Research Article
Evidence Synthesis Instructional Offerings in Library
and Information Science Programs
Meghan Lafferty
Science and Engineering Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of
America
Email: mlaffert@umn.edu
Zahra Premji
Health Research Librarian
University of Victoria Libraries
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Email: zahrapremji@uvic.ca
Philip Herold
Natural Resources Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America
Email: herol008@umn.edu
Megan Kocher
Science and Evidence Synthesis Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America
Email: mkocher@umn.edu
Scott Marsalis
Director, Sciences, Agriculture, & Engineering, and Social
Work Librarian
University of Minnesota Libraries
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of
America
Email: marsa001@umn.edu
Received: 30 Apr. 2024 Accepted: 2 July 2024
2024 Lafferty, Premji, Herold, Kocher, and Marsalis. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30554
Editor’s note March 2025: This article has been amended to include an appendix, which the editors
erroneously omitted in the original publication.
Abstract
Objective
– The goal of this study was to determine the extent
to which evidence synthesis (ES) is incorporated into American Library Association
(ALA)-accredited master’s level Library and Information Studies (LIS) programs.
The study considered the depth of coverage, interest in additional curriculum
content, and preferences for expanding existing coverage.
Methods – A
cross-sectional survey was implemented. Program administrators and instructors
currently involved with ALA-accredited master’s level LIS programs in Canada
and the United States were eligible to participate. Recruitment emails targeted
faculty and administrators from a directory of institutions offering
ALA-accredited MLIS programs.
Results
– 26 eligible responses from 20 unique institutions
were obtained. Most respondents reported that ES is incorporated into the
curriculum, albeit only briefly in most cases. Most of the respondents
expressed interest in incorporating more ES content into the curriculum,
specifically as a portion of a course. A greater number of respondents would
prefer to bring in external guest speakers to teach the ES content, but a small
percentage were interested in training for existing LIS instructors.
Conclusion – In-depth instruction on ES in LIS programs is currently limited.
However, there appears to be interest in increasing ES content in curricula,
primarily in the form of guest lecturers.
Introduction
Evidence
synthesis (ES) is an umbrella term referring to a range of methodologies such
as systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and meta-analyses that use “transparent
and reproducible methods to exhaustively search for information on a topic and
select studies based on well-defined predetermined criteria” (Eldermire &
Young, 2022, p. 17). ES methodologies are common in the health sciences as the
basis of evidence based practice (Beverley et al., 2003) and have seen
increased adoption by other disciplines in recent years (Chapman, 2021;
Kallaher et al., 2020; Lê et al., 2023; Premji et al., 2022). As academic
librarians supporting a range of disciplines, the authors of this paper have
experienced first-hand the growing demand to support ES in agricultural
sciences, environmental sciences, engineering, business, education, and social
sciences as well as the established demand for these services in the health
sciences.
In
2020, Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant-funded Evidence
Synthesis Institute (ESI) was launched by librarians at the University of
Minnesota Libraries, Cornell University Libraries, and Carnegie Mellon
University Libraries to provide training in ES support for librarians and
information specialists – particularly those serving disciplines outside the
health sciences. Since its launch, the ESI has held seven training sessions
with 50 participants each, and three group training sessions for institutions.
It has also helped launch similar institutes in Canada and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Through their experience in administering and instructing in the ESI, the
authors of this paper have witnessed a steady demand for this type of training
with 100-150 applicants per event.
Academic
librarians are the primary applicant group to the ESI, but several students and
faculty from Library and Information Studies (LIS) programs have participated
and/or applied, leading us to ask what training is already available for ES
support or methods in LIS programs, what awareness LIS faculty have of ES, and
what level of interest and capacity they have to add it to programs in order to
meet growing demand. We know that LIS education program offerings can lag behind
the needs of the current LIS workforce (Kousha & Abdoli, 2008). Knowing
more about ES-related offerings in LIS programs can inform decision-making
about LIS programs’ need for more of such instruction as well as training
opportunities for new librarians.
Literature Review
LIS Curricula
Throughout
the history of LIS education, practitioners, faculty, and professional
organizations have spent considerable time debating what the curriculum should
include and whether LIS programs themselves are even necessary (Bertot et al.,
2015; Smith & Warner, 1990). LIS curricula have evolved continuously as
technology, libraries, and the roles of librarians have changed. In their 2022
study of Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) statistical
reports from 1997 to 2020, Chung et al., (2022) found that there was a large
increase in the range of topics addressed in LIS curricula, particularly over
the last decade. Newer areas of emphasis included cultural heritage, data
science, digital humanities and curation, and many areas related to information
technology (Chung et al., 2022).
There
are many tensions at play in expanding LIS curricula. Practitioners and
employers consider a wide range of skills necessary for LIS graduates, not all
of which can be addressed given the amount of time available in the curriculum
of a professional master's degree (Kousha & Abdoli, 2008; Saunders, 2019).
LIS
practitioners also disagree as to the importance of specialized skills compared
to core competencies, whether they should be learned in LIS graduate programs
or on the job, and even what can be considered core (Saunders, 2019). When LIS
programs add new courses, they tend to address gaps in their curricula with
elective rather than required courses (Chung et al., 2022).
LIS
programs are preparing students to work in a wide range of environments.
Training needs for work in academic and research libraries (Koizumi &
Widdersheim, 2019) can differ significantly from those working in public
(Pandolfelli et al., 2022; Williams & Saunders, 2020) or special libraries
(Davis & Saunders, 2020). Practitioners in different types of libraries
often rank different groups of skills as core (Saunders, 2019).
In
addition to preparation for academic librarianship more generally, many authors
have explored whether LIS programs adequately prepare students for positions in
specific subfields of academic librarianship such as data management and
curation (Rod, 2023; Stanton et al., 2011; Thomas & Urban, 2018), liaison
librarianship (Bright & Colón-Aguirre, 2022), and library instruction
(Dodson, 2020; Lund et al., 2023; Valenti & Lund, 2021). In practice, those
positions are often not mutually exclusive.
Librarian Involvement in ES
Although the early history
of ES involved many disciplines (Chalmers
et al., 2002), until recently ES methods have been
primarily used in the health sciences (Hong & Pluye, 2018). It is no surprise, then, that most of the related
library science literature has also focused on health science librarianship. Nevertheless,
as ES methods have been adopted beyond the health sciences (Chalmers et al.,
2002), a broader body of literature has developed which examines librarian
roles supporting ES in disciplines beyond the health sciences. Examples include
a broad review of the sciences, humanities, and social sciences (Lê et al.,
2023), mathematics education (Kogut et al., 2022), conservation biology (Boice,
2019), sustainable development (Ghezzi‐Kopel et al., 2021), psychology
(Fehrmann & Thomas, 2011), business (Premji et al., 2022), social work
(Marsalis, 2020), and engineering education (Borrego et al., 2015).
Studies
across many disciplines have established that ESs are of higher quality when
librarians are involved (Aamodt et al., 2019; Fehrmann & Thomas, 2011;
Koffel, 2015; Kogut et al., 2019; Marsalis, 2020; McGowan & Sampson, 2005;
Meert et al., 2016; Pawliuk et al., 2024; Rethlefsen et al., 2015). In addition
to contributing to the quality of published reviews, librarians co-authoring ES
reviews may reinforce their status and value to their institution, as well as
demonstrate alignment of the library with the institution's mission and
strategic priorities (Borrego et al., 2015). Guidelines from several
organizations that fund or commission ES reviews, including The Campbell
Collaboration (Methods Group of the Campbell Collaboration, 2019), Cochrane
(Higgins et al., 2023), the Institute of Medicine (IOM, 2011), and JBI
(Aromataris et al., 2024), require or recommend including a librarian on the
review team.
With
wider adoption of ES across disciplines, knowledge of ES methods and the
ability to support them are increasingly expected of academic librarians. A
survey of library supervisors in Canadian health science libraries found a
strong expectation that librarians would be involved in this work (Desmeules et
al., 2016). A survey of librarians in the sciences, humanities, and social
sciences indicate that demand for librarian support is increasing, with 70% of
respondents stating they had received requests for support in the past 5 years,
and 55.9% stating that requests had increased during that period (Lê et al.,
2024).
A
team of librarians at Taubman Health Science Library at the University of
Michigan developed a framework of six core competencies required of information
specialists supporting systematic reviews. Each competency is elucidated with
cognitive and behavioral skills. These competencies are:
●
Foundational understanding of systematic
review methods and their uses;
●
Process management and communication;
●
Research methodology, including
standards and best practices;
●
Comprehensive, replicable searching;
●
Data management;
●
Reporting (Townsend et al., 2017).
By
identifying these core competencies and the component knowledge and skills,
Townsend et al. (2017) document the level of methodological complexity in ES
and depth of specialized knowledge required to support them. This is further
reinforced by Spencer and Eldredge’s 2018 scoping review which identified 18
skills performed by librarians supporting systematic reviews. Adequate training
is critical for librarians doing this work.
ES Training Options and Preferences
Three
recent studies are of primary importance in relation to our study. Lȇ
et al. (2023) surveyed librarians in Canada and the United States regarding
their needs and preferences for training in supporting ES outside the health
sciences. Premji et al. (2021) scoped the existing literature regarding
in-person training for conducting ESs. Parker et al. (2018) identified and
evaluated online training resources focused on conducting ES reviews.
Parker
et al. (2018) identified 20 online training resources, searching the internet
with a broad Google search, as well as YouTube. They also searched the websites
of organizations that conduct or commission reviews, such as Cochrane, as well
as North American medical schools. Their approach primarily focused on health
science resources, and although published only six years ago, significant
changes to the landscape have occurred since then, including an overhaul of
Cochrane's training (Champion, 2018), as well as the creation of [workshop] and
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Campbell Collaboration Online Course
(Valentine et al., 2022).
Premji
et al.'s (2021) scoping review looked at what and how knowledge synthesis
methods are being taught in higher education settings. They focused on
published papers, and their inclusion criteria required the instruction to be
in-person or hybrid. They identified 12 credit-bearing courses, four of which
were aimed at undergraduates, and eight towards graduate students. The
disciplines varied, including some outside the health sciences. None were for
programs in information science. Nevertheless, their findings do suggest
reasons why ES, including librarian support, might be better suited to longer,
credit-bearing courses than the limited time frame of workshops,
"Overwhelmingly, the articles in our
scoping review advocate active learning and hands-on practice. Skills such as
searching, objectively applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, data extraction,
assessing risk of bias, and others need to be practiced in order for learners
to fully understand the messiness and complexity involved. (p. 133)
Lê
et al. (2023) report on a survey of librarians working at Association of
Research Libraries (ARL) and Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL)
institutions identifying the training needs and preferences of librarians who
support systematic reviews, targeting librarians who support sciences,
humanities, and social sciences. When asked to rank their preferred mode for
training in ES methods, the vast majority listed self-directed learning and
online courses as their first choice, while a post-secondary course was least
often ranked first, perhaps reflecting that the population being polled were
already working librarians. Nevertheless, a post-secondary course was the mechanism
most frequently ranked as their second choice. Free-text comments also revealed
that those librarians who had received some kind of formal training lauded its
benefits (Lê et al., 2023).
Aims
The
purpose of this research is to provide a cross-sectional survey of the current
LIS program offerings related to ES at American Library Association (ALA)
accredited programs in the United States and Canada. It also aims to assess the
need for course materials, training, and support to grow these offerings as
reported by LIS faculty and program administrators.
Methods
This
study surveyed faculty and administrators currently working with ALA-accredited
LIS programs. A content analysis of publicly available
MLIS course outlines would have been a complementary source of information for
identifying the level of ES content in MLIS programs. However, we determined
that it was out of scope for this study. A web-based (Qualtrics) survey
(Appendix) was emailed to individuals at all institutions offering
ALA-accredited LIS master’s programs. We report the survey results based on the
Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) (Eysenbach,
2004).
The
Directory of ALA-Accredited and Candidate Programs in Library and Information
Studies (ALA, n.d.) was used to identify all 64 LIS master’s programs in the
United States and Canada. General information email addresses for programs were
identified and collected using the directory and program websites. Program
administrators/directors and instructors’ names and email addresses were
identified and collected by searching program websites. When possible,
instructors who teach research methods, health sciences librarianship, or
related courses were identified and sent the survey invitation directly.
No
direct personal information was collected or stored as part of the survey. An
electronic consent form was included as part of the survey instrument. This
included the estimated length of time of the survey (5-10 minutes), the names
of all investigators, the purpose of the study, and an eligibility statement.
Eligible participants included those who currently teach at least one course, or are an
administrator for, an ALA-accredited LIS program. Participants were informed
that identifying information for their institutions was being collected but
would not be shared with others outside of the group conducting the research
study. All reporting of the results from the survey was de-identified (i.e. the
names of the institutions were removed) prior to sharing the results or data
from this study.
Ethics
approval was sought at each investigators’ institution. The Institutional
Review Board at the University of Minnesota determined that this project is not
human research under the U.S. federal regulations on human research. The
University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Office approved this research
study (protocol number 23-0157). The raw and cleaned data will be stored for 7
years in secure storage at the University of Minnesota.
Participants
were also asked to share the survey invitation with other administrators or
instructors in their program for whom this survey may be of interest. In total,
178 emails were sent out.
About the Survey
The
email inviting people to participate in the survey was sent to targeted
participants on May 11, 2023. The survey closed on June 9, 2023, with reminder
emails sent one week and one day prior to the closing date.
The
first page of the survey provided context: describing the purpose of the
survey, definitions, and eligibility. The second page provided informed consent
information: survey completion time, contact and question information,
statements about confidentiality, voluntary nature of the study, IRB approval,
and data storage. Participants checked a box to provide consent and continue.
The main body of the survey consisted of six pages, each containing 1-4
questions. There were 12 questions total; pages averaged 2 questions each.
Adaptive questioning was used to reduce the number and complexity of questions.
Using back and forward buttons on the survey pages, respondents were able to
review their answers up until the first adaptive question, at which point the
survey forked to different pages containing different, contextual questions. A
summary to review and change answers for the entire survey was not included. A
final page thanked participants and asked them to share the survey with
colleagues.
There
were no incentives provided to participants for completing the survey.
Data Cleaning and Merging
During
analysis of survey data, we encountered several issues, including incomplete
surveys and multiple surveys from individual respondents at the same
institution (a desired, expected, and planned outcome).
Before
beginning the process of merging and cleaning response data, we anonymized
institution names (respondent names were never captured) by randomly assigning
letters to each institution.
In
instances where multiple people responded from the same institution, we merged
data to a single answer for each institution. In situations where at least one Administrator,
Instructor and one Instructor responded, we used the Administrator,
Instructor category. There were no instances where an Administrator
responded in addition to a second category (instructor or administrator,
instructor)
In
situations where a positive (e.g., Yes) and a negative (e.g., No)
or an indeterminate (e.g., unsure) response were given by respondents
from the same institution, we used the positive response.
For
the question about familiarity with ES, we used the answer indicating the
greatest degree of familiarity (Use Very Familiar over Familiar
over Moderately Familiar over Vaguely Familiar).
For
follow-up text responses, we included text responses that corresponded to the
selected/combined answer to the previous question (e.g., If there was a Yes
and a No response, and we used Yes, we used the text response
that accompanies that response). If there were multiple text responses
corresponding to multiple positive responses, we kept both text responses.
Results
We
received 28 responses to the survey. Two responses did not provide responses to
questions beyond the consent question and were therefore eliminated. The 26
remaining responses were cleaned, and responses from the same institutions were
merged according to the method above, leaving 20 responses from unique
institutions.
Demographics
Our
survey only had one demographic question in addition to the name of the
institution field, which was only used to merge data and then deleted, to
determine who was responding to the survey. The options were instructor,
administrator, or other; respondents could select multiple
options. A greater number of respondents indicated they were an instructor
(n = 10). The remaining respondents selected either administrator (n =
1) or selected both instructor and administrator (n = 8). One
respondent selected other but did not provide additional details.
Existing MLS/MLIS Program Elements
The
first three questions were about the existence of research methods or database
searching courses or health sciences librarianship courses or tracks within the
programs being surveyed. The results are shown in table 1 below.
Table
1
Responses
to the Question, “Does your ALA accredited LIS master’s-level program offer a
1) course in research methods, 2) course devoted solely to database searching,
or 3) course or track for health sciences librarianship?”
|
Response |
Does
your ALA accredited LIS master's-level program offer a course in research methods? |
Does
your ALA accredited LIS master's-level program offer a course devoted solely to database
searching? |
Does
your ALA accredited LIS master's-level program offer a course or track for health sciences
librarianship? |
|
Yes |
19 |
16 |
9 |
|
No |
0 |
3 |
10 |
|
Unsure |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Other |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
No response |
NA |
NA |
1 |
Research
methods courses were common, and no respondent selected No for this question. Courses devoted solely to database searching
were slightly less common with 16 respondents selecting Yes, three selecting No,
and one respondent being Unsure.
Health sciences librarianship courses or track were almost split, with nine
respondents selecting Yes, and ten
respondents selecting No.
A
final open-ended question was included in this section of the survey to allow
for additional comments on the previous three questions. Three respondents used
this field to give more context on their program's health science librarianship
offerings (directed study, concentration, certificate, elective courses). One
respondent clarified that database searching is no longer taught within a
specific course but rather embedded in other courses throughout the curriculum.
Familiarity With ES
The
next question asked about respondents’ familiarity with ES (Figure 1). Only 10%
(n = 2) of the respondents were vaguely
familiar. The remaining respondents were moderately familiar (n = 7), familiar
(n = 6) or very familiar (n = 5). No
respondents chose the not familiar
option.
Figure
1
Responses
to the question, “How familiar are you with evidence synthesis (e.g.,
systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses)?”
ES Inclusion in the Curriculum
The
next section sought to determine whether ES content is included in the
curriculum, how it is included, or why it is not included. When asked if ES
content is currently included in the MLIS curriculum, 75% (n = 15) of the
respondents said yes, and the remaining respondents said no (n =
2) or Don’t know/not sure (n = 3)
(Figure 2).
Figure
2
Responses
to the question, “Is evidence synthesis (e.g. systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, meta-analyses) included anywhere in your master’s-level LIS
curriculum?”
The
respondents who selected no were
asked why ES wasn’t currently included. One respondent selected both the lack
of instructor expertise on this topic and the lack of demand from students. The
other respondent clarified that ES was covered in a course that is not
exclusive to the LIS program.
The
respondents who indicated that ES was included in the curriculum were asked to
describe the extent of the coverage. Of these, 57% (n = 8) indicated that ES
content was included briefly in one or more courses, 36% (n = 5) indicated
in-depth inclusion in one or more courses, and the remaining (n = 1) respondent
stated that there was one or more whole courses devoted to ES (Figure 3).
Of
the 45% (n=9) of respondents who stated that their MLIS program had a health
sciences track or course, 67% (n=6) selected yes, 11% (n=1) selected no, and
22% (n=2) selected don’t know/unsure when asked whether ES was included in
their MLIS curriculum. The relative percentage of respondents of this subgroup
who indicated that ES was included in their curriculum is somewhat greater than
that for the total respondent pool (57%). However, given the small number of
respondents, the difference is likely within the margin of error. It would be
difficult to draw definitive conclusions about noticeable increases in ES
content based on whether the program had a health sciences track or course.
Interestingly, the one respondent who stated that there was one or more courses
devoted to ES in their program did not have a health-sciences track/course in
their program.
Figure
3
Responses
to the question, “To what degree is evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic
reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses) covered in your curriculum.”
An
additional open-text question asked respondents to describe how and where ES is
included in LIS program curricula. The responses were highly varied. The most
common place for ES to be covered was in research methods courses (n = 4),
followed by health sciences librarianship courses (n = 2) and capstone courses
(n = 2). Other respondents indicated some coverage in user experience (n = 1)
and database searching courses (n = 1). When length or depth of coverage was
addressed, brief assignments (e.g., a reading, a guest lecture, a one-week
assignment) were indicated for the most part. One respondent indicated that it
was part of a semester-long project.
The
next two questions were related to interest in incorporating new content on ES
into their master's-level LIS programs. Sixteen respondents selected yes, one respondent selected no, and one respondent selected the other option but did not provide any additional
detail. Of the respondents who selected yes
(n = 16), majority (n = 15) chose yes
- as a portion of a course, and only
one respondent selected yes - as an entire course. The respondent that
selected other as an option did not
provide any additional information in the corresponding open text field.
When
asked about the ways in which they would be interested in incorporating content
on how librarians support ES into their curriculum, a greater number of
respondents selected Bring an external
expert to guest lecture in a course (n = 13) and a few respondents selected
Have training for existing LIS
instructors in your program (n = 5). Of these responses, two respondents
selected both options.
Discussion
Based
on the results of our survey, ES is still primarily learned on the job or via
continuing education rather than during LIS education. This was demonstrated by
the extent to which in-depth instruction about ES is currently included in LIS
curricula, a level reported by fewer than half of respondents (6 of 14).
However, there did seem to be interest in incorporating additional ES content
into the curricula (16 of 18 responses) which indicates that this is a growing
area in LIS education.
These
findings have implications for several stakeholder groups involved in teaching,
learning about, conducting, or helping others conduct studies that use ES-based
research methods. Those groups include LIS program administrators, faculty
members and instructors, LIS students, and practicing academic and research
librarians.
Implications for LIS Program Administrators
As
program administrators are decision-makers about what goes into the curriculum,
their familiarity with ES can significantly impact the availability of this
type of content in the MLIS program curricula. There is room to expand the
degree of familiarity with ES content among LIS administrators as 66% of
administrator respondents indicated only moderate or vague
familiarity with ES content. The centrality of ES methods in health
sciences for both researchers and librarians and their upward trend in many
other disciplines, are compelling reasons to increase LIS administrators’
familiarity with ES. Furthermore, evidence based practice, of which ES is a key
component, is a core competency of librarianship according to ALA (2023) and
CARL (CARL Competencies Working Group, 2020).
Likewise,
there is opportunity to grow the depth of ES information included in LIS
curricula, as only 5 of 14 respondents indicated in-depth inclusion of ES
content in one or more courses. By contrast, most (8 of 14) respondents
indicated only brief inclusion of ES content in one or more courses. Brief
inclusion likely means different things for different programs, but ES includes
a robust range of research review methods and is sufficiently extensive and
complex as to require in-depth treatment to conduct or participate in a
systematic or scoping review or meta-analysis. Brief inclusion of ES concepts
can introduce students to the basic concepts of ES methods but falls short of
preparing students to support ES studies or be directly involved with them.
There
is a strong indication of interest in expanding or including new ES information
in LIS curricula among respondents, which shows demand for ways to incorporate
or impart this knowledge. Most respondents indicated interest in incorporating
ES content into part of a course, rather than a full course on the topic. Only
one respondent stated interest in offering ES as an entire course, indicating
that there may not yet be an administrative appetite for semester-long courses
on ESs. Yet, a recent survey by Lê et al. (2023) showed that post-secondary courses were either the
first or second preferred choice for ES training for 57% of librarian
respondents, indicating that there may be a desire for this type of course in
library school curricula. Introducing or increasing the amount of ES
content in existing courses, particularly those that are frequently required or
for which there is broad interest among students pursuing health sciences
and/or academic careers, such as research methods, is a good place to start or
build on the existing ES content being taught. Where the preference is for
inclusion as part of a course, inviting an external speaker to talk about ES as
part of a course or enlisting expert-led training for instructors are both good
options to introduce this type of knowledge among students.
There
may also be an opportunity for LIS programs to offer a continuing education
short course or in-depth workshop for librarian practitioners that focuses on
ES training taught either by faculty or expert practitioners. Based on demand
over the past three years, there is sufficient need among practicing academic
librarians to warrant more offerings of this type.
Implications for LIS Faculty/Instructors
More
than half of faculty/instructor respondents have a good understanding of ES
methods, but 44% have only a moderate
or vague familiarity with this
information. This limited familiarity, along with the lack of familiarity among
LIS administrators, suggests that students may not be gaining the familiarity
and skill with ES that would benefit them in careers in health sciences and
academic librarianship. Health sciences libraries are seeking librarians who
have knowledge and experience with ES content, as more researchers adopt ES
methods in their research (Reed & Carroll, 2020). We expect similar demand
for ES skills among other academic and special libraries to follow this trend.
Furthermore, greater familiarity with ES content among faculty/instructors
could be a potential boon to the corpus of LIS research using these methods.
When done well, systematic reviews and other ES review types tend to have more
citations and greater impact than many other study types (Patsopoulos, 2005;
Royle et al., 2013). Researchers will benefit from greater familiarity and
increased utilization of ES methods in their own research. A 2015 study (Xu et
al., 2015) showed that LIS systematic reviews suffer from quality issues, which
could be improved by training and education. This needs to start with LIS
researchers who are often LIS program faculty or instructors.
Implications for LIS Master’s Students
The
inclusion of ES content in LIS curricula is most relevant to students pursuing
careers in academic, health sciences, or special librarianship, as those are
fields in which this knowledge will be used most frequently. With only 5 of 14
programs indicating that they offer in-depth treatment of ES, most students
will only receive brief introductions to ES methods in their formal LIS
education. Because most respondents to our survey were open to increasing the
amount of ES content in the curriculum, students could advocate for its
inclusion to prepare them for academic, special, or health sciences library
careers. Through ES training, students will gain expert database search skills,
greater familiarity with databases and their content coverage, citation
management skills, and knowledge of reporting standards and principles of
reproducibility.
Any
amount of familiarity with ES content, however minimal, will benefit students
in job searching and as they become practicing librarians. Only one respondent
indicated that they had an entire course for ES. This is an option that LIS
program administrators should consider offering, especially one targeting
students in an academic librarianship program track. Similar to instructional
design courses that prepare MLIS graduates to teach, a course on ES would allow
new librarians to start a job ready to support this expanding area of service.
If courses are not available, students on an academic librarian track might
supplement their ES knowledge through channels outside of the formal
course-based curriculum, such as internships, training opportunities, or expert
mentorship.
Implications for Practicing Academic Librarians and the Profession
Our
findings suggest that most LIS students graduate without thorough knowledge of
ES research methods. Practicing academic librarians looking to hire new
librarians should not expect recent graduates in the job pool to have ES
skills. However, most practicing librarians did not have ES knowledge when they
graduated and gained this knowledge through some type of continuing education
or on-the-job training and mentoring as shown in the findings of Lê et al. (2023) where only 5.6%
of respondents gained ES training from a post-secondary course (including
MOOCs).
If
a librarian’s LIS education has not prepared them to support, collaborate on,
or conduct an ES research study, there are several avenues to pursue ES
training beyond the LIS curriculum (Table 2). Some of these options are geared at librarians or the
information retrieval stages of ES, while others are targeted at researchers
who are involved in the entire review process. For librarians, a
multi-faceted approach to training is recommended based on a survey of business
librarians involved in ES reviews (Premji et al., 2022).
Table
2
Examples
of ES Training Programs Currently Available
|
Training
Program |
Website |
Mode |
|
The Evidence
Synthesis Institute an
academic librarian-led training program aimed at library staff supporting ESs
in topics outside of the health sciences. From 2020-2024 was fully funded by
the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) |
Synchronous |
|
|
Evidence
Synthesis Institute Canada A
Canadian adaptation of the US Evidence Synthesis Institute, that has been
offered annually since 2022, and is currently offered in partnership with the
Canadian Association of Research Libraries. |
https://libguides.uvic.ca/ESICanada/ |
Synchronous |
|
Introduction
to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis a
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) offered through Coursera. Covers
information necessary to complete all stages of systematic reviews and
meta-analyses |
Asynchronous |
|
|
Cochrane
Interactive Learning provides
tutorials for performing systematic reviews on health-related topics |
Asynchronous |
|
|
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Campbell
Collaboration Online Course this free and open course provides an
overview of the steps involved in conducting a scientific systematic review
of results of multiple quantitative studies |
https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis-o-f/ |
Asynchronous |
|
The
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence provides
free-to-access, open
educational, training courses in ES. The courses cover ES methods, including
systematic review and systematic mapping, stakeholder engagement in ES, and
ES technology. These are self-paced, online courses |
Asynchronous |
|
|
The Medical Library Association offers a two-level professional
development certificate program, Systematic Review Services Specialization,
which is best suited for health sciences librarians, for a modest fee |
Asynchronous/ Synchronous |
|
|
University
of Michigan Systematic Reviews Workshop a mix of
online and in-person instruction aimed at providing librarians with a solid
foundation in conducting and communicating systematic reviews. Focus is
health sciences |
Asynchronous/
Synchronous |
When evaluating training programs, it
will be helpful to consider the topics covered as they relate to competencies,
in the context of one’s needs, as well as learning preferences. To help
determine what types of ES knowledge will be most useful for librarians who are
learning how to support ES studies, Townsend et al. (2017) have developed a set
of core competencies for librarians who are involved in systematic reviews. Lê
et al. (2023) surveyed librarians who support systematic reviews about their
training needs and preferences, providing evidence for preferred training
methods and needs in focused areas.
Limitations
While
we attempted to survey all 64 ALA-accredited LIS programs, we only received
responses from 20 institutions, which is a 30.7% response rate. Due to the
limited sample size, the extent to which these results can be generalized to
all LIS programs may be limited.
Our
survey was further limited by geography, including only ALA-accredited
master’s-level LIS programs in the United States and Canada. Results cannot be
generalized beyond those countries.
Another
limiting factor may be that some survey respondents who are less familiar with
ES methods may have limited awareness of the inclusion or lack thereof of ES
content in their LIS programs and/or may have conflated ES methods with other
techniques resulting in a mischaracterization of their offerings.
Finally,
the survey does not ask about the numbers or proportions of students in each
program that are pursuing relevant career paths (i.e., academic, health
sciences, or special librarianship). For programs that have relatively fewer
students pursuing these paths, ES topics may be a poorer fit for inclusion or
expansion within the curricula.
Suggestions for Future Research
Additional
research is needed to determine LIS students’ perceptions of their “readiness
to support” ES and what they have learned about it through their programs’
curricula.
To
gain a better understanding of the different types of educational activities
(e.g., lecture, discussion, small group work, assigned reading, hands-on activities,
etc.) and learning objectives used in LIS curricula, further research into
these questions will help develop a more complete picture of ES education
approaches and preferences. Blanco et. al. (2014) conducted a study of medical
education programs that provides a useful survey guide.
We
did not conduct a content analysis of publicly posted LIS course listings or
course outlines to supplement our survey, and this is a further area of
research that could contribute to building a more complete picture of the ES
offerings in MLIS programs.
Additionally,
research that investigates barriers to ES inclusion in LIS curricula, or
factors affecting LIS educator perceptions, will advance educators’
understanding of the reasons ES may or may not be covered, shedding light on
challenges to teaching ES concepts that face LIS program instructors,
administrators, and students.
Conclusion
Our
research shows that there are currently limited levels of in-depth instruction
on ES in LIS programs which indicates that librarians tend to receive training
in ES post-MLIS. The case for additional ES instruction in LIS programs would
be bolstered by research on student perspectives on preparedness to support ES.
Respondents showed interest in increasing ES content in curricula, primarily by
means of guest lecturers. It may be worthwhile targeting programs which train
more health sciences, academic, and special librarians.
Author Contributions
Meghan Lafferty: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Zahra Premji: Conceptualization,
Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources
(supporting), Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing Philip Herold: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation,
Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing Megan
Kocher: Conceptualization (lead), Investigation, Methodology, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing Scott Marsalis:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Resources (lead), Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing
References
Aamodt, M., Huurdeman, H., &
Strømme, H. (2019). Librarian Co-Authored Systematic Reviews are Associated
with Lower Risk of Bias Compared to Systematic Reviews with Acknowledgement of
Librarians or No Participation by Librarians. Evidence Based Library and
Information Practice, 14(4), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29601
American
Library Association. (n.d.). Directory of ALA-accredited and candidate
programs in library and information studies. American Library Association. https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/accreditedprograms/directory
American
Library Association. (2023). ALA’s core competencies of librarianship. https://www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/2022%20ALA%20Core%20Competences%20of%20Librarianship_FINAL.pdf
Aromataris, E.,
Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (Eds.). (2024). JBI
manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL
Bertot, J.,
Sarin, L., & Jaeger, P. (2015). Re-envisioning the MLS: The future of
librarian education. Public Libraries, 54(6), 23-33.
Beverley, C.
A., Booth, A., & Bath, P. A. (2003). The role of the information specialist
in the systematic review process: A health information case study. Health
Information and Libraries Journal, 20(2), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x
Blanco, M. A., Capello, C. F., Dorsch, J. L., Perry,
G., & Zanetti, M. L. (2014). A survey study of evidence-based medicine
training in US and Canadian medical schools. Journal of the Medical Library Association:
JMLA, 102(3), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.005
Boice, J.
(2019). An exploration of systematic review publication trends in conservation
biology journals. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 91.
https://doi.org/10.29173/istl2
Borrego, M.,
Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015). What is the state of the art of
systematic reviewing in engineering education? Journal of Engineering
Education, 104(2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20069
Bright, K. M.,
& Colón-Aguirre, M. (2022). Prepare to be unprepared? LIS curriculum and
academic liaison preparation. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(6),
102602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102602
Canadian
Association of Research Libraries Competencies Working Group. (2020). Competencies
for librarians in Canadian research libraries. https://www.carl-abrc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Competencies-Final-EN-1-2.pdf
Chalmers, I.,
Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation
& the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001003
Champion, C.
(2018). Response to “Environmental scan and evaluation of best practices for
online systematic review resources.” Journal of the Medical Library
Association, 106(4). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.496
Chapman, K.
(2021). Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), 102396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102396
Chung, E.,
Schalk, J., & Yoon, J. (2022). How have LIS school curricula evolved over
the past twenty years? Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science,
45(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjilsrcsib.v45i1.14192
Davis, R.,
& Saunders, L. (2020). Essential skills for corporate and special
librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 60(7), 762–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1786984
Desmeules, R.,
Dorgan, M., & Campbell, S. (2016). Acknowledging librarians’ contributions
to systematic review searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries
Association, 37(2), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.5596/c16-014
Dodson, M.
(2020). On target or missing the mark? Instruction courses in LIS graduate
programs. Public Services Quarterly, 16(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2020.1745131
Eldermire, E.,
& Young, S. (2022). World of reviews. In M. J. Foster & S. T. Jewell
(Eds.), Piecing Together Systematic Reviews and Other Evidence Syntheses
(pp. 17–30). Rowman & Littlefield.
Evidence
Synthesis Institute. (n.d.). Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis
beyond the health sciences [Online course]. Retrieved April 26, 2024, from https://pressbooks.umn.edu/evidencesynthesisinstitute/
Eysenbach, G.
(2004). Improving the quality of web surveys: The checklist for reporting
results of Internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 6(3), e34. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34
Fehrmann, P.,
& Thomas, J. (2011). Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in
systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods, 2(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.31
Ghezzi‐Kopel,
K., Ault, J., Chimwaza, G., Diekmann, F., Eldermire, E., Gathoni, N., Kelly,
J., Kinengyere, A. A., Kocher, M., & Lwoga, E. T. (2021). Making the case
for librarian expertise to support evidence synthesis for the sustainable
development goals. Research Synthesis Methods, 13(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1528
Higgins, J.,
Lasserson, T., Thomas, J., Flemyng, E., & Churchill, R. (2023). Methodological
expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews (MECIR). Cochrane. https://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual
Hong, Q. N.,
& Pluye, P. (2018). Systematic reviews: A brief historical overview. Education
for Information, 34(4), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180219
Institute of
Medicine. (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for
systematic reviews. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13059
Kallaher, A.,
Eldermire, E. R. B., Fournier, C. T., Ghezzi-Kopel, K., Johnson, K. A., Morris-Knower,
J., Scinto-Madonich, S., & Young, S. (2020). Library systematic review
service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 46(6), 102222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222
Koffel, J. B.
(2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the
impact of librarian involvement: A cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLOS
One, 10(5), e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
Kogut, A.,
Foster, M., Ramirez, D., & Xiao, D. (2019). Critical appraisal of
mathematics education systematic review search methods: Implications for social
sciences librarians. College & Research Libraries, 80(7),
973. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.80.7.973
Kogut, A.,
Ramirez, D., & Foster, M. J. (2022). Systematic review training model for
education librarians: A case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship,
28(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2020.1784761
Koizumi, M.,
& Widdersheim, M. M. (2019). Specialties and strategies in academic
libraries: A cluster analysis approach. Library Management, 40(1–2),
45–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-10-2017-0114 Kousha, K., & Abdoli, M. (2008). Subject
analysis of online syllabi in library and information science: Do academic LIS
programs match with job requirements? IFLA Conference Proceedings, 1–13.
Lê,
M., Winkler, J., & Neilson, C. (2024). Benchmarking
Librarian Support of Systematic Reviews in the Sciences, Humanities, and Social
Sciences. College & Research Libraries,
85(4). https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.4.606
Lê,
M., Winkler, J., & Neilson, C. (2023). Training needs and preferences for
librarians supporting systematic reviews in the sciences, humanities, and
social sciences. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/e573s
Lund,
B., Wang, T., Widdersheim, M., & Fay, B. (2023). Interrogating shortcomings
in instructional librarianship preparation: A comparison of perspectives of
employers, LIS educators, and instructional librarians. Journal of Education
for Library and Information Science, 64(2), 120–141. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis-2020-0038
Marsalis,
S. (2020, January 18). Adoption of systematic and related review methods in
social work and reporting quality of underpinning searches. Society for
Social Work and Research Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
McGowan,
J., & Sampson, M. (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal
of the Medical Library Association, 93(1), 74–80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15685278
Meert, D., Torabi, N., & Costella, J.
(2016). Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component
of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association:
JMLA, 104(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004
Methods
Group of the Campbell Collaboration. (2019). Methodological expectations of
Campbell Collaboration Intervention reviews: Conduct standards. Campbell
Collaboration. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/Campbell%20MECCIR%20Conduct%20standards%20Nov2019-1573120397657.docx
Pandolfelli,
G., Koos, J. A., & Benz Scott, L. (2022). An analysis of ALA‐accredited MLS
curricula indicates deficiencies in the initial training provided for public
librarians. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 39(3),
268–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12443
Parker,
R. M. N., Boulos, L., Visintini, S., Ritchie, K., & Hayden, J. (2018).
Environmental scan and evaluation of best practices for online systematic
review resources. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(2).
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.241
Patsopoulos,
N. A. (2005). Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health
sciences. JAMA, 293(19), 2362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.19.2362
Pawliuk, C., Cheng, S., Zheng, A., &
Siden, H. (Hal). (2024). Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was
associated with higher quality of reported search methods: A cross-sectional
survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 166, 111237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111237
Premji,
Z., Hayden, K. A., & Rutherford, S. (2021). Teaching knowledge synthesis
methodologies in a higher education setting: A scoping review of face-to-face
instructional programs. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice,
16(2), 111–144. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29895
Premji,
Z., Splenda, R., & Young, S. (2022). An exploration of business librarian
participation in knowledge synthesis reviews. College & Research
Libraries, 83(2), 314–336. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.83.2.314
Reed,
J. B., & Carroll, A. J. (2020). Roles for health sciences librarians at
college and university libraries. Issues in Science and Technology
Librarianship, (94). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl42
Rethlefsen,
M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C., & Brigham, T. J. (2015).
Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies
in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
Rod,
A. B. (2023). It takes a researcher to know a researcher: Academic librarian
perspectives regarding skills and training for research data support in Canada.
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 18(2), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30297
Royle,
P., Kandala, N.-B., Barnard, K., & Waugh, N. (2013). Bibliometrics of
systematic reviews: Analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Systematic
Reviews, 2(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-74
Saunders,
L. (2019). Core and more: Examining foundational and specialized content in
library and information science. Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science, 60(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.60.1.2018-0034
Smith,
N. M., & Warner, H. L. (1990). Educating future librarians: The library
school perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 11(3–4),
37–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J111v11n03_04
Spencer,
A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018). Roles for librarians in systematic
reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(1),
46–56. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82
Stanton,
J. M., Kim, Y., Oakleaf, M., Lankes, R. D., Gandel, P., Cogburn, D., &
Liddy, E. D. (2011). Education for eScience professionals: Job analysis,
curriculum guidance, and program considerations. Journal of Education for
Library & Information Science, 52(2), 79–94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41308884
Thomas,
C., & Urban, R. (2018). What do data librarians think of the MLIS?
Professionals’ perceptions of knowledge transfer, trends, and challenges. College
& Research Libraries, 79(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.3.401
Townsend,
W. A., Anderson, P. F., Ginier, E. C., MacEachern, M. P., Saylor, K. M.,
Shipman, B. L., & Smith, J. E. (2017). A competency framework for
librarians involved in systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library
Association, 105(3), 268–275. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.189
Valenti,
S., & Lund, B. (2021). Preparing the instructional librarian:
Representation of ACRL roles and strengths in MLS course descriptions. College
& Research Libraries, 82(4), 530. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.4.530
Valentine, J. C., Littell, J. H., & Young, S. (Eds.). Systematic
reviews and meta-analysis: A Campbell Collaboration online course. Open
Learning Initiative, (2022). https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis/
Williams,
R. D., & Saunders, L. (2020). What the field needs: Core knowledge, skills,
and abilities for public librarianship. The Library Quarterly, 90(3),
283–297. https://doi.org/10.1086/708958
Xu,
J., Kang, Q., & Song, Z. (2015). The current state of systematic reviews in
library and information studies. Library & Information Science Research,
37(4), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.11.003
Appendix
Survey
Introduction
This survey seeks to solicit information regarding any training
currently included in master’s level Library and Information Science (LIS)
curricula regarding support for evidence synthesis.
As academic librarians in a wide range of fields, we have
experienced a steadily increasing demand for librarians to support and
participate in evidence synthesis projects (e.g. systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, meta-analyses). In 2020, the University of Minnesota Libraries
partnered with Cornell University Libraries and Carnegie Mellon University
Libraries to implement an IMLS-funded Evidence Synthesis Institute to meet the
growing demand of librarians for training in this area. As of Fall 2022, the
Institute has trained over 250 librarians. The purpose of this survey is to
identify relevant course offerings for LIS students in order to inform future
training opportunities.
By LIS we mean any ALA-accredited LIS programs in the
United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The program may offer degrees with
names such as Master of Library Science (MLS), Master of Arts, Master of
Librarianship, Master of Library and Information Studies (LIS), and Master of
Science.
Evidence synthesis – also called “knowledge synthesis” — is defined as
a “review of what is known from existing research using systematic and explicit
methods in order to clarify the evidence base” (Evidence Synthesis
International - position statement,
2020).
There are many different evidence synthesis types, including
systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses, and so on. All types of
knowledge syntheses follow rigorous, explicit, and transparent methods
guided by authoritative conducting guidelines, and reported following
established reporting standards.
For the purposes of this survey, we are excluding traditional
or narrative literature reviews as they do not typically follow any
particular methodology, whereas evidence synthesis reviews are expected to
follow methodological guidelines. Likewise, while evidence synthesis work
includes developing comprehensive search strategies or teaching the advanced
search skills required to conduct thorough, clearly reported searches, we are
excluding instruction regarding information retrieval or information literacy
more generally (e.g., basics of database searching, navigating information
sources, etc.).
Eligibility: You are eligible to participate in this
survey if you currently teach at least one course or are an administrator for
an ALA-accredited LIS program.
Information Sheet and Instructions
You are invited to be in a research study of the coverage of
evidence synthesis support in LIS education in the United States, Puerto Rico,
and Canada. The survey is being sent to all master’s-level programs of Library
& Information Science in ALA's database of accredited programs. This study
is being conducted by: Meghan Lafferty, Philip Herold, Megan Kocher, and Scott
Marsalis University Libraries, University of Minnesota, and Dr. Zahra Premji,
University of Victoria Libraries.
Procedures
The survey is brief and should take less than 15 minutes of your
time to answer.
If you agree to participate, we ask that you answer only those
questions you feel confident in doing so, and refer us to others at your
institution who are more familiar with the curriculum for those questions you
are unable to answer. We will combine answers from each institution.
Confidentiality
This survey will collect the names of institutions to allow for
combining answers from single institutions. Only the research team will have
access to information that identifies your institution. Identifying information
for your institution will not be shared with others outside of this research
study. All reporting of the results of the survey will be de-identified (i.e.,
the names of the institutions will be removed) before we publish any report or
share the results or data from this study.
Voluntary Nature of the Study
Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or
not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with the
University of Minnesota or the University of Victoria.
Contacts and Questions
The researchers conducting this study are: Philip Herold, Megan
Kocher, Meghan Lafferty, and Scott Marsalis, and Zahra Premji. You may address
any questions to Meghan at mlaffert@umn.edu.
The
Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota has determined that
this project is not human research under the federal regulations on human
research.
The
University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Office has approved this research
study. You may verify the ethical approval of this study, or raise any concerns
you might have, by contacting the following research ethics body: the Human
Research Ethics Office at the University of Victoria (250-472-4545 or
ethics@uvic.ca).
Please
be advised that this research study includes data storage in the U.S.A. As
such, there is a possibility that information about you that is gathered for
this research study may be accessed without your knowledge or consent by the
U.S. government in compliance with the U.S. Patriot Act.
Demographic Information
1.
Name of your institution (relating to your role in an ALA
accredited LIS program)
________________________________________________________________
2.
What is/are your role(s) in the ALA accredited LIS master’s-level
program? Choose all that apply.
· Administrator
· Instructor (any type as long as you currently teach
at least one master’s-level course in an ALA accredited LIS program)
· Other (please specify) ____________________________________________
Research Methods & Searching
3.
Does your ALA accredited LIS master’s-level program offer a course
in research methods?
· Yes
· No
· Unsure
· Other:
__________________________________________________
4.
Does your ALA accredited LIS master’s-level program offer a course
devoted solely to database searching?
· Yes
· No
· Unsure
· Other:
__________________________________________________
5.
Does your ALA accredited LIS master’s-level program offer a course
or track for health sciences librarianship?
· Yes
· No
· Unsure
· Other: __________________________________________________
6. Please
share any comments related to your answers to either of the previous three
questions:
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Familiarity
7. How
familiar are you with evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, meta-analyses)?
· Not
at all familiar
· Vaguely
familiar (have heard of evidence synthesis)
· Moderately
familiar (am familiar with concepts but no active engagement)
· Familiar
(am familiar with concepts and have had some engagement such as offering
consultations, receiving training, and/or participating in an evidence
synthesis project)
· Very
familiar (have had sustained engagement such as regularly teaching, offering
consultations, and/or participating in an evidence synthesis projects)
Inclusion of Evidence Synthesis in Curriculum
8. Is
evidence synthesis (e.g. systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses)
included anywhere in your masters-level LIS curriculum?
· Yes
· No
· Don't
know / Unsure
If respondent replies yes, they continue to question
9. If respondent answers no, they go to question 16.
Degree of Inclusion of Evidence Synthesis in Curriculum
9. To
what degree is evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping reviews,
meta-analyses) covered in your curriculum. Choose as many as apply.
· Brief
inclusion in one or more course(s) (mentioned in readings or lecture)
· In-depth
inclusion in one or more course(s) (at least one week or 3 contact hours spent
on it and/or an assignment)
· One
or more whole course(s) devoted to evidence synthesis
10. Please
describe how and where evidence synthesis is included in your program’s
curriculum (e.g., assignment in a research methods class, course in health
sciences librarianship track, etc.)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Interest in Incorporating Evidence Synthesis into Curriculum
11. Academic
and medical librarians are often asked to serve as search and methodology
experts on evidence synthesis projects (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, meta-analyses.) Are you interested in incorporating new content on
evidence synthesis into your master’s-level LIS program?
· Yes,
as a portion of a course (e.g., guest lecture)
· Yes,
as an entire course
· No
· Other:
__________________________________________________
12. In
what way(s) would you be interested in incorporating content on how librarians
support evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping reviews,
meta-analyses) into your curriculum?
· Bring
an external expert to guest lecture in a course
· Bring
an external expert to teach an entire course
· Have
training for existing LIS instructors in your program
· Other:
__________________________________________________
Training Follow up
13. Would
you like to be contacted if training for LIS instructors on how librarians
support evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping reviews,
meta-analyses) is developed?
· Yes
· No
Final comments
14. Please
share any further comments you may have regarding the topics covered in this
survey in the space provided below.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
15. Are
you interested in adding content on evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic
reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses) to your curriculum?
· Yes
· No
· Maybe
Respondents who have
answered questions in this branch then go to the Final Screen of Survey
Reasons for Not Including Evidence Synthesis in Curriculum
16. If
you do not include evidence synthesis (e.g., systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, meta-analyses) in your LIS program curriculum, why not? (choose as
many as apply)
· Do
not feel the topic is of sufficient importance
· None
of our instructors have expertise on this topic
· This
topic is more appropriately taught once student is in a professional
role
· No
room in the curriculum for this topic
· No
demand from students on this topic
· No
administrative/program support for covering this topic
· This
topic is covered by another department (e.g., public health)
· Other
__________________________________________________
Respondents who have
answered questions in this branch then go to the Final Screen of Survey
Final Screen of Survey
If there are other faculty or staff at your institution we should survey regarding the inclusion
of evidence synthesis in the curriculum please share this survey with them.