The Research in Librarianship Impact Evaluation Project (RiLIES - pronounced 'realise') completed in August 2011 explored the extent to which funded librarianship research projects influence library practice in the UK. Of particular interest in the findings are the factors that increase or hinder the impact or project outcomes on practice. This presentation, delivered at Online 2011, relates the main findings of the project related to: the relationship between the library and information science research and practitioner communities; how researchers can improve the impact of their research with careful attention to how projects are planned, conceived, implemented and reported; organisational factors that support the development of a receptive audience for research output.

1. Strengthening the links between research
and practice: the Research in Librarianship
Impact Evaluation Study (RiLIES)
Presentation by Professor Hazel Hall
Online 2011, London Olympia,
1st December 2011

2. Professor Hazel Hall
• Director of the Centre for Social
Informatics, Edinburgh Napier University
– h.hall@napier.ac.uk; @hazelh

3. Professor Hazel Hall
• Director of the Centre for Social
Informatics, Edinburgh Napier University
– h.hall@napier.ac.uk; @hazelh
• Seconded to lead the implementation of the
Library and Information Science Research
Coalition
– hazel.hall@lisresearch.org; @LISResearch

4. The impact agenda: why?
• Investment in research should deliver a socio-
economic impact

5. The impact agenda: why?
• Investment in research should deliver a socio-
economic impact
– Need for an evidence base on which to base
decision-making in public services
• Need for the evidence base to be consulted

6. The impact agenda: why?
• Investment in research should deliver a socio-
economic impact
– Need for an evidence base on which to base
decision-making in public services
• Need for the evidence base to be consulted
– Research funders focus on value for money

7. The impact agenda: why?
• Investment in research should deliver a socio-
economic impact
– Need for an evidence base on which to base
decision-making in public services
• Need for the evidence base to be consulted
– Research funders focus on value for money
– REF2014

8. Impact in the context of Library and
Information Science
• The evaluation of library and information
services
– What is the impact of these services?

9. Impact in the context of Library and
Information Science
• The evaluation of library and information
services
– What is the impact of these services?
• Methods for evaluating library and information
services
– What is the best way to measure the impact of
service provision?

10. Impact in the context of Library and
Information Science
• The evaluation of library and information
services
– What is the impact of these services?
• Methods for evaluating library and information
services
– What is the best way to measure the impact of
service provision?
• Bibliometrics
– What is the impact of this research on the research
of others (academic impact)?

11. Impact in the context of RiLIES
• To what extent do funded research projects in
library and information science influence
practice in the UK?

12. Impact in the context of RiLIES
• To what extent do funded research projects in
library and information science influence
practice in the UK?
• Which factors increase/hinder the impact of
research findings on those who deliver library
and information services?

13. Impact in the context of RiLIES
• To what extent do funded research projects in
library and information science influence
practice in the UK?
• Which factors increase/hinder the impact of
research findings on those who deliver library
and information services?

14. RiLIES project team
• Centre for Social Informatics, Institute for
Informatics and Digital Innovation, Edinburgh
Napier University
– Professor Hazel Hall
– Peter Cruickshank
– Ella Taylor-Smith
– Jenny Gebel

15. RiLIES project stages
• February to July 2011
• Desk research
– Literature review
• Empirical work
– Practitioner poll
– 5 case studies of “impactful” projects
– 3 sector-specific focus groups
– Validation survey

16. 5 “Impactful” studies identified
from the practitioner poll
1. Open to all (2000)
2. eValued (2004)
3. Researchers’ use of academic libraries (2007)
4. Evaluating clinical librarian studies (2009)
5. School libraries in the UK (2010)

17. Findings: new insight
• Preference amongst practitioners for face-to-
face dissemination channels
– Much greater than previously reported
• Tailored presentation
• Lower incidence of information overload
• Addresses issue of fragmented infrastructures

18. Findings: new insight
• Preference amongst practitioners for face-to-
face dissemination channels
– Much greater than previously reported
• Tailored presentation
• Lower incidence of information overload
• Addresses issue of fragmented infrastructures
• Social media for raising awareness of research
– Immediacy, updates on on-going projects

19. Findings: new insight
• Preference amongst practitioners for face-to-
face dissemination channels
– Much greater than previously reported
• Tailored presentation
• Lower incidence of information overload
• Addresses issue of fragmented infrastructures
• Social media for raising awareness of research
– Immediacy, updates on on-going projects
• Importance of research sponsorship

20. Findings: new insight
• Preference amongst practitioners for face-to-
face dissemination channels
– Much greater than previously reported
• Tailored presentation
• Lower incidence of information overload
• Addresses issue of fragmented infrastructures
• Social media for raising awareness of research
– Immediacy, updates on on-going projects
• Importance of research sponsorship
• Links between engagement and reward

21. Project conception and plans for
impact
• Practitioners need to be involved in research
design

22. Project conception and plans for
impact
• Practitioners need to be involved in research
design
• Funders need to support research relevant to
the needs of the practitioner community
– Allied to this, explicit goal of research should be to
influence practice

23. Project conception and plans for
impact
• Practitioners need to be involved in research
design
• Funders need to support research relevant to
the needs of the practitioner community
– Allied to this, explicit goal of research should be to
influence practice
• Research undertaken needs to have high level
support
– Steering committees, influential stakeholders

24. Project execution for impact
• Practitioners need to participate in the
research from the outset, with appropriate
– Methods
– Approaches
– Dissemination strategies

25. Project reporting for impact
• LIS research output needs to be accessible to
the target audience
– Where?
• Best in teaching and community support materials

26. Project reporting for impact
• LIS research output needs to be accessible to
the target audience
– Where?
• Best in teaching and community support materials
• Researchers need to take into account
practitioner preferences for consuming
research output
– What and how?
• Explicit recommendations in accessible
language, delivered face-to-face

27. Receptive audiences for impact
• Librarians and information scientists from less
research-active sectors can learn from those
where there is greater engagement
– e.g. healthcare librarians

28. Receptive audiences for impact
• Librarians and information scientists from less
research-active sectors can learn from those
where there is greater engagement
– e.g. healthcare librarians
• There is a need for training to support interest
in research, and raise awareness of resources

29. Receptive audiences for impact
• Librarians and information scientists from less
research-active sectors can learn from those
where there is greater engagement
– e.g. healthcare librarians
• There is a need for training to support interest
in research, and raise awareness of resources
• A CPD requirement related to research would
encourage greater participation

30. RiLIES as an example of good
practice for impact?
• High relevance
– impact agenda

31. RiLIES as an example of good
practice for impact?
• High relevance
– impact agenda
• Influential stakeholders
– LIS Research Coalition & member bodies

32. RiLIES as an example of good
practice for impact?
• High relevance
– impact agenda
• Influential stakeholders
– LIS Research Coalition & member bodies
• Practitioner involvement
– Project design and project execution

33. RiLIES as an example of good
practice for impact?
• High relevance
– impact agenda
• Influential stakeholders
– LIS Research Coalition & member bodies
• Practitioner involvement
– Project design and project execution
• Dissemination strategy and access
– Social media
– Face-to-face dissemination

34. Further information
• On LIS Research Coalition web pages
– Project page http://lisresearch.org/rilies-project
– Blog updates at http://lisresearch.org
• On Twitter
– @LIS_RiLIES
• Project report to be published by the Research
Information Network

35. Acknowledgements
• LIS Research Coalition
– especially Michael Jubb & Stephanie Kenna
• Case study interviewees
– John Vincent, Dave Muddiman, Pete Dalton, Sheila
Cannel, Alison Brettle, Sue Shaper, David
Streatfield
• Survey respondents and focus group members
• “Supporters”
– especially Elaine Fulton, Rhona Arthur, Amanda
Poulton, Alison Brettle, Maria Grant, CILIP

36. Strengthening the links between research
and practice: the Research in Librarianship
Impact Evaluation Study (RiLIES)
Presentation by Professor Hazel Hall
Online 2011, London Olympia,
1st December 2011