Shaping the Future: A Research Agenda for U.K. Libraries
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30577Abstract
Objective – This study explored current and future trends in librarianship within the U.K. library and information profession, intending to highlight the most critical for future evidence based research. Research outcomes should resonate across the wider sector and be an indicative stepping stone to collaborative research endeavours by members of the profession at a time when funding is tight, and staff availability is in short supply.
Methods – A qualitative Delphi consensus method was chosen for the research, adapted from Paul’s (2008) modified Delphi card-sorting model. Contributions from conference programs and 31 individual experts from the U.K. library and information profession contributed to the generation of current themes and trends impacting their library environments. Data were analyzed by the experts in an incremental manner following the adapted methodology, and consensus was achieved through the process.
Results – The findings of the research indicated that there were five significant trends and areas of concern which are impacting our libraries at all levels. These naturally include pressing current concerns such as the impact of artificial intelligence (AI), critical librarianship, and censorship/book banning. Library spaces remain a significant issue for the wider sector.
Conclusion – The adapted modified Delphi card-sorting method with three distinct sections to the research proved especially valuable in a study where there were many different approaches to librarianship. The use of conference data to seed the initial set of themes has been shown to be unusual and rarely used in this way before. The process of achieving and reaching consensus illustrated the need for the profession as a whole to work more closely together. The outcome of the consensus research should now be taken forward collaboratively by the library profession, with space and training given to staff across all sectors and grades to engage in evidence based research for the benefit of all.
Downloads
References
Appleton, L. (2022). Trendspotting - Looking to the future in a post-pandemic academic library environment. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 28(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2058174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2022.2058174
Ashiq, M., Rehman, S. U., Safdar, M., & Ali, H. (2021). Academic library leadership in the dawn of the new millennium: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102355
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
Bronstein, J., & Aharony, N. (2009). Views and dreams: A Delphi investigation into library 2.0 applications. Journal of Web Librarianship, 3(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900902896481 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900902896481
Calvert, S. (2020). Future themes and forecasts for research libraries and emerging technologies. Association of Research Libraries, Coalition for Networked Information, and EDUCAUSE. https://doi.org/10.29242/report.emergingtech2020.forecasts DOI: https://doi.org/10.29242/report.emergingtech2020.forecasts
Cheung, M. (2023, October 10). RLUK24 conference call for papers. RLUK News. https://www.rluk.ac.uk/rluk24-conference-call-for-papers/
CILIP. (2023). We are CILIP. https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/wearecilip
Conrad, L. Y., & Tucker, V. M. (2019). Making it tangible: Hybrid card sorting within qualitative interviews. Journal of Documentation, 75(2), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2018-0091 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2018-0091
Corrall, S. (2016). Continuing professional development and workplace learning. In P. Dale, J. Beard, & M. Holland (Eds.), University libraries and digital learning environments (pp. 239–258). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315549002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315549002
Corrall, S., & Jolly, L. (2020). Innovations in learning and teaching in academic libraries: Alignment, collaboration, and the social turn. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 25(2–4), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1697099 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1697099
Cox, A. (2021). The impact of AI, machine learning, automation and robotics on the information professions: A report for CILIP. CILIP. https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/researchreport
Dallis, D. (2017). Perspectives on library public services from four leaders. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 17(2), 205–2016. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0012
Dempsey, L. (2012). Libraries and the informational future: Some notes. Information Services & Use, 32(3–4), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0670 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2012-0670
Dempsey, L. (2020). Library discovery directions: Foreword. In S. McLeish (Ed.), Resource discovery for the twenty-first century library: Case studies and perspectives on the role of IT in user engagement and empowerment. Facet.
Eldredge, J., Harris, M., & Tomlinson Ascher, M. (2009). Defining the Medical Library Association research agenda: Methodology and final results from a consensus process. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 97(3), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.006
Feret, B., & Marcinek, M. (2005). The future of the academic library and the academic librarian: A Delphi study reloaded. New Review of Information Networking, 11(1), 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614570500268381 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13614570500268381
Koufogiannakis, D., & Brettle, A. (Eds.). (2016). Being evidence based in library and information practice. Facet Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18438/B8CD1P
Koufogiannakis, D., & Crumley, E. (2006). Research in librarianship: Issues to consider. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692109
LILAC. (2024, April). LILAC archives. https://www.lilacconference.com/
Lund, B. D. (2020). Review of the Delphi method in library and information science research. Journal of Documentation, 76(4), 929–960. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2019-0178 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-09-2019-0178
Maceviciute, E., & Wilson, T. D. (2009). A Delphi investigation into the research needs in Swedish librarianship. IR: Information Research, 14(4). https://www.informationr.net/ir/14-4/paper419.html
Mata, H., Latham, T. P., & Ransome, Y. (2010). Benefits of professional organization membership and participation in national conferences: Considerations for students and new professionals. Health Promotion Practice, 11(4), 450–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839910370427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839910370427
Meier, J. J. (2016). The future of academic libraries: Conversations with today’s leaders about tomorrow. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 16(2), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2016.0015
Missingham, R. (2011). Parliamentary library and research services in the 21st century: A Delphi study. IFLA Journal, 37(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035210396783 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035210396783
Muir, R. (2023). From data to insights: Developing a tool to enhance our decision making using reflexive thematic analysis and qualitative evidence. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 72(2), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2206603 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2206603
NHS. (2015). Training and development (knowledge and library services). Health Careers. https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/health-informatics/roles-health-informatics/knowledge-and-library-services
Paul, C. L. (2008). A modified Delphi approach to a new card sorting methodology. Journal of User Experience, 4(1), 7–30. https://uxpajournal.org/a-modified-delphi-approach-to-a-new-card-sorting-methodology/
Pistone, R. (2023). Identifying and navigating the current trends in business librarianship and data librarianship. Computer and Information Science, 16(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v16n3p1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/cis.v16n3p1
Poirier, E., & Robinson, L. (2014). Slow Delphi: An investigation into information behaviour and the slow movement. Journal of Information Science, 40(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513506360 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513506360
Sanderson, B. (2023, July). Policy paper: An independent review of English public libraries. Department of Culture Media & Sport. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-independent-review-of-english-public-libraries-report-and-government-reponse
Schlak, T., Corrall, S., & Bracke, P. (2022). The social future of academic libraries: New perspectives on communities, networks, and engagement. Facet. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783304738
Stewart, P. L. (2013). Benefits, challenges and proposed future directions for the International Association of School Librarianship annual conference. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(5). https://www.ijern.com/images/May-2013/39.pdf
Tait, E., & Pierson, C. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence and robots in libraries: Opportunities in LIS curriculum for preparing the librarians of tomorrow. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 71(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2081111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2022.2081111
Taşkın, Z. (2021). Forecasting the future of library and information science and its sub-fields. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1527–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03800-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03800-2
Thorpe, C., & Howlett, A. (2020). Understanding EBLIP at an organizational level: An initial maturity model. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 15(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29639 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29639
Tomaszewski, R., & MacDonald, K. I. (2009). Identifying subject-specific conferences as professional development opportunities for the academic librarian. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.08.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.08.006
Vega, R. D., & Connell, R. S. (2007). Librarians’ attitudes toward conferences: A study. College & Research Libraries, 68(6), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.68.6.503 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.68.6.503
Vickers, B. (2018, August 20). Postcards from Maryland – Reflections of an SLA Europe ECCA. Beth Vickers @CityLIS Postgrad 2017-2019. https://bethshers.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/postcards-from-maryland-reflections-of-a-sla-europe-ecca/
Waite, J. L., & Hume, S. E. (2017). Developing mission-focused outcomes for a professional conference: The case of the National Conference on Geography Education. Journal of Geography, 116(3), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2016.1243722 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2016.1243722
Young, G., Gilroy, D., & Nicholas, K. (2020). It’s great up north: Maximising the learning and development opportunities provided by organising and attending a regional event. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 37(4), 343–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12331 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12331
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Elizabeth Tilley, David Marshall
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike License 4.0 International applies to all works published by Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. Authors will retain copyright of the work.
