EBLIP, Library 2.0 and Australian health librarians: revealing the evidence / Lisa Cotter, Suzanne Lewis, Gillian Wood

EBLIP, Library 2.0 and Australian

health librarians:revealing the evidence

Lisa Cotter

[email protected]+61 2 4320 3859

Suzanne Lewis

[email protected] +61 2 4320 3856

Gillian Wood


mailto:[email protected]



EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics

Tools: Importance & Use

Australian 2.0 Survey

Tools/Services Blocked

Trendy or Time Wasting?

Conclusion

Evaluation Bypass

Are we as a profession taking an evaluation bypass

in implementing web 2.0 tools in our libraries?

EBLIP and 2.0

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Evidence Based Libraryand Information Practice

EBLIP and 2.0

APPRAISEAPPRAISE the evidence

ACQUIREACQUIRE the evidence

APPLYAPPLY the evidence

ASSESS ASSESS impact and

performance(& report findings)

ASKASK a question

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Library 2.0

“… seeks to break down barriers: barriers librarians have placed on

services, barriers of place and time and barriers inherent in what we do”

(Stephens 2006)

“… is where the user is, when the user is there”

(Abram 2006)

“Any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users,

is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input is a Library 2.0

service”(Casey & Savastinuk 2006)

EBLIP and 2.0

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

EBLIP and 2.0 friend or foe?

EBLIP and 2.0

Reflects back on the Reflects back on the evidence baseevidence base.

Looks beyond standard Looks beyond standard practice seeking practice seeking innovation.innovation.

Asks Qs first - a focused Q is Asks Qs first - a focused Q is the foundation of EBLIPthe foundation of EBLIP

Acts first, and asks Acts first, and asks (or apologises) later.(or apologises) later.

Subject toSubject to technolusttechnolust

Constrained by Constrained by research literature research literature removed from the removed from the

“real world” “real world” (?)(?)Perpetual betaPerpetual beta

Too much analysis, Too much analysis, too little action too little action (?)(?)

(Cotter 2007)

Suffers Suffers “evaluation bypass” “evaluation bypass” (?)(?)

(Booth 2007)(Booth 2007)

Ongoing evaluationOngoing evaluation

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

EBLIP vs 2.0 best available evidence

EBLIP and 2.0

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Building on the MLA Survey

• MLA Social Networking Software Taskforce survey instrument – easily available – already tested – meta-analysis

• best available evidence

Australian Survey

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Survey Instrument• Wording changed to remove

references to MLA• Examples of technologies

added eg Media Sharing (Slideshare, Flickr)

• Social tagging tools (del.icio.us) added as a new category

Australian Survey

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Gathering Evidence• ALIA HLA executive support• SurveyMonkey• Launched survey at

NSW Health Libraries Forum, 8-9 November 2007

• Open 29 Oct - 25 Nov 2007 • Publicised via Australian

listservs

Australian Survey

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Results• 203 responses from 147

libraries (MLA 495 responses)• Results analysed using

Microsoft Excel and Access• Reporting format follows

MLA survey results format • Results posted to the

Libraries Using Evidence blog http://blog.eblip.net.au/

Australian Survey

http://blog.eblip.net.au/

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Library Sector

Demographics

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Library Staff FTEs

Demographics

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Distribution Across States

Demographics

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Length of Service

Demographics

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Importance and Use of Tools

Importance & Use

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion


Blocked Tools

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Tools/Services Blocked in public hospitals

Blocked Tools

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion


Trendy or Timewasting ?

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion


Trendy or Timewasting ?

"I 'get' Web 2.0 technologies when I see a use for them. So I 'get' del.icio.us and bloglines but I don't 'get' Facebook or MySpace. … I actually

use Web 2.0 much more at work for professional development than I do at home for recreation."

"Sometimes I wonder if we're just looking for ways to use these tools instead of having a need and

then looking for the right tool."

"Over-rated and not time saving… I think we are kidding ourselves if we think that the medium

makes the content 'trendy'."

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Conclusion• First evidence of Australian

health librarians’ attitudes to/ use of web 2.0 tools

• Evidence may assist in influencing policy

• Further investigation and reporting needed

• Evaluate alongside innovationConclusion

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Your Challenge!

• Implement your Library 2.0 service (whether or not technology based)

• Evaluate it

• Report it !

Conclusion

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

Evidence Based

Innovators

Librarians who move their organizations forward will be evidence based innovators, combining innovative ideas with evidence

based principles.

They will draw upon the research knowledge of the profession, integrate that knowledge into their own local

circumstances and needs, and find innovative solutions to problems where no good solution exists.

Conclusion (Koufogiannakis 2007)

EBLIP and 2.0

Demographics





Conclusion

ReferencesAbram, S. (2006). Web 2.0, library 2.0 and librarian 2.0: preparing for

the 2.0 world. SirsiOneSource, 2(1). http://www.imakenews.com/sirsi/e_article000505688.cfm

Booth, A. (2007). Using evidence in practice. Blogs, wikis and podcasts: The 'evaluation bypass' in action? Health Information and Libraries Journal, 24(4), 298-302. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00739.x

Casey, M. & Savastinuk, L. (2006). Library 2.0. Library Journal, 131(14), 40-42. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6365200.html

Cotter, L. (2007). EBLIP and library 2.0: Friend or foe? inCite 28(11), 39. http://blog.eblip.net.au/2007/12/eblip-and-library-20-friends-or-foe.html

Koufogiannakis, D. (2007). On evidence based practice and innovation. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 2(4) ,108-111. http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/787/665

Stephens, M. (2006). Library 2.0 discussions up at SirsiDynix. Tame The Web: Libraries and Technology, 28 February. http://tametheweb.com/2006/02/library_20_discussion_up_at_si.html Conclusion

EBLIP, Library 2.0 and Australian health

librarians:revealing the evidence

Lisa Cotter


Suzanne Lewis

[email protected] +61 2 4320 3856

Gillian Wood


1-2 February 2008. Brisbane, QLD, Australia



Economy & Finance

EBLIP, Library 2.0 and Australian health librarians: revealing the evidence / Lisa Cotter, Suzanne Lewis, Gillian Wood