Lotta Haglund about EBLIP at EAHIL 2008

-Many librarians think EBLIP is to time-consuming. Although I will try to inspire you to start with EBLIP, said Lotta Haglund from Karolinska Institutet University Library (KIB), Sweden when presenting her (and David Herron’s) paper: Implementing EBLIP to stimulate professional development.

There exist at least three ackronyms in this subject, but the most recently is EBLIP. Read an extraction of what Evidence Based Librarianship in Practice is explained by Andrew Booth.

She presented three bigger efforts they made in EBLIP at KIB. First was the so called Journal club. There are several models on having a journal club. She explaind their model. Here is a brief description. First they scan literature to find interested articles and specially they try to find hot topics. Every participating staff member read and evaluate the article for about 2 hours. The journal club meeting then takes about 1 hour and about 6 persons participating. They look at the quality of the journal generally, what type of publication is it, who are the authors and have they published before?, the impact of the research like has it been cited before, the robustness of the content and how do it stand up to critical appraisal, objectives of the article and of course some more other aspects of the article.

They use CRISTAL that was unfamiliar to me. It was published by Andrew Booth and Anne Brice Health Information and Libraries Journal Volume 20 Issue s1 Page 45-52, June 2003 with title: Clear-cut?: facilitating health librarians to use information research in practice.

“Critical Skills Training in Appraisal for Librarians (CRISTAL) used purpose-specific checklists based on the Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature”.

And the outcome of the journal club was for example increased reading of professional literature, changes to postgraduate teaching, changed perspective to evidence.

Next thing they’ve done is production of evidence called the palpus program. Objectives were to find out students need of services. It started last spring and they indentified 4 groups.

Undergraduate students that were interviewed (and bribed with a pay-for-lunch ;-) and answered to a questionnaire. Students talked a lot about how they’ve been treated by the librarians in the library.

PhD students was asked at the end of a course. They wanted academic writing support in all aspects. But my question is how much support should librarians give here? They also wanted updates about databases changes etc.

Structured interviews with academic teachers. They wanted increased support functions for just-in-time help.

At last 8 biomedical researchers were shadowed by observation and also interviews. How do they search was the important question? They had little knowledge about library competencies and Google is their king.

The results of these findings were for example: suggesting well defined activities to the library management, suggesting methods for evaluating these activities.

-We have to try even harder to know what they want, Lotta Haglund said.

At last they also made some collaborative writing to try help the academic author. General support areas like word processing, information retrieval, reference management, making figures, language correction, writing the english summary. The Effects of the collaborative writing were increased knowledge about how to support academics in their writings.

Total conclusion of both journal club, palpus program and collaborative writing were for example:

Increased overall knowledge about EBLIP.

Increased interest in reading LIS literature.

Increased knowledge about critical appraisal.

Increased interest in writing publications in academic journals.

And finally Lotta showed this tremendous Social Media marketing commercial of the EBLIP5 conference in Stockholm next year: