College and Research Libraries 50th Anniversary Feature- The Status of Research in Library /Information Science: Guarded Optimism Charles R. McClure and Ann Bishop This article reports a study that obtained the assessments of leading researchers in library/in- formation science (LIS) concerning the status of research in the field. Overall, there is evidence to support the conclusion that status of research in LIS has improved somewhat in the last eight to ten years and will continue to improve. Five key issue areas affecting the status of LIS research are identified: image and importance of research, research competencies, strengthen- ing commitment to research in professional associations, communications between researchers and practitioners, and research on the status of LIS research. Specific recommendations are offered to address these issues and improve the status of research in LIS. ne issue that continues to draw interest in the profession is the status of library/information science (LIS) research. In recent years there has been increased concern that The information field needs to develop a vigor- ous and rigorous research community, peopled with both those who consider themselves pri- marily researchers and primarily practitioners. They need to work together in solving informa- tion problems and when working alone to keep in mind the needs of both groups. 1 Such concerns are couched in controver- sies about the degree to which LIS is avo- cation, profession, or discipline. The au- thors recognize the existence of these controversies and realize that such de- bates affect one's perspective concerning the status of research in LIS. They also re- alize that these debates are likely to con- tinue and cannot be resolved in this arti- cle. Nonetheless, if LIS is to progress as a discipline, it behooves the members of the profession to consider carefully the status of its research. The notion of "the status of research" in LIS is obviously multidimensional. Pri- marily, the dimensions of status explored in this study were quantity, quality, im- pact, and importance of research. Further, there are admittedly differing views as to what exactly constitutes research and what exactly is LIS. For the purposes of this article, LIS was defined by the users of the term themselves-either in the literature or during data collection. In other words, this study made no attempt to foist a par- ticular definition on either the literature or Charles R. McClure is Professor and Ann Bishop is a doctoral candidate at the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244. The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding received from the Association of College and Research Libraries and the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, which made completion of this study possible. They also are grateful for the suggestions and comments that Nancy Van House, Peter Hernon, and Jeffrey Katzer made on an earlier draft of this paper. In addition, they acknowledge the assistance of Nancy Preston, research assistant at the School of Information Studies, and appreciate her work on this project. 127 128 College & Research Libraries the participants in the study. However, the term "research" is used broadly to mean any systematic and formal effort (basic or applied) to create new knowl- edge or produce new information. It is also used to suggest a degree of attention to method and rigor in obtaining and ana- lyzing information that goes beyond writ- ings best described as "opinion pieces." The objectives of the study were to: • obtain a current assessment of the sta- tus of research in LIS from a sample of prominent researchers in LIS; • identify key issues affecting the status of research in LIS and increase the pro- fession's awareness of these issues; • suggest strategies by which the status of research in LIS might be improved. Accomplishing such objectives may con- tribute to a better understanding of the role and importance of research in LIS and strengthen the research basis of the pro- fession. BACKGROUND This section provides a context for the study and is not intended to be a compre- hensive review of the literature on the sta- tus of LIS research. Readers wishing a more complete introduction to this topic can review the 1984 issue of Library Trends dealing specifically with research in LIS, 2 Freeman's 1985 review of issues sur- rounding research in librarianship, 3 the papers of a 1986 international symposium on research and the practice of librarian- ship, 4 or a paper presented by Katzer at a Library Research Round Table Forum of the 1987 American Library Association an- nual meeting. 5 Indicators of Quantity, Quality, and Importance of Research Activity A number of ''research activity indica- tors" can be proposed which, if charted over time, could give an indication of trends in the overall quantity, quality, and importance of LIS research. Much of the empirical data needed to produce these measures, however, has either not been collected or has not been presented in a useful manner. Existing reports are rarely longitudinal, nor do they present data in a · form comparable with earlier studies or make enlightening comparisons with March 1989 studies in other disciplines. Table 1 sum- marizes key findings and conclusions from selected empirical studies related to the status of research in librarianship. Quantity, in the sample of literature re- viewed, has been variously assessed in terms of the output per LIS faculty or stu- dent, or the percentage of a particular group of LIS publications that might be considered "research." A review of the results would probably lead one to the conclusion that while research output is far from prodigious, it may be increasing. Findings presented in table 1 by White and Momenee, Varlejs and Dalrymple, and Garland and Rike can be put into con- text by comparing them with each other as well as with data from other disciplines. Conclusions must remain tentative at best, however, because many of the data are not strictly comparable. In an overview of several studies com- paring the research output of faculty in a variety of disciplines, Yuker states that ''most faculty members produce few or no scholarly works. " 6 Fulton and Trow found that the percentages of respondents on university faculties who reported pub- lishing at least one scholarly or research article in the previous two years, by field, were: 7 87% Biological science 80% Medicine and Law 78% Social sciences 74% Engineering 64% Business 62% Education 60% New and semiprofessions (includes library science, nursing, and social work) 47% Fine arts Comparing this 1969 study representing two years of publication activity to 1983 data from Varlejs and Dalrymple covering one year of activity (see table 1) is difficult. However, the 51 percent of LIS faculty with at least one "scholarly publication" in 1983, as shown in the V arlejs and Dal- rymple study, falls within the range of publication activity of other disciplines as reported by Fulton and Trow. Empirically derived studies of the vari- ety and sophistication of methods em- ployed by LIS researchers imply a rela- tionship between variety and sophistica- tion of method and overall research qual- ity. The studies by Van de Water et al., White and Momenee, Wallace, and Feehan et al. (see table 1) seem to indicate that most research is applied in nature, that descriptive techniques continue to predominate over predictive techniques, and that methods of observation remain heavily concentrated in survey and histor- ical techniques. Several studies listed in table 1 shed light on the perceived importance of re- search in the library profession. Devinney and Tegler suggest that most practitioners are not interested in performing research. Similarly, White and Momenee found that almost 25 percent of those holding an LIS doctorate indicated that they had no inter- est in doing research unless it was re- quired. Further, Houser and Schrader found that LIS master's students received little exposure to actual research, suggest- ing that the teaching of research in LIS schools is not a high priority. Atkins' de- . scriptive analysis of trends in the subject matter of library research articles in the pe- riod from 1975 to 1984, however, would seem to indicate a significant interest in li- brary research on the part of LIS journal authors, editors, and readers. The evidence presented in the studies described in table 1 suggests the following general conclusions: • there is room for substantial improve- ment in the quality, quantity, and per- ceived importance of LIS research • quality, quantity, and importance have not risen dramatically in the last decade • the status of research in LIS may be a function of the nature of an emerging profession • the collection and dissemination of data used to calculate "research activity indi- cators" could be improved Although some writers see evidence of de- cline or improvement in the status of LIS research, data either to substantiate or to refute such claims are in very short sup- ply. Key Issues Table 2 provides a summary of key is- sues as distilled from a review of the litera- ture related to the status of LIS research. Status of Research 129 The table suggests that even if a consensus were reached on the nature of the prob- lems related to research in LIS, there is no guarantee that recommendations for im- proving the situation would be univer- sally accepted. One basic impediment to the promotion of research in LIS is that fundamental con- flicts remain about the nature, role, pur- pose, and value of research in a profes- sional field. Early assessments by Williamson8 and Shera9 note a fundamen- tal antipathy in librarianship toward the application of scientific scrutiny to a pro- fession steeped in idealism and to a prac- tice .based on art. Several commentators have noted that the field as a whole has a long history of being more concerned with preserving knowledge than with creating knowledge. More recent writings by Lynch, 10 Odi, 11 and Freeman 12 focus on defining research itself, discussing the appropriateness of various types of research, and stressing the need for research intended to develop theories, reveal basic "laws," and provide useful models. Keren, 13 McClure, 14 and Robbins15 focus on the (not necessarily conflicting) need for researchers to devote their efforts to the solution of problems currently besetting the profession. More broadly, in exploring the realm of social science research, Argyris et al., 16 Schon,17 and Lindblom and Cohen 18 present pro- vocative treatises on the creation and ap- plication of usable knowledge by profes- sionals. '' 'our conservatism has severely limited the range of questions that can be investigated, and has rigidly defined the characteristics of a good answer.''' Table 2 suggests that debates about the quality of research in LIS exist along sev- eral fronts. Many writers wonder whether researchers are asking the right questions, while others question whether the right methods are being used and whether they 130 College & Research Libraries March 1989 TABLE 1 THE QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH: A SAMPLE OF FINDINGS FROM LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (US) LITERATURE Year Author 1988 Atkins1 1987 Feehan et al. 2 1987 Garland & Rike6 1987 Kinnucan et al. 7 1987 Pierce8 1986 Varlejs & Dalrymple13 1985 Watson14 1985 Wallace15 1983 Coughlin & Snelson16 1983 Devinney & Tegler17 Key Findings/Conclusions • Research methods as a topic ranked 9th out of 58 observed topics in US in the period 1975-1984 • Tiie number of articles on research methods diminished slightly over last couple of years • In comparing own findin~s with those of Peritz (1977), 3 Nour (1983), and Eaton & Bur~ (1984), 5 found that the J?ercentage of published US articles that might be considered 'researcn" grew steadily 1950-75, peaking at 35%, and that the period 1976-84 shows steady or decliriing research percentage • Methods and subjects of US research literature 1950-84 are varied, but emphasis remains on applied aspects • Methods couldbe more sophisticated: heavy emphasis in 1984 on historical, survey, descriptive techniques • 41 o/o of US faculty sample did not produce any scholarly publi- cations in the period 1980-84 • Only 14.4% produced more than three items in the period 1980-84 • The authors report a relationship between a faculty member's scholarly output and (among several others): highest degree earned, teacliing load, type and prestige of academic pro- gram, and numoer of facUlty in academic unit • Many examples of well-conducted statistical tests and proce- dures were found in information science literature ca. 1982-87, but examples of the misuse of statistics were also un- covered • Authors conclude that it is less important that statistics are used than that they are used well • Reviews a number of recent US citation studies, such as those conducted by Schrader (1985), 9 Nour (1985), 10 Sellen (1984), 11 and Bonzi (1982), u and concludes that the structure of knowl- edge in library and information science is typical of many pro- fessions: lack of unifying paradigm leads to a lack of consen- sus on problem definition and approaches to solutions, no accepted knowledge base exists ana knowledge does not cu- mulate, unhealthy insularity is reflected in tendency of re- searchers not to use materials from other fields and in the divi- sion of ).ournal literature into practitioner and research "camps' • Only 51 o/o of US faculty published at least one item (not neces- sarily research) that was indexed in 1983 • In an analysis of 1,537 articles appearing in 11 major journals in the field of librarianship dunng the period 1979-83, it was found that academic librarians were the most productive class of authors followed by library science faculty • No marked difference in productivity was found between those librarians required to meet true faculty standards (in- cluding research and publication) and those not required to produce or publish research • US articles use fewer inferential statistics than literature in ed- ucation, social work, and business, which in the author's opinion indicates a lack of rigor and sophistication • Only 33.3% of the pa£ers presented at the first ACRL confer- ence in 1978 and 31.5 Yo of the 1981 papers could be considered research papers, even though the mtended orientation of the conference ts scholarly • In a 1980 survey, a sample of N.Y.librarians ranked "writing Year 1978 1978 1976 Status of Research 131 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) THE QUANTITY, QUALITY, AND IMPORTANCE OF RESEARCH: A SAMPLE OF FINDINGS FROM LffiRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (LIS) LITERATURE Author Houser & Schrader18 White & Momenee19 Van de Water et al. 20 Key Findings/Conclusions for publication,'' the only research-oriented activity on the list, 18th in importance out of 27 activities • Exposure of libr~ and information science master's students to actual research reports is minor, suggesting that practition- ers en~aging in their own research will be hamperea by a lack of familiarity with their field's research tradition and with cur- rent research practice • Those who earned LIS doctorates from 1930 to 1975 produced on the average less than one published research report per postdoctoral year • Only 22.6% of doctorates used even partially experimental methods; 28.6% were historical; 33.5% were surveys • Replicates Atherton's (1973)21 study of research methods in published information science literature 1969-71 for 1974; finds that while the amount of research reported remained stable, the methods employed improved somewhat • Nearly half of the researCh m both studies was descriptive and topics of study remained stable • Attention to pretesting and use of quantitive analysis in- creased but attention to defining variables decreased 1. Stephen E. Atkins, "Subject Trends in library and Information Science Research, 1975-1984," Library Trends 36:633-58 (Spring 1988). 2. Patricia E. Feehan and others, "Library and Information Science Research: An Analysis of the 1984 Journal literature," Library and Information Science Research 9:175-85 (July-Sept. 1987). 3. Bluma C. Peritz, "Research in library Science as Reflected in the Core Journals of the Profession: A Quantitative Analysis (1950-1975)" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of California, Berkeley, 1977). 4. Martyvonne M. Nour, "Research in librarianship: An Analysis of Research Articles in Core library Journals of 1980" (Master' s thesis, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1983). 5. Gale Eaton and Robert Burgin, "An Analysis of the Research Articles Published in the Core library and Information Science Jour- nals of 1983" (Research paper, School of library Science, Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1984). 6. Kathleen Garland and Galen F. Rike, "Scholarly Productivity of Faculty at ALA-Accredited Programs of library and Information Science," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 28:87-98 (Fall1987) . · 7. Mark T. Kinnucan and others, "Statistical Methods in Information Science Research," in Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 22, ed. Martha E. Williams (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1987), p.147-78. 8. Sydney J. Pierce, "Characteristics of Professional Knowledge Structures: Some Theoretical Implications of Citation Studies," Li- brary & Information Science Research 9:143-71 (July-Sept. 1987). 9. Alvin M. Schrader, "A Bibliometric Study of the JEL , 1960-1984, " Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 25, no.4:279-300 (Spring 1985). 10. Martyvonne M. Nour, "A Quantitative Analysis of the Research Articles Published in Core library Journals of 1980, " Library & Information Science Research 7, no.3:261-73 (1985) . 11. Mary K. Sellen, "Bibliometrics in Information Science: A Citation Analysis of Two Academic library Journals," College & Research Libraries 45, no.2:129-32 (1984). 12. Susan Bonzi, "Characteristics of a Literature as Predictors of Relatedness Between Cited and Citing Works," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 33:208-16 (1982). 13. Jana Varlejs and Prudence Dalrymple, "Publication Output of Library and Information Science Faculty," Journal of Education for Library and Information Science 27:71-89 (Fall1986). 14. Paula D. Watson, "Production of Scholarly Articles by Academic librarians and library School Faculty,'' College & Research Libraries, 46, no .4:334-42 (July 1985). 15. Danny P. Wallace, "The Use of Statistical Methods in library and Information Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 36:402-10 (1985). 16. Caroline Coughlin and Pamela Snelson, "Searching for Research in ACRL Conference Papers, " The Journal of Academic Librarianship 9:21-26 (March 1983). 17. Gemma DeVinney and Patricia Tegler, "Preparation for Academic librarianship: A Survey," College & Research Libraries 44, no.3:223-27 (May 1983). 18. L. Houser and Alvin M. Schrader, The Seilrch for a Scientific Profession: Library Science Education in the United States and Canada (Metu- chen, N .J.: Scarecrow, 1978). 19. Herbert S. White and Karen Momenee, "Impact of the Increase in library Doctorates," College & Research Libraries 39:207-14 (May 1978). 20. Nancy Van de Water and others, "Research in Information Science: An Assessment," Information Processing & Management 12, no.2:117- 23 (1976). 21. Pauline Atherton, "Research in Information Science: An Assessment, " in Perspectives in Information Science: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Perspectives in Information Science, 1973, ed. Anthony Debons and William J. Cameron (Leyden, Nether- lands : Noordhoff International Publishing, 1975), p .665-83. 132 College & Research Libraries March 1989 TABLE2 KEY ISSUES CONCERNING RESEARCH IN LffiRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (LIS) 1. What is the nature, purpose, role, and value of research in a profession? • What are the deffuitions and relative merits of, for example, basic research, applied or action research, and demonstration and development projects? • What has been the effect of the profession's quest for status through research? 2. What is the current status (i.e., qucility, quantity, perceived importance) of LIS research? How have we progressed in the last 50 years? In tlie last 10 years? • Is enough research being done, and is the research being done in appropriate areas? • What is the quality of research currently being done? • Are the right questions being asked? • Are the right methods being used? Are the methods being used correctly? • Are we taking advantage of advances in related disciplines? • If the current status is deemed inadequate or inappropriate, what are the causes of this situation? • How can the status of research be evaluated? Can objective measures of the quality, quantity, and perceived importance of research be developed? 3. What are the appropriate relationships between researchers and practitioners? • Who shouldoe engaged in research? • Is it reasonable to expect practicing librarians to be engaged in research activities? • Have academic educators/researcliers lost touch with the "real world"? • Are the needs and expectations of practitioners and their institutions driving research? If so, what are the effects ofthis on the profession? • Should libraries be used as "laboratories" for conducting research? 4. What is the current state of LIS research education? • Are MLS and Ph.D. students receiving appropriate and adequate training? • Are educators themselves adequately prepared to teach/train their students? • What is the relationship between research in information science and librarianship? Between other disciplines and li6rarianship? What relationships should exist? 5. What have been the effects of professional associations, funders' interests, and publishing norms on research? • Should the professional associations be taking a more active role in promoting research? • Are funders supplying adequate support? Are they exerting too muCh controf? • Should publish.ers ana editors be talme concern about forcing academic hbranans to publish and "conduct re- search" for promotion and tenure when ~ost lacked the knowledge and skills, the trme, and the interest. Such requirements for promoti~n and tenure do not directly address the Issue of personal motivation that is, they attack the symptoms but not the caus~ of the problem. The respon- de~ts behev~d that more fruitful strategies eXIst to motivate academic librarians and LIS school faculty to conduct research re- gardless of other job responsibilities. Outlook for the Future ''Guarded optimism'' best describes the overall assessment of the interviewees re- garding the future status of research in LIS March 1989 ov~r t?e next five years. In general, the maJOfl~ of the interviewees thought that th~ quality of LIS research might continue to rmprove somewhat, the quantity of re- sear~h wo~d increa~e, basic knowledge of hbrary/Informahon science would probably stay the same, and an increasing amount of applied research would even- ~ally have a greater impact on the profes- siOn. Factors that interviewees identified that would contribute to a decline in the status of research in LIS over the next five years included: • inadequate numbers of Ph. D.-level LIS educators and practitioners • inadequate training on the part of aca- demic librarians who are expected to conduct research and publish • inability to bring together a critical mass . of researchers to work on a particular re- s~arch problem over a long period of trme • c~mtinued c.onfusion within the profes- siOn regardmg the differences between r~search publications and opinion pieces • limited funding opportunities to sup- port LIS research and concern about federal agencies setting agendas for re- search in LIS Factors that interviewees thought might contribute to the improved status of LIS research over the next five years included: • better tools available to support re- search, e.g., easier access to microcom- puters and to data sets from, for exam- ple, automated library systems • mcreased demands on library/informa- tion managers to be accountable for re- s~mrc~ allocation ~ecisions and to jus- tify hbrary services, necessitating increased applied research • higher standards for refereed journals and the increasing number of journals that are refereed • continued pressure from academic in- stitutions on both LIS educators and ac- ademic librarians to conduct research ~d publish in refereed journals • mcreased awareness of the importance of research • improved reward structures for those doing research '--------------------~-~- The guarded optimism was frequently stated as "for such a small research com- munity, with such little support, in a pro- fession so heavily driven by practitioner concerns, it is surprising that we know as much as we do and that the existing level of research activity exists.'' Respondent Views versus Recent Literature The opinions expressed by the research- ers interviewed for this study suggest a view of the status of research in LIS some- what different than that expressed in re- cent journal literature. First, the inter- viewees were much less concerned with classifying and assessing the appropriate- ness of types of research. As a group, they seem to advocate more and better re- search, regardless of its being basic or ap- plied, and regardless of the type of method employed. Second, the interviewees were less con- cerned with placing blame on a particular group or constituency for poor quality, lack of interest in research, etc. Rather, they shifted criticism toward the institu- tional and professional factors that affect the status of research in LIS overall. In short, they considered the topic of re- search in LIS from a broader perspective than did the literature. Third, the interviewees produced a re- markable array of recommendations for improving the status of research in LIS- only some of which are included in this paper. In contrast to the literature, where specific recommendations are poorly de- veloped or not offered, the researchers saw a broad landscape of opportunities where strategies could be developed and implemented for improving the status of research. Fourth, the researchers were less inter- ested (though not uninterested) in resolv- ing the philosophical issues identified in the literature and summarized in table 2 than in dealing with some of the issues de- scribed in this section. Such may be the result, in part, of the interview format and questions. However, ·there was a clear sense from the researchers of the impor- tance of doing research rather than merely talking about it or debating philosophical Status of Research 139 11 • • • the researchers stressed the im- portance of internal or personal moti- vations as the critical success factor in being productive." issues about, for example, what consti- tutes research in LIS. Finally, there was a significant differ- ence between the opinions of researchers participating in this study and the pub- lished literature in the evaluation of fac- tors affecting research productivity. While the literature places heavy emphasis on external factors such as lack of funding, limited time, and too many other respon- sibilities and commitments, the research- ers stressed the importance of internal or personal motivation as the critical success factor in being productive. ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS From these interviews a pattern of key issues and recommendations emerged. This section identifies five issue areas that appear to be especially important regard- ing the status of research in LIS. Within each issue area, possible strategies to re- solve key issues are offered. The recom- mendations represent a combination of ideas from the respondents and the inves- tigators. Image and Importance of Research Underlying many of the concerns re- lated to the status of research in LIS are is- sues of image and perceived importance. Image and perceived importance of re- search can be improved by all the recom- mendations listed in this section, but spe- cific recommendations include: • encourage the directors of large aca- demic libraries and the deans of schools of LIS to examine the infrastructure cur- rently supporting LIS research and de- velop strategies for enhancing that in- frastructure • allocate a small percentage of the library budget specifically to support research projects within the library • increase the visibility of successful and 140 College & Research Libraries important LIS research, perhaps by or- chestrating a series of regional meetings or workshops that culminate in a na- tional conference • establish and fund ''centers of excel- lence'' for research in leading schools of LIS to bring together a critical mass of researchers to concentrate on a particu- lar area of research • establish a national commission of LIS researchers and practitioners to articu- late the importance, role, and impact of research in LIS (not to be confused with establishing a national agenda for re- search) • create peer-reviewed awards; honors, and other reward structures to recog- nize high-quality and important re- search in LIS • establish within libraries and other ap- propriate organizations an "Office for Research and Development'' to focus available resources on specific research problems As yet, LIS has not moved much beyond Pierce Butler's assessment of the field as a practice-based vocation. 26 Increased ef- forts are needed to articulate the impor- tance and improve the image of research as a bona fide activity that has a wide range of benefits for the profession as a whole. Research Competencies This issue is largely an educational one. While it is possible that this situation is im- proving, examples of the lack of research competencies include inability to recog- nize good research, discounting of all re- search because it is not understood, inabil- ity to conduct a quality research project, inability to differentiate between research and opinion pieces, and general lack of so- phistication m the use of research meth- ods. Such concerns should not be surpris- ing, however, because as a scholarly discipline LIS is still in its infancy. If the profession wishes to improve the level of research competencies, a number of strategies are possible: • strengthen LIS Ph.D. programs in re- search design and methods and have doctoral students actively participate in a range of research projects as part of March 1989 their required program • institute required courses at the MLS level on both the conducting and con- suming of research • develop an ongoing program of re- search instruction within the library where researchers instruct professional staff in the identification of a research problem and the process of developing and implementing a research design to address that problem • encourage faculty at schools of LIS to take refresher courses in research meth- ods from related disciplines, e.g., edu- cation, public administration, psychol- ogy, sociology, communication • institute a program of certification and/ or recertification of academic librarians (that includes research skills) similar to that developed by the Medical Library Association • encourage LIS researchers to work on cross-disciplinary research teams or ob- tain the involvement of researchers out- side LIS Improvements to the research compe- tency of the profession will not result from attendance of one-day workshops. A pro- gram of instruction over a period of time is necessary if one is to understand the re- search process and learn research skills. Strengthening Commitment to Research in Professional Associations There is evidence of increased attention being given to research in the professional associations, but much remains to be done. There are numerous professional associations at the state, regional, na- tional, and international levels where im- provements can be made. Professional as- sociations can improve the role and status of research by: • clearly articulating the association's role regarding research and expanding or strengthening association objectives re- lated to research activities • establishing and/ or increasing the num- ber and/ or amount of funds to support . research activities • establishing and/ or increasing the num- ber of awards and honors to recognize high-quality research activities • increasing the number of programs and conferences that are research-oriented or otherwise draw increased attention to research in LIS • expanding and refining research-based criteria for the accreditation of schools of LIS These approaches not only would in- crease the visibility of research in the pro- fession, they would also strengthen re- ward structures for research involvement. Communication between Researchers and Practitioners A key issue is the limited ability of re- searchers and practitioners to communi- cate effectively about conducting and us- ing research. McClure 27 and Robbins 28 have discussed this issue and made sug- gestions for its resolution. However, the key ingredient here is a desire to improve communication and an attitude that such communication can result in learning on the part of both groups. A recent paper noted that the LIS pro- fessional literature appears to be com- posed of two separate literatures, one de- veloped and read by practitioners, and a second developed and read by research- ers. There is virtually no cross-fertilization between these two literatures. 29 Research- ers must improve their ability to commu- nicate their research results to practition- ers, and practitioners must improve their ability to understand and apply the re- search being produced. Effective communication between re- searchers and practitioners is not a new problem, but it is one for which there are a number of remedies: • produce two versions of a research re- port, one for a refereed journal, and a second that stresses applications and impact • modify reward structures for LIS educa- tors to encourage research dissemina- tion activities and publication of re- search summaries in nonrefereed journals • develop fellowship programs where LIS educators work on-site in academic libraries and academic librarians work on-site in LIS schools on specific re- search projects ~ encourage journal editors to include Status of Research 141 regular columns that identify and sum- marize recent research papers and proj- ects (an example being the column "Re- cent Research" that appeared in Library Journal during 1988) • improve the refereeing process and clar- ify procedures and criteria for LIS jour- nal referees as outlined by Glogoff 30 • encourage joint research projects be- tween researchers and practitioners such as the Cooperative Research Pro- gram sponsored by the Council on Li- brary Resources • broaden opportunities for researchers and practitioners to meet together and discuss issues and topics related to LIS Resolving the issues surrounding im- proved communications between re- searchers and practitioners is central to improving the status of research in LIS. Research on the Status of LIS Research The last category of issues centers around the need to continue investigating the general topic of the status of research in LIS. Table 2 is both a summary of se- lected key issues and a preliminary list of research questions on the topic. More at- tention should be given to conducting re- search that addresses these questions and to producing trend data of selected indica- · tors of the status of research in LIS. Based on such data, a better understanding of the factors related to the status of research in LIS can be obtained. Further, such as- sessments can assist the profession in de- veloping specific strategies which, over time, may improve the research base in LIS. Moving Forward The issue areas and recommendations discussed above underscore strategies for moving from a professional approach to LIS to an approach better characterized as disciplinary, i.e., developing and investi- gating a base of knowledge related to LIS. A discussion of specific attributes of a pro- fession versus a discipline is beyond the scope of this paper and has appeared else- where.31 If, however, the status of re- search in LIS is to improve, greater atten- tion to building a discipline of LIS will be necessary. 142 College & Research Libraries Clearly, the status of research in LIS is a matter of concern to the entire profession and not just a problem for individual con- stituencies such as schools of LIS, profes- sional associations, practitioners, or re- searchers. But within these various groups, coordinated leadership is needed for improving the status of research in LIS. Who or what should be responsible for taking on this leadership role? Currently, there are a number of key players in this arena: professional associa- tions such as ALA, ASIS, and ALISE; pri- vate funding sources such as the Council on Library Resources; government agen- cies such as the National Science Founda- tion and the Department of Education; in- dividual researchers and practitioners; and schools of LIS. Yet these key players March 1989 have yet to develop a coordinated ap- proach, to marshal their resources, and to develop a feasible program for enhancing the status of research in LIS. The findings from this study suggest numerous opportunities to strengthen the role of research in LIS. Overall, there is ev- idence to support the notion that the re- search base in LIS is gaining strength. What remains to be seen is the degree to which the members of this profession can work together to muster the leadership, commitment, and dedication to imple- ment specific strategies such as those of- fered in this paper. These components are necessary in order to develop the disci- pline of LIS and improve the status of its research. REFERENCES AND NOTES > 1. Jane B. Robbins, "Communicating Research in the Information Profession: An Essay," Preface to Current Research for the Information Profession, ed. Pirkko Elliott (London: The Library Association of London, 1988), p.a13 . 2. "Research in Librarianship," ed. Mary Jo Lynch, Library Trends 32:361-577 (Spring 1984). 3. Michael Stuart Freeman, " 'The Simplicity of His Pragmatism': Librarians and Research," Library Journal110, no.9:27-29 (May 15, 1985). 4. G. G. Allen and F. C. A. Exon, eds ., Research and the Practice of Librarianship: An Internatiorull Sympo- sium (Perth: The Library, Western Australian Institute of Technology, 1986). 5. Jeffrey Katzer, "A Look at Library/Information Science Research & Methods." (Paper presented at the Library Research Round Table Forum ill. American Library Association. San Francisco, June 30, 1987). 6. Harold E. Yuker, ed. Faculty Workload: Research, Theory, and Interpretation. ASHE-ERIC Higher Ed- ucation Research Report no.10. (Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of Higher Educa- tion, 1984). 7. Oliver Fulton and Martin Trow, "Research Activity in American Higher Education," Sociology of Education 47, no.1:29-73 (Winter 1974). 8. Charles C. Williamson, "The Place of Research in Library Service," Library Quarterly 1, no.1: 1-17 Oan. 1931). 9. J. H. Shera, "Darwin, Bacon, and Research in Librarianship," Library Trends 13:141-49 Ouly 1967). 10. Mary Jo Lynch, "Library Management and Library Research: Connection and Conflict," in Re- search and the Practice of Librarianship: An Internatiorull Symposium, ed. G. G. Allen and F. C. A. Exon (Perth: The Library, Western Australian Institute of Technology, 1986), p.67-75. 11. Amusi Odi, "Creative Research and Theory Building in Library and Information Science," College & Research Libraries 43, no.4:312-19 Ouly 1982). 12. Freeman, " 'The Simplicity of His Pragmatism': Librarians and Research." 13. Carl Keren, "On Information Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 35, no.2:137 (March 1984). 14. Charles R. McClure, "Management Data for Library Decision Making: The Role of the Re- searcher," in Library Lectures, no.56 (April10, 1987), ed. Robert Sidney Martin (Baton Rouge, La.: LSU Libraries, Louisiana State University, 1988) p.10-21. 15. Robbins, "Communicating Research in the Information Profession: An Essay." 16. Chris Argyris and others, Action Science (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985). 17. Donald A. Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1983). Status of Research 143 18. Charles E. Lindblom and David K. Cohen, Usable Knowledge: Social Sdence and Social Problem Solving (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr., 1979). 19. Michael Harris, ''Review of 'Research in Librarianship' ,'' Library & Infonnation Science Research 8, no.1:109, 111-12 Gan.-Mar. 1986). 20. Freeman, " 'The Simplicity of His Pragmatism': Librarians and Research." 21. Paula D. Watson, "Production of Scholarly Articles by Academic Librarians and Library School Faculty," College & Research Libraries 46, no.4:339 Guly 1985). 22. Richard D. Johnson, "Current Trends in Library Journal Editing/' Library Trends 36:670 (Spring 1988). 23. Evidence on the matter of research-related professional association activities at the American Li- brary Association was provided to the authors by Mary Jo Lynch, Director for the Office of Re- search, American Library Association. The authors also reviewed selected official publications such as association Handbooks and conference programs/ announcements from the American Li- brary Association and its divisions, the Association for Library and Information Science Educa- tors, and the American Society for Information Science. 24. Mary Jo Lynch, Libraries in an Infonnation Society: A Statistical Summary (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1987), p.19. 25. Pauline Wilson, "Factors Affecting Research Productivity/' Journal of Education for Librarianship 20, no.1:3-24 (Summer 1979). 26. Pierce Butler, An Introduction to Library Science (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1933). 27. McClure, ''Management Data for Library Decision Making: The Role of the Researcher.'' 28. Robbins, "Communicating Research in the Information Profession: An Essay." 29. Sydney J. Pierce, "Characteristics of Professional Knowledge Structures: Some Theoretical Impli- cations of Citation Studies," Library & Infonnation Science Research 9:143-71 Guly-Sept. 1987). 30. Stuart Glogoff, ''Reviewing the Gatekeepers: A Survey of Referees of Library Journals,'' Journal of the American Society for Infonnation Science 39:400-407 (Nov. 1988). 31. A discussion of the attributes of a profession versus a discipline and the implications for research can be found in Peter Hernon, "Government Information: A Field in Need of Research and Ana- lytical Studies,'' in U.S. Government Infonnation Policies: Views and Perspectives, ed. Charles R. Mc- Clure, Peter Hernon, and Harold Relyea (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1989), p.3-24. Guest Editorial 50TH ANNIVERSARY YEAR: 1939-1989 IN MAY COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES by Richard M. Dougherty, former editor Current Issues in Building Planning by David Kaser The Structuring of the Scholarly Communication System by Charles Osburn Achieving Client-Centered Collection Development in Small and Medium-Sized Academic Li- braries by Bart Harloe Book Selection, Collection Development, and Bounded Rationality by Charles A. Schwartz