A6: APPENDIX A:
Current utilization of academic research findings, in-house research and evaluation evidence by MAL practitioners and managers
This assessment is based on key informant interviews and informal discussions conducted with domain experts in preparing this paper. A Systematic Review of evidence about the uptake of research and practitioner use of various types of evidence within the MAL field might yield somewhat different results.
Archives
- mostly limited and small scale research and dissemination conducted by archivists (rather than trained researchers)
- little accountability at present (local authority services are non-statutory; there is passing reference to 'proper arrangements' in the legislation)
- regional development is now beginning
- there is a strong tradition of evidence-based technical/scientific practice (but to what extent is this research-based, compared with 'accepted best practice'?)
- The Public Services Quality Group conducts a visitor survey every 18 months; this includes a focus on a limited number of research questions
- A Workforce study has commenced.
Museums
- Some significant academic research is driven by academic centres, Resource, MA, GEM, VSG etc. and conducted by researchers/consultants
- There are some well-conducted in-house research projects, particularly in major national/regional museums
- generally, there is limited dissemination beyond the larger and professionally-run museums (some 'trickle down' through regional liaison with local museums)
- there is a contrast between the museums education arena (with a strong commitment to finding and applying evidence) and other parts of the museums and galleries domain (where interest may not move beyond traditional PIs)
- there is growing interest in assessing impact as well as monitoring efficiency (some parts of the domain) linked to increased pressure toward accountability (e.g. Best Value Reviews)
- again, there is a tradition of evidence-based technical/scientific practice (e.g. conservation techniques) but to what extent is this grounded in reliable research?
- minimum standards are applied through the Museums Registration Scheme.
Libraries and information services
- this domain has a tradition of national research projects (funded by BL, LIC, JISC, NHS(E) etc.) of variable quality, largely conducted by university researchers; but little sense of 'building a corpus of knowledge'
- there is limited dissemination and uptake beyond the research community (apart from JISC in HE, where the emphasis has been on development rather than research)
- there is some institutional involvement in EC projects (although no longer a core funding stream for libraries)
- burgeoning managerial interest in assessing the impact of services in public, education and health libraries (partly driven by increased government insistence upon accountability via Ofsted, Best Value, annual library plans, impact on patient care for health libraries, etc.)
- there are well-established mechanisms for PI-based comparisons for public libraries and HE libraries
- the research and accountability base is relatively weak in the private sector (apart from the pharmaceutical industry)
- minimum standards for public libraries have been introduced; there are some self-assessment/accreditation efforts in education/health libraries, but based on views of good practice rather than research
- some overseas research has potential applicability to the UK but enabling mechanisms are largely absent
- there is a small but active evidence-based librarianship community operating in the USA and UK in the health libraries domain.
Overall, there appears to be a continuing gap between much academic research and practice, except in areas of technical/scientific application. Local research and evaluation may provide evidence to inform practice. However, efforts to address issues of education, social and economic impact of services are frequently constrained by an absence of baseline information.
|