Facilitating evidence‐based librarianship: a Canadian experience

In January 2001, a group of health sciences librarians employed at the University of Alberta (U of A) in Edmonton, Canada, met for the first of a series of monthly meetings to discuss issues of professional significance. The group comprised health sciences librarians from the John W. Scott Health Sciences Library, as well as from various departments and organizations based at the University of Alberta. The idea for a discussion group arose from a casual conversation between three librarians, involved in different types of mentoring relationships, about their respective mentoring experiences. One was a more senior librarian involved as a mentor to a newer librarian, another was a newer librarian involved in a mentoring relationship with her supervisor, and the third was a newly graduated librarian in an internship position involved with a mentoring group. Although all three librarians had gained valuable experience from their mentoring relationships, they agreed that the experience might be enhanced and extended to colleagues not currently involved in similar mentoring activities. The three felt that a forum in which librarians could discuss professional issues on equal terms, where all opinions and insights could be brought to the table, would broaden the collective outlook and be a more fulfilling professional experience. The three founding members scheduled an initial meeting to gauge interest and support in a ‘Librarian Discussion Group’. An invitation was issued to all health sciences librarians working at the U of A. This initial meeting drew more than a dozen librarians, a clear indication of a readiness amongst librarians to participate in a discussion forum. In fact, interest continued to grow, and at present, all health sciences librarians at the U of A are involved with the group. Currently, 16 librarians are participating, although not all are present at each session. The only criterion for inclusion in the group was that members were required to be working at the University of Alberta as health sciences librarians. The group has occasionally invited guests from outside health sciences, but essentially the same criterion applies today. While members have been challenged to broaden membership to others outside health sciences librarianship, it was agreed that the group would not function as well if membership grew beyond its current size; a larger group would restrict individual participation and contribution to the discussions. Instead, members have tried to promote the concept to colleagues in other subject areas on campus but, as yet, additional discussion forums have not appeared. The first meetings were informal and held in a noisy, crowded hospital cafeteria. Discussions were unstructured with all participants tending to speak at once. After the first two meetings, members proposed a quieter venue and the addition of structure to the meetings. The group then moved to a large, quiet meeting room in the Scott Library where participants could more clearly hear the conversation and contribute to the discussion. The group agreed to select a Chair that would rotate on a yearly basis. The Chair organizes meeting times, ensures that members are aware of the topic of discussion, and invites potential new members to the meetings. The Chair also leads the discussion at each meeting, summarizes the discussion, and keeps the conversation on topic and within the one-hour meeting time. Formal minutes are not kept for the meetings, but the Chair sends a brief summary to the group via e-mail with the time and agreed upon topic for the next meeting. Potential topics were advanced at the initial meeting in 2001. The first to be chosen was evidence-based librarianship (EBL), as some members were already very interested in, or involved with this topic. For most topics, one or two readings are suggested, to provide members with a common starting point. Readings are also used to generate discussion and to support or contradict common opinion. Any member can suggest a reading pertinent to the selected topic with relevant citations being emailed to the group for their information. Each member is responsible for obtaining a copy of the article suggested, but it is not mandatory that they do so. The group does not always begin with a reading, but may generate discussion with a provocative idea or a question that leads immediately to discussion. Topics have included: teaching, literature searching, electronic publishing, archival responsibilities, professional development, accreditation, health sciences librarianship competencies, membership in professional organizations, differences between health sciences librarianship and other types of librarianship, as well as research in librarianship. Each monthly meeting begins with questions raised about the selected topic, or a controversial issue that warrants discussion. Because group members have varying years of experience, work in different types of environments, and have a wide variety of skills, the conversation bounces around the room. Members share ideas and suggest resources, which may be used to help solve a problem in the future. Much of the conversation is philosophical. For example: Should health sciences librarians in Canada seek accreditation? Why is it important for librarians to have membership in professional organizations? What makes librarianship unique? What contributions can we make to our profession? These philosophical conversations encourage us to take time from busy day-to-day tasks to pose questions about librarianship, and perhaps suggest possible answers regarding our profession's worth and importance. Some questions are of a more practical nature, such as: what techniques are effective for teaching a small group of students, versus a large group? What is the most effective way to search a particular database? These practical questions result in the evaluation of existing problem-solving practices and promote referral to the literature and to colleagues for new ideas. The concept of competencies for health sciences librarians was one topic that generated a great deal of interest. As a result, one member offered to lead a group of participants interested in exploring further research in this area. This independent group attracted librarians from other parts of Canada who are continuing to work together with the goal of developing a document outlining professional core competencies for health sciences librarians. A librarian discussion group demonstrates one evidence-based approach to practicing librarianship. Members take 1 hour per month from their normal work activities to focus on professional development. The group encourages thinking about big-picture issues rather than just day-to-day tasks. More importantly, this process occurs in a group setting, encouraging the progression of professional thought and innovative ideas. Rather than merely stating how we do things, the discussions raise questions about current practices and motivate us to determine whether there are better ways of doing things. While the group does not critically appraise librarianship research, it does consider it from an analytical perspective, and brings awareness of pertinent literature to the attention of members. The group acts as a catalyst to encourage individuals to find different ways to practice EBL. The discussions compel us to remain mentally alert, encourage us to probe and question our practices, and reaffirm our choice of profession. The U of A group has been meeting for 2 years, and has proved successful despite members moving away, summer vacations, the September University rush, and all the obstacles that tend to get in the way. As some members move on, new members join with fresh ideas and opinions. At times, guests are invited if they have particular expertise in the topic being discussed. Members who have been involved from the beginning continue to attend. There is no shortage of topics for discussion, and never a lull in the conversation. If you think that you are too busy to contemplate evidence-based librarianship or if the concept seems too academic for you, try starting a discussion group with your colleagues. It takes very little effort, and offers huge personal and professional rewards in return. Many group members assert that this 1 hour per month with the discussion group makes them better librarians, and more productive and excited about their profession. After all, thinking critically about our reasons for doing things is the first step in evidence-based librarianship.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.