Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-6
The academic–practitioner gap in Spanish library and information science: An analysis of authorship and collaboration in two leading national publications
It is not unusual to hear that a significant separation or divergence exists between the interests of library and information science professionals who work in library and information services and those who are university teachers. This division results in limited cooperation between the two communities and further debilitates already weak international collaboration in the discipline. This article first conducts a qualitative review of the various types of literary evidence that address the divergence and lack of cooperation, and subsequently presents quantitative evidence for the Spanish geographical context.
ArdanuyJ (2012) Scientific collaboration in Library and Information Science viewed through the Web of Knowledge: The Spanish case. Scientometrics90(3): 877–890.
2.
ArdanuyJUrbanoC (2015a) Some research questions to frame a European Union (EU) overview of LIS research. In: III international seminar on library and information science education and research (LIS-ER). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Available at: http://bd.ub.edu/liser/content/programme (accessed 17 July 2016).
3.
ArdanuyJUrbanoC (2015b) Una mirada italiana a la colaboración científica europea en Biblioteconomía, Información y Documentación (2010–2014). Biblioteche oggi Trends1(2): 71–82. English version available at: http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/102328/1/656412.pdf (accessed 10 November 2016).
4.
BawdenD (2005) Research and practice in documentation. Journal of Documentation61(2): 169–170.
5.
BawdenD (2008) Smoother pebbles and the shoulders of giants: The developing foundations of information science. Journal of Information Science34(4): 415–426.
6.
BergSAJacobsHLCornwallD (2012) Academic librarians and research: A study of Canadian library administrator perspectives. College & Research Libraries74(6): 560–572.
7.
BoothA (2003) Bridging the research-practice gap? The role of evidence-based librarianship. New Review of Information and Library Research9(1): 3–23.
8.
BoothA (2011) Barriers and facilitators to evidence-based library and information practice: An international perspective. Perspectives in International Librarianship (1): 1–15.
9.
BrownCMOrtegaL (2005) Information-seeking behavior of physical science librarians: Does research inform practice?College & Research Libraries66(3): 231–247.
10.
BushouseBKJacobsonWSLambrightKTet al. (2011) Crossing the divide: Building bridges between public administration practitioners and scholars. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21 (Supplement 1): i99–i112.
11.
ChanalV (2012) Building knowledge for innovation management: The experience of the Umanlab research team. Vine42(3/4): 396–415.
12.
ChungAZQShorrockST (2011) The research-practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors: Surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics54(4): 413–429.
13.
ClaptonJ (2010) Library and information science practitioners writing for publication: Motivations, barriers and supports. Library and Information Research34(106): 7–21.
14.
CoxA (2012) An exploration of the practice approach and its place in information science. Journal of Information Science38(2): 176–188.
15.
CruickshankPHallHTaylor-SmithE (2011) Enhancing the Impact of LIS Research Projects: RiLIES Project Report. Commissioned by the Research Information Network and the Library and Information Science Research Coalition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Napier University. Available at: https://lisresearchcoalition.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rilies1_report.pdf (accessed 1 July 2016).
16.
DaltonM (2013) A dissemination divide? The factors that influence the journal selection decision of Library & Information Studies (LIS) researchers and practitioners. Library and Information Research37(115): 33–57.
17.
Delgado López-CózarE (2001) ¿Por qué enseñar métodos de investigación en las facultades de biblioteconomía y documentación?Anales de Documentación4: 51–71.
18.
DongardiveP (2013) Research in librarianship: An uneasy connection. International Journal of Library Science2(3): 53–60.
19.
EveJSchenkN (2006) Research and practice: Findings from the Interactions project. Library and Information Research30(96): 36–46.
20.
FinlayCSSugimotoCRLiDet al. (2012) LIS dissertation titles and abstracts (1930–2009): Where have all the Librar* gone?Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy82(1): 29–46.
21.
FinlaySCNiCTsouAet al. (2013) Publish or practice? An examination of librarians’ contributions to research. portal: Libraries and the Academy13(4): 403–421.
22.
García-de-CortázarMLArranz-LozanoFVal-CidCet al. (2006) Mujeres y hombres en la ciencia española: Una investigación empírica. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer.
23.
GouldingA (2007) Searching for a research agenda for the Library and Information Science community. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science39(3): 123–125.
24.
GreenwoodCRAbbottM (2001) The research to practice gap in Special Education. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children24(4): 276–289.
25.
HaddowGKlobasJ (2004) Communication of research to practice in library and information science: Closing the gap. Library and Information Science Research26(1): 29–43.
26.
HallH (2010) Promoting the priorities of practitioner research engagement. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science42(2): 83–88.
27.
HallH (2011) UK library and information science research matters. Library & Information Science Research33(1): 89–91.
28.
HjørlandB (2000) Library and information science: Practice, theory and philosophical basis. Information Processing & Management36(3): 501–531.
29.
HudginsCAAllen-MearesP (2014) Translational research: A new solution to an old problem?Journal of Social Work Education36(1): 2–5.
30.
JärvelinKVakkariP (1993) The evolution of library and information science 1965–1985: A content analysis of journal articles. Information Processing & Management29(1): 129–144.
31.
Jiménez-ContrerasEMoya AnegónFDelgado López-CózarE (2003) The evolution of research activity in Spain: The impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy32(1): 123–142.
32.
JoswickKE (1999) Article publication patterns of academic librarians: An Illinois case study. College & Research Libraries60(4): 340–349.
33.
KlobasJClydeL (2010) Beliefs, attitudes and perceptions about research and practice in a professional field. Library & Information Science Research32(4): 237–245.
34.
McClureCRBishopA (1989) The status of research in Library/Information Science: Guarded optimism. College & Research Libraries50(2): 127–143.
35.
MaceviciuteEWilsonTLallooIet al. (2009) A Delphi Study of Research Needs for Swedish Libraries. Vetenskap för Profession: Rapport 5. Borås: University of Borås. Available at: http://bada.hb.se/handle/2320/5069 (accessed 17 July 2016).
36.
McKeeB (2007) Research into practice: Prospects for a future framework. Library and Information Research31(97): 25–32.
37.
MesnyAMailhotC (2010) La collaboration entre chercheurs et praticiens en gestion: Entre faux-semblants et nécessité épistémique. Revue française de gestion36(202): 33–45.
38.
Moya-AnegónFJimenez-ContrerasEDe la Moneda-CorrochanoM (1998) Research fronts in library and information science in Spain (1985–1994). Scientometrics: 42(2): 229–246.
39.
PontiM (2012) Peer production for collaboration between academics and practitioners. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science45(1): 23–37.
40.
PowellRBakerLMikaJ (2002) Library and information science practitioners and research. Library & Information Science Research24(1): 49–72.
41.
RobertsAMaddenADCorrallS (2013) Putting research into practice: An exploration of Sheffield iSchool approaches to connecting research with practice. Library Trends61(3): 479–512.
42.
SchlöglCStockWG (2008) Practitioners and academics as authors and readers: The case of LIS journals. Journal of Documentation64(5): 643–666.
StewartC (2011) Whither metrics, Part II. Tools for assessing publication impact of academic library practitioners. Journal of Academic Librarianship37(5): 445–448.
45.
SugimotoCRTsouANaslundSet al. (2014) Beyond gatekeepers of knowledge: Scholarly communication practices of academic librarians and archivists at ARL institutions. College & Research Libraries75(2): 145–161.
46.
SwiggerK (1985) Institutional affiliations of authors of research articles. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science26(2): 105–109.
47.
ThuneT (2007) University–industry collaboration: The network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy34(3): 158–168.
48.
Torres-SalinasDMuñoz-MuñozAMJiménez-ContrerasE (2011) Análisis bibliométrico de la situación de las mujeres investigadoras de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas en España. Revista Española De Documentación Científica34(1): 11–28.
49.
TuomaalaOJärvelinKVakkariP (2014) Evolution of library and information science, 1965–2005: Content analysis of journal articles. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology65(7): 1446–1462.
50.
Van De VenAHJohnsonPE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice. Academy of Management Review31(4): 802–821.
51.
WaltersWHWilderEI (2016) Disciplinary, national, and departmental contributions to the literature of library and information science, 2007–2012. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology67(6): 1487–1506.
52.
WellerACHurdJMWiberleySE (1999) Publication patterns of US academic librarians from 1993 to 1997. College & Research Libraries60(4): 352–362.
53.
WiberleySEHurdJMWellerAC (2006) Publication patterns of US academic librarians from 1998 to 2002. College & Research Libraries67(3): 205–216.
54.
WilliamsonC (1931) The place of research in library service. Library Quarterly1(1): 1–17.
55.
WilsonTMaceviciuteE (2009) What do practitioners want to see researched?Library and Information Update (Nov): 46–49.
