From a network model to a model network: strategies for network development to narrow the LIS research–practice gap
| Date | 18 November 2022 |
| Pages | 757-783 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0088 |
| Published date | 18 November 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Hazel Hall,Bruce Martin Ryan,Rachel Salzano,Katherine Stephen |
From a network model to a model
network: strategies for network
development to narrow the LIS
research–practice gap
Hazel Hall, Bruce Martin Ryan, Rachel Salzano and Katherine Stephen
Centre for Social Informatics, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of the empirical study was to examine whether strategies shown to work well in one
model of network development for library and information science (LIS)practitioners and researchers could be
applied successfully in the development of a new network and contribute to the narrowing of the research–
practice gap in LIS.
Design/methodology/approach –Overall, 32 members of a new professional network were surveyed by a
questionnaire following the completion of a programme of four network events held between 2019 and 2021.
Findings –The analysis demonstrates the transferability of the existing model of network development to a
new network and that it can be successfully adapted for online delivery of network events and activities.
Practical implications –The criteria deployed for the evaluation of the new network could be used in other
similar settings. Fundingbodies can also use these findings as demonstration of the value of their investment in
network grants.
Originality/value –This contribution on means of growing collaborative networks to narrow the LIS
research–practice gap stands out in contrast with prior research that tends to focus the support of research
productivity of academic librarians in North American universities for the purposes of career development.
Here wider aspects of research engagement are considered of value for LIS practitioners from a range of sectors
and institutions, beyond North America, for purposes that are broader than personal advancement.
Keywords Collaboration, Evaluation, Librarians, Researchers, Networks
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The research discussed in this paper focusses on testing the value of a model of network
development for library and information science (LIS) practitioners and researchers. The
model was previously introduced and discussed with reference to the creation of a single
network –Developing Research Excellence and Methods (DREaM) –in three papers
published in the Journal of Documentation between 2013 and 2019 (Cooke and Hall, 2013;Hall
et al., 2018,2019). The main elements of the DREaM model were applied in the establishment
of a new network entitled Research, Impact, Value and LIS (RIVAL) in Scotland in 2019. The
primary research question addressed here is as follows: How transferable are strategies shown
to be successful in one model of network development (DREaM) to another (RIVAL)?
The findings are drawn from an analysis of questionnaire data collected in 2021 from all 32
members of RIVAL. The analysis reveals that RIVAL was largely successful in meeting its main
objective to bring together LIS practitioners and researchers interested in maximising the impact
and value of LIS research, and the network members benefitted from new learning and increased
Narrowing the
LIS research–
practice gap
757
The empirical research reported in this paper was funded by a Royal Society of Edinburgh Arts and
HumanitiesResearch Network Award 2018.The authors thank Dr KhristinFabian and Dr David Haynes
fortheir helpful commentson an earlier draft of thispaper, and the suggestionsof two anonymous referees.
They are also gratefulto the members of the RIVAL network for participating in this empiricalstudy,
especially thosein Team D who helped with the design andpiloting of the two questionnaires.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 22 April 2022
Revised 24 September 2022
Accepted 27 September 2022
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 79 No. 3, 2023
pp. 757-783
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-04-2022-0088
confidence garnered through network participation. The sudden and unanticipated shift in
RIVAL’s operating environment from in-person to virtual meetings –due to COVID19 lockdown
restrictions imposed from March 2020 onwards –was found to be significantly less disruptive
than initially feared. The analysis demonstrates the transferability of the original model from one
network to another and that it can be successfully adapted for online delivery.
The main novel contribution of this research is the development of understanding of the
means of growing collaborative networks between practitioners and researchers, in in-person
and online environments, to narrow the LIS research–practice gap. Unlike most prior studies
that have considered the question of this research–practice gap, the research presented here
was conducted outside North America, with LIS practitioners from a range of sectors and
organisations (i.e. not solely academic librarians from a single institution), with reference to
advantages of research engagement that extend beyond the enhancement of research
productivity for the purpose of career advancement. This paper is also a contribution to the
extant body of literature that addresses prior calls to explore network participation and its
benefits beyond the presentation of network topologies so that knowledge of research
collaborations may be strengthened, and funding bodies may understand their return on
investment in networking grants (e.g. Hall et al., 2019). This is done with reference to
evaluation criteria such as practitioner use of research and practitioner research per se.In
terms of the research approaches adopted, the use of social network analysis (SNA) provides
a further example of its deployment in LIS, adding to the extant body of work on the
technique in this field (e.g. Alam et al., 2017;Cooke and Hall, 2013;Kennedy et al., 2017;
Mowbray et al., 2018;Schultz-Jones, 2009).
The paper is structured as follows. First, the context for the research is given, along with
coverage of three main themes in the extant literature: (1) the research–practice gap in LIS, (2)
LIS practitioners as researchers and (3) research collaborations between LIS practitioners and
researchers. Then the extent to which the earlier model of network development informed the
design and implementation of RIVAL is outlined. Presented next is the approach adopted for
the empirical study to evaluate the effectiveness of RIVAL, with the results of the evaluation
to follow. The paper concludes with a discussion of the main findings from the evaluation and
their implications.
2. Literature review
2.1 The research–practice gap in LIS
The research–practice gap is a recurrent theme in the LIS literature (e.g. Bawden and
Robinson, 2022, p. 328; Booth, 2011,p.9;Borrego et al., 2018, p. 664; Partridge et al., 2019,
p. 561; Spring et al., 2014, p. 142). It has concerned commentators for decades: see, for example,
Williamson (1931). A lack of mutual understanding is cited as the core reason that the two
communities struggle to collaborate (e.g. Chang, 2016, p. 540).
Discussion of the negative impact of the divide between the two communities focusses on
lost opportunities. For example, new knowledge generated by researchers of potential value
to service improvement remains unexploited (Partridge et al., 2014, p. 37; Pickton, 2016,
p. 105). Similarly, service needs that might be obvious to practitioners are isolated from the
research agenda of academics who do not have sight of “real-life”priorities for research (e.g.
Ardanuy and Urbano, 2017, p. 318). These factors risk stagnation of librarianship –both as a
profession and as a discipline (e.g. Aytac and Slutsky, 2014, p. 147; Hall, 2010, p. 85; Powell
et al., 2002). The parties on both sides of the research–practice gap bear responsibility for this,
as recently noted in the second edition of a core LIS textbook: “Academics and practitioners
have a joint duty to carry out appropriate research, to be aware and make use of existing
research findings and to communicate across the academic-practitioner divide on these
issues”(Bawden and Robinson, 2022, p. 341).
JD
79,3
758
To continue reading
Request your trial