qualified. Now research is firmly entrenched alongside teaching and service as the responsibility of an academic. The number of staff with higher degrees has rapidly increased; nearly half had higher degrees by 2004 and by 2008 this had risen to 63% (Wilson, Kennan, Willard, & Boell, 2010).

A continuing initiative to promote and disseminate information among educators, researchers and practitioners about current research activity in LIS began in the early 2000s. The Research Applications in Information and Library Studies Seminar (RAILS) consists of formal face-to-face meetings with the aim of building partnerships and raising the research profile of the information professions.

We can see the magnificent response made by the LIS schools and the profession to political and community demands for improvements in professional education and services. There was even a special Issue of the journal Library and Information Science Research (Volume 32, 2010, edited by K Smith and G Haddow), showcasing Australian research. Gone is the intellectual isolation found in 1995.

Current situation for Australian LIS research

There has been a welcome increase in support for research by the professional association, Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). The Research Advisory Committee (RAC) offers ‘Research for Practitioner’ workshops and some annual grants are provided to fund research. The RAC has commissioned a recent environmental scan of LIS research (Middleton & Yates, 2014) which neatly bookends this reflection. This report covers the years 2005–2013 and addresses many aspects: the scope of LIS, the definition of research, research theses, research publications and research funding, and gives research priorities of ALIA and other professional associations. The scope of LIS was updated from that employed in my article of 1995. However, the definition of research was not updated. For this ALIA report, methodologies used included website analysis, database searching, consultation and surveys. Tables and Appendices set out results and procedures.

The subject categories of dissertations were as follows: information behaviour 28%, information literacy 14% and management 13%. The research methodology used by over half was mixed methods, interviewing either alone or with other methods 37%, survey or questionnaire 19%, case study 14%. Other techniques used were focus groups, media monitoring and observation.

For Australian journals, the scan of publications included 15 LIS journals from the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) list used to evaluate academic research by the Australian Research Council, with four others with LIS content. Of the 1,604 items identified 62% had a practitioner as principal author, 12% an Australian LIS academic as author, and 5% an academic from another field. The remainder, 20% rounded, had a principal author from overseas. Other Australian publications scanned included books, book chapters, journal articles, conference papers and reports, giving a much better coverage than in 1995. Combined totals are given in Table 5. Australians publishing overseas are then included.

The important matter of funding for LIS research is also included by analysing figures from 2005+ for LIS research from national-level funding organisations, requests to schools and a survey. The amount of funding received varied from $650 from academic sources to $477,000 from a private donor for information literacy. There were 72 grants reported and the principal subjects of research were management and information literacy.

The Middleton and Yates (2014) report makes some suggestions for improvements in the concluding remarks, for example that the Returns from library schools to ALIA include research. The matter of significant areas of research needed is noted to be a political question.

How may research progress in the future?

The ALIA LIS Research Environmental Scan Report by Middleton and Yates (2014) should bring about improvements. Funding will continue to be a problem, not only to support students while they study, but also support from their employing institutions and libraries if studying part-time. And then there is the problem of funding research by academics and practitioners. We already have guidance from the Scan Report.

An area which concerns me is the unexpected consequences which may come from the use of articles published in ERA journals to evaluate academic and professional LIS staff in universities. Only research likely to be published in these journals will be undertaken. Likewise applications for research funding will tend to be for topics likely to be approved. This to me may limit the possibility for innovation. The Middleton and Yates (2014) report, Section 4, shows Australians are publishing LIS research in local and overseas journals not included in ERA list journals. There is also publication in the grey literature of conference papers and reports where new ideas are likely to be floated.

One persisting problem concerns communication of research findings to practitioners/managers and of research needs of practitioners/managers to researchers. Another is the need to improve the skills of practitioners/managers to carry out the research needed to improve their services. The number of graduates from research-based Masters and PhD programs, not only from LIS schools but also from many other associated subject areas from Australian universities, provides a good skills base for further research in the profession.

We know that research and information skills are highly prized in many disciplines. We can hope that the profession can continue to attract and retain high quality candidates that will become future researchers to provide the evidence-based services and policy decisions needed for innovation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Maxine K. Rochester (BA (Sydney), MLS (Western Ontario), PhD (University of Wisconsin-Madison) FLA, FALIA), began her career at the State Library of New South Wales, then worked at the Fisher Library, University of Sydney from 1962 until 1967. From 1967 until 1969, she worked at the library of University of Western Ontario in Canada, returning as a foundation staff member of Centre for Information Studies at Canberra College of Advanced Education (which later became the University of Canberra) from 1970 until 1990. Prior to retiring, Maxine was an associate professor at the School of Information Studies at Charles Sturt University from 1990 until 1998.