A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE UK RESEARCH LITERATURE OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
Patricia Layzell Ward, University of Wales Aberystwyth Abstract
This paper reports a preliminary investigation into the UK research literature of library and information science published between 1965 and 1995. It employed the methodology developed by Jarvelin and Vakkari (1990). The ultimate aim of the project was to examine the trends and influences that acted upon the outcomes of research and information transfer within the discipline.
Introduction
This project had its origins in two personal interests. The first, as a researcher, emerged from the prospect of replicating a method by applying it to a different set of data. One of the characteristics of research in the discipline of library and information science has been a lack of testing of methods. The IFLA Section on Theory and Research has, however, encouraged the preparation of papers which examine LIS research in different countries (for example Bernhard 1993; Rochester 1995; Cheng 1996) using the content analysis method developed by Jarvelin and Vakkari (1990;
1993). Kajberg, in a separate initiative, examined the research literature of Denmark, and his paper contains a review of the statistical analyses of LIS literature (Kajberg 1996).
The second interest resulted from a curiosity about the nature of R & D. Do we examine similar problems in the different parts of the world? Do we import methods from other disciplines? What effect has R & D had on professional practice? How far do we communicate with researchers from outside our national boundaries and principal discipline? If so, do we take their findings into account in designing research strategies? So the interest centred on the sociology of information transfer within the discipline, and the profession. The results reported in this paper are a first contribution to this larger picture.
Method
In order to study the UK literature, and to be able to make a comparison with other national literatures, the method of content analysis was adopted which had been described by Jarvelin and Vakkari in their analysis of the literature published in 1965, 1975 and 1985 (Jarvelin and Vakkari 1990). The data were collected and classified using the classification scheme they developed. Whilst their research focused on a range journals from a number of countries reporting research in LIS, the study reported here concentrated on the research reported in UK LIS journals at ten year intervals - 1965, 1975, 1985 and 1995. Some of the journals, identified as being of a
scholarly or research nature, had not been published throughout the period under examination. Table 1 indicates the journals selected for analysis, and the years in which they had been published.
Table 1. Source journals 1965 1975 1985 1995
Aslib Proceedings * * * *
Int. Journal of Information Management * * Int. Journal of Information & Library Res. *
Journal of Documentation * * * *
Journal of Information Science * * * * Journal of Librarianship & Information Sci. * * * Library & Information Research News * *
New Review of Academic Librarianship *
Research in Librarianship * *
Notes:
(a) * = year available for analysis.
(b) Two journals changed their title during the period under investigation:
the International Journal of Information Management was formerly Social Science Information Studies, and the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science was formerly the Journal of Librarianship.
A comparison between the volume of research and professional articles
All of the full-length papers contained in each of the serials were examined.
Following the prescribed methodology, research articles were identified as those that reported a systematic inquiry designed to elicit new facts, concepts or ideas:
professional articles consisted of reviews, discussions or bibliographies. Table 2 indicates that there was a systematic growth in the number of research articles published between 1965 and 1995.
Table 2. The distribution of research and professional articles
1965 1975 1985 1995
n=44 % n=79 % n=95 % n=153 %
Research articles 10 23 46 58 62 65 116 76
Professional articles 34 77 33 42 33 35 37 24
Whilst the number of professional articles remained almost constant and outnumbered research articles by three to one in 1965, the balance changed to more than three to one in the direction of research papers by 1995. Compared with the findings of Jarvelin and Vakkari, there was a higher proportion of research papers published in 1985 in the UK. In Rochester’s study of two Australian journals, professional articles outnumbered research articles in the years 1985-94.
The distribution of library and information science topics in research articles and professional articles
The greater number of the articles was classified under the heading of LIS activities, which included circulation, collections, information services, administration etc.
These rose to 41% of the total in 1995. There was a consistent interest in information retrieval, varying between 22-25% of the total, in information seeking, and education for LIS, see table 3.
Table 3. The distribution of LIS topics in research and professional articles
1965 1975 1985 1995
Topics
n=44 % n=79 % n=95 % n=153 %
The professions 2 5 1 1 6 6 12 8
Education in LIS 5 11 7 9 10 11 8 5
LIS activities 12 27 39 49 32 34 62 41
Inf. storage and ret. 10 23 20 25 21 22 34 22
Information seeking 11 25 4 5 21 22 25 16
Sci. and prof. comm. 4 9 8 10 5 5 9 6
Other aspects of LIS - - - 2 1
Other discipline - - - 1
Jarvelin and Vakkari (1990) found that information storage and retrieval was the most frequent topic in the years that they studied, with information seeking being the next most frequent topic.
In the UK the most frequent topic of the papers changed during the 30-year period.
Information retrieval headed the list in 1965, this changed to information and reference service in 1975, and for 1985 and 1995 the highest output was in the fields of administration and planning, see table 4.
Table 4. Most frequent LIS topics in research and professional articles 1965
1. Information storage and retrieval 2. Use of information channels 3. Information and reference services 4. Administration and planning 1975
1. Information and reference services 2. Bibliographic databases
3. Information retrieval
4. Administration and planning 5. Education for LIS
1985
1. Administration and planning 2. Automation
3. Information retrieval 1995
1. Administration and planning 2. Information retrieval
3. Automation
Note: some topics recorded the same score.
Viewpoint on information dissemination
Jarvelin and Vakkari introduced this interesting field in their classification. In 1965, 1975 and 1985 the highest numbers of papers were written from the viewpoint of the intermediary’s organisation, but in 1995 this was overtaken by the end-user’s viewpoint, see table 5. The same finding emerged in Jarvelin and Vakkari’s study. The change in 1995 in the UK study may have resulted from the emergence of the Internet and an interest in the development of Intranets at this time.
Table 5. Viewpoint on information dissemination
1965 1975 1985 1995
Phase of information
dissemination n=44 % n=79 % n=95 % n=153 %
Several interconnected
phases - - 1 1 2 2 2 1
Producer’s viewpoints - - 11 14 10 11 15 10
Seller’s viewpoint - - 2 3 1 1 1 1
Intermediary’s viewpoint 12 27 22 28 22 23 9 6
Intermediary
organisation’s viewpoint 13 30 24 30 35 37 48 31
End-user’s viewpoint 16 36 13 16 17 18 55 36
End-user organisation’s
viewpoint - - - - 5 5 15 10
Developer’s viewpoint - - - 1 1
Educator’s viewpoint 3 7 6 8 2 2 5 3
Other viewpoint - - - - 1 1 2 1
Research strategies and methods
Perhaps it was not surprising that surveys dominated the empirical research strategies.
An increase has taken place in the use of the case or action approach, content or
citation analysis, and evaluation see table 6. Bibliometrics and experiment were less likely to be used in research in the UK during the period studied. One surprising finding was that the qualitative methods did not feature in the articles, which is likely to be in contrast with US research, particularly in 1995.
Table 6. Research strategies in the articles
1965 1975 1985 1995
Research strategies
n=44 % n=79 % n=95 % n=153 % Empirical research strategy
Historical method - - 1 1 4 4 1 1
Survey method 7 16 15 19 19 2 44 29
Qualitative method - - -
-Evaluation method - - 3 4 - - 6 5
Case or action research method
- - 2 3 1 1 11 7
Content or protocol analysis
- - 2 3 4 4 10 7
Citation analysis 2 5 5 6 6 6 10 7
Other bibliometric method
- - 1 1 - - -
-Secondary analysis - - 2 3 1 1 -
-Experiment - - 2 3 5 5 4 3
Conceptual research strategy Verbal argumentation,
criticism
- - 3 4 12 13 22 14
Concept analysis - - 3 4 9 9 12 8
Mathematical or logical method
- - 4 5 7 7 4 3
System/software analysis design
- - 1 1 1 5 8 5
Literature review 3 7 8 10 12 13 11 7
Discussion paper 32 73 27 34 10 11 8 5
Bibliographic method - - -
-Given the findings above, it was to be expected that questionnaires and interviews were the frequent methods of data collection in empirical research. ‘Thinking aloud’
or ‘verbal argumentation’ - the latter term also being used by Jarvelin and Vakkari, is the most frequent conceptual research strategy. The historical method is less frequently reported in 1995, whereas Rochester(1995) reports greater use of this method in Australia. It also scores more highly in the study by Jarvelin and Vakkari.
Table 7. Data collection methods in the research articles
1965 1975 1985 1995
Method
n=44 % n=79 % n=95 % n=153 %
Questionnaire, interview 7 16 12 15 13 14 44 29
Observation - - 6 8 5 5 4 3
Thinking aloud 35 80 33 42 38 40 48 31
Content analysis - - 4 5 15 16 23 15
Citation analysis 2 5 6 8 6 6 10 7
Historical source analysis - - 14 18 9 9 5 3
Several methods of
collecting - - 1 1 1 1 8 5
Use of data collected
earlier - - 2 3 - - 3 2
Other methods of
collection - - 1 1 8 8 6 4
Not applicable - - - 2 1
Comparison with earlier studies
Rochester and Vakkari (1997) brought together the findings of a number of the papers that had resulted from the IFLA initiative. They commented that there was a marked variation in the emphases and trends in research in the countries that had been studied, although Australia, Turkey and the UK demonstrated a strong interest in LIS activities. Cheng (1996) reported a difference between the focus of research in China and that of Scandinavia. In China the concentration had been on theory and history, whilst in Scandinavia and the UK the focus was on practice. A comparison of the Scandinavian studies with this preliminary study indicates broadly similar findings.
The differences may lie in the length of time in which research has been part of the curriculum in the LIS schools together with the interests and influence of the faculty, the traditional or cultural view of the profession, the policy of funding agencies for research, and the interaction between the researchers between and across national boundaries. There are also likely to be other reasons. Some of these points are explored in the section that follows.
The context of UK LIS research
The literature does not exist in isolation and so the context of research is an important influence upon the development and nature of the output. During the period under examination considerable changes had taken place in the UK. One noted library educator commented when speaking about research “…I remembered that in 1961 I also prepared a lecture on the same subject … After a very brief definition of what is meant by research in librarianship the next heading was ‘What research is going on now in the UK’. My note reads: ‘Precious little. And what there is is of not much significance’” (Dudley 1974).
The first paper on research given at a Library Association conference surveyed the involvement of the Association in research and was given in 1965 (Mallaber 1965). A Library Research Committee had been set up in 1946, and on the suggestion of Douglas Foskett in 1960, had allocated £1000 to be spent on research projects. A policy paper prepared by the Library Association in 1989 indicated that the committee became regularly involved in research from 1959 onwards. It started to fund research projects from 1964, and between 1964 and 1976 £47,000 was made available to a total of eleven projects (Library Association 1989). This investment assisted the non-university LIS schools to become involved in research. The College of Librarianship Wales and the North-Western Polytechnic were among the beneficiaries of grants from this source.
The mid-l960’s also produced the start of a major stream of funding for LIS research in the UK. A small Documentation Research Fund had been established by the Information Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. In 1965 a drastic reorganisation of support for civil science took place with the setting up of three new research councils. Scientific information research did not, however, fit easily in this structure and so the Office for Scientific and Technical Information was set up in the Science Branch of the Department of Education and Science, the government department responsible for library policy (Perr 1983). In general the recipients of OSTI grants were the higher education institutions, the professional and learned societies, and research associations. One major recipient of OSTI funding was Aslib that at that time had a strong research and consultancy role. With the establishment of the British Library in 1974, the British Library Research and Development Department (BLR&DD) was formed from a merger with OSTI. One major outcome was that the nature of research funded was broadened and libraries and information services were later able to apply for grants. Part of the BLR&DD strategy was to establish a number of research centres which continued into the mid-1980’s, when it was decided that the Department needed a greater flexibility in its budget, and all but one was closed. From table 8 below it can be seen that its budget declined sharply in 1980-81 as the Thatcher government followed a policy of reducing public expenditure. Meadows documented the first twenty years of the Department (Meadows 1994), and later summarised the data which indicate the changes in the level of funding and the topics of the BLR&DD projects (Meadows 1995).
Table 8. BLR&DD Research Budget (in £ thousands)
Year BLR&DD Budget Budget adjusted
(£K) by Retail Price Index
1974-75 810 810
1975-76 1112 955
1980-81 1423 651
1985-86 1389 486
1990-91 1541 395
1992-93 1467 356
(Source: Meadows, 1995)
Between the years 1975 and 1985 changes took place in the priorities for funding BLR&DD projects, see table 9. A greater emphasis was placed on public libraries and technical processes, the latter representing the impact of information technology on the provision of information and library services.
Table 9. Topic-based distribution of BLR&DD projects
Topic Period
1975-79 1980-84 1985-88 n=289 n=312 n=111
Public Libraries 4% 5% 11%
User Studies 8% 13% 8%
Organisation and
administration 4% 7% 6%
Technical processes
and services 4% 5% 11%
Information storage
and retrieval 41% 26% 27%
(Source: Meadows, 1995).
Table 10. The number of reports published resulting from grants awarded by OSTI and the BLR&DD
1965 1975 1985 1995
3 60 48 57
Whilst all recipients of OSTI and BLR&DD were required to produce a report as one of the terms of their grant, in later years greater emphasis was placed on the dissemination of research findings. This has resulted in formats other than the traditional report, and an agreement with the publishers Bowker-Saur resulted in a number of research grants yielding a monograph or report that was published in an attractive format and distributed through the book trade. Table 10 shows that, despite the fall in the value of grants awarded, the number of published reports rose in 1995.
As a fall in real terms took place in its budget allocation it was not surprising that the BLR&DD hosted a seminar to discuss the future of LIS research in the UK (Meadows et al, 1995). Later the BLR&DD became the British Library Research and Innovation Centre and the Library and Information Commission played a greater role in setting the agenda for research and development. The Library and Information Commission was an important independent body established in 1995 by the then Department of National Heritage, and its priorities were expected to place a greater emphasis on policy studies, technological matters, and the value and impact of services.1
Returning to the 1960’s another change was taking place which was to influence the level of research output. A time of expansion occurred in higher education, and one outcome was to introduce a research element into courses. The PhD programme emerged, but perhaps more importantly a number of master’s courses were established which included the element of a dissertation. It must be emphasised that this was but one element in an academic programme, but it introduced students to research skills which would be carried over into professional practice. It is not easy to estimate the numbers of graduates who have acquired research skills across all of the UK LIS schools, but the Department of Information Studies at the University of Sheffield has examined the use and value of MSc Information Studies dissertations prepared by its graduates. During the period 1978-1988 158 dissertations were prepared, of which 50 resulted in some form of publication (Sayers and Wood 1991). The outcomes for the period 1988-1995 have been reported. 356 MSc dissertations were completed of which 41 have resulted in a publication. The authors of this second paper note that there were other ways in which the outcomes were disseminated - via the production of databases, software packages, Websites, a CD-ROM and a hypermedia demonstrator, as well as reports at conferences, meetings, exhibitions etc. (Goddard et al. 1997).
Discussion
One of the surprising outcomes of this study was the comparatively small number of articles in the UK refereed journals. This may be due to the wide range of journals in the English language to which UK authors can submit their articles. It could be that it is considered prestigious to submit copy to a major US journal. Indeed, the research assessment exercise now conducted in UK university departments places an emphasis on research of international standing. This point needs further investigation.
The published output from research projects is, of course, not limited to articles in journals. Kajberg’s study (1996) of the research literature of Denmark covers reports, conference proceedings and other relevant sources. This also warrants further study.
Whilst there is a clear indication of growth in the number of articles published, this was not as great as expected. During the period under examination higher degrees had been introduced in the majority of the UK schools, and there had been a noticeable growth in the volume of students studying for master’s degrees. In the UK there are two types of master's degree - the taught and research. The taught master’s students will outnumber the research students, but for the majority of the taught master's students, a dissertation is a requirement for the award of the degree. The question is raised as to whether the dissertation contains an element of original research which could result in a publication, but which did not necessarily seem to be happening when the analyses were prepared. So, in common with any investigation, the preliminary findings raise a number of interesting questions which could take the study forward.
Footnote
1 Note that the Library and Information Commission was short-lived, for in 2000 it was replaced by Resource, a new government agency responsible for archives, libraries and museums.
References
Bernhard, Paulette. 1994. Dissemination of the results of research in information studies in three journals published in Quebec. Paper presented to the Section on Library Theory and Research, IFLA Conference Cuba, 1994. 003-LTR-I-E Cheng, Huanwen. 1996. A bibliometric study of library and information research in
China. Paper presented to the section on Library Theory and Research, IFLA Conference Beijing, 1996. 068-LTR-I-E
Dudley, Edward. 1974. Research in librarianship and information work. Paper presented at the European Library Seminar ‘Library education in Europe’.
Liverpool Polytechnic. 12 September 1974.
Goddard, Catherine, et al. 1997. The use and value of MSc in information
studies/information management dissertations at the University of Sheffield.
Aslib Proceedings, 49 (9), pp. 229-237.
Jarvelin, K. and Vakkari, P. 1990. Content analysis of research articles in library and information science. Library and Information Science Research, 12: 395-421.
Jarvelin, K. and P. Vakkari. 1993. The evolution of library and information science 1965-1985: a content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing and Management, 29(1): 129-144.
Kajberg, L. !996. A content analysis of LIS serial literature published in Denmark 1957-1986. Library and Information Science Research, 18: 25-52.
Library Association. Library and Information Services Committee. 1989. Policy for research in library and information. LIBSC. 607. January, 1989.
Mallaber, K.A. 1965. Research in librarianship. Library Association Record, 67(7):
222-227.
Meadows, Jack. 1994. Innovation in information: twenty years of the British Library Research and Development Department. London: British Library Research and Bowker Saur.
Meadows, Jack. 1995. Introduction. In Jack Meadows, et al. ed. The future of library and information research in the UK. Information Outlooks, no. 13:.3-5.