Journal clubs for continued professional development

In 1998 it was suggested that library and information professionals were suspicious of research evidence.1 Whilst ‘evidence-based librarianship’ (EBL) has been a growing presence in our professional landscape, a survey of the UK library community undertaken in the first 6 months of 2002 reported that we continue to not regard ourselves as a research-orientated profession.2 Mirroring the experiences of evidence-based medicine, possible reasons for this reticence include workload, existing practice being apparently effective (why fix what isn’t broken), the research-practice gap and, perhaps most pertinently, the availability, level and rigour of the evidence base.3−5 The utilization of evidence is a core element of EBL.6,7 The term evidence, rather than research evidence, deliberately used in this context, acknowledges the differences and values of ‘research evidence’ and a broader definition of evidence which is ‘valid, relevant information’ to inform decision making.8 Whilst our professional evidence base is embryonic, it can still contribute valuable insights in informing our practice. We should also recognize that a significant and potentially relevant body of evidence lies beyond our professional boundaries, e.g. educational research in relation to user training, or management literature in relation to the costing services. Despite the reservations outlined above, evidence-based librarianship is seen as a positive professional change9 with recent events in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada (not least two international conferences10,11) contributing to an energy and enthusiasm for the concept. Five years on from Cullen's study,1 local initiatives are beginning to emerge, and this month's brief communications provide an exciting insight into two of these which seek to apply evidence-based librarianship principles in their day-to-day context. These initiatives, based in Canada and Nottingham, UK, are journal clubs as a forum for professional discussion and debate. Straus et al.4 suggest that implementation of evidence-based change requires development of new skills. This is as true for evidence-based practitioners in the librarianship sector as it has been for those in the clinical domain. Journal clubs can facilitate this development with typical goals including scholarship, socialization, personal growth, critical thinking and attempting to keep up with the current literature.12−14 Historically, journal clubs originated in the domain of medicine (McGill University, Montreal, Canada in 187513,15). Given the close alliance of librarianship to evidence-based medicine, it is perhaps unsurprising that both examples originate in health-based communities. Established in 2001, both journal clubs arose out of informal discussions between like-minded colleagues with a desire and enthusiasm to develop local practice. These developments sought, and continue to seek, to draw on a broader context of colleagues’ experiences and published literature. In Canada this broader collegial context encompasses all health librarians within the University of Alberta, whilst Nottingham ambitiously aims to engage health librarians from across the former Trent NHS region. Both journal clubs sought, at their initial meetings, to brainstorm ideas for future discussion, and quickly adopted a formal structure for their meetings. This included nominating a Chair to structure and summarize discussions, and keeping a record of the action and learning points. Unlike clinical journal clubs, neither group uses a formal evaluation tool such as CRISTAL (CRItical Skills Training in Appraisal for Librarians16) to evaluate the evidence they discuss, electing instead to compare papers on a single topic, or use them as the starting point for discussions. Each member of the group is responsible for obtaining their own copies of materials selected for discussion (mindful of copyright legislation—we are librarians after all). With cross-sectoral, organizational or departmental journal clubs, the challenge is to remain focused and yet sensitive to local circumstances. Geography has shaped attendance levels at the Nottingham journal club, but both groups engage a sustained and evolving core of interested individuals. In fact, the relatively small attendance figures of the journal clubs (typical attendance figures: Canada—12 members; Nottingham—8 members) works in favour of the group dynamics in enabling them to maintain a focus.13 Although the journal clubs meet at different intervals (Canada—monthly; Nottingham— bi-monthly), both clubs perceive similar benefits from participating in these meetings. These may lie variously in facilitating opportunities for continued professional development and lifelong learning, in broadening individual or organizational outlooks, meeting with co-professionals within or beyond their own organizations, or simply keeping up-to-date with current thinking. The clubs have also stimulated members to seek additional training or inspired subgroups to further investigate areas of particular interest. The mid-1980s found the majority of adults across professions reading to solve immediate problems, and spending little time reading to acquire general knowledge within their profession.17 With the recent emergence of journal clubs in the library sector this trend looks set to change.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.