Are research priorities a priority for research?

In our last column we raised questions about the extent to which research and research skills were issues for practitioner information professionals. In this column, we look at research priorities from the perspectives of some potential funding bodies, some professional bodies and practitioners. Our aim is to encourage information pro-fessionals to think about R&D and so we asked a practitioner to give her perspective on research prioritization. A recent British Library Bulletin, 1 proclaimed the new research plans and strategies for the British Library Research and Innovation Centre (BLRIC) and the Library and Information Commission (LIC). BLRIC’s research priorities are: Connectivity—providing optimal access to information for all Content—having the right information resources Competences—improving people’s skills in order to make best use of information. (The BLRIC plan 2 is unclear as to whether this relates to users or information professionals, but the LIC Strategy document 3 discusses the needs of both groups.) As well as these themes, there are two additional cross-sectoral themes which are described as ‘fundamental’, ‘Value and Impact’ and ‘Economics’. In addition, we are told that BLRIC welcomes ad hoc bids for funding on topics that do not fit into these themes. There is to be an emphasis on the international aspects of research and on the dissemination and transfer of research results. This latter goal will begin to be achieved by the development of a WWW gateway for LIS research. Hidden away in the BLRIC plan itself is a statement, which says: ‘‘‘meta-research’’ which analyses and synthesizes previous research in an area, whether funded by the Centre or not, will be supported in areas of high priority for the Centre’ (p.5) This should be of interest to health information professionals for whom the terms ‘systematic review’ and ‘meta-analysis’ are now commonplace. The BLRIC research plan was formed using the LIC strategy document, other government policy documents, discussion with LIC, the British Library’s own advisory committee and ongoing informal discussion with researchers and practitioners. The LIC document was derived from a ‘mapping exercise’ and a ‘consultation exercise’. 4 However, in future the British Library say they hope to make the process of arriving at priorities a more transparent process, perhaps using ‘joint expert panels’. The NHS R&D strategy is also changing. 5 Until recently, it seems, the NHS method of dealing with the research bids they received was to judge them against a range of basic criteria—burden, policy relevance, timeliness and the likely benefits of research. An Advisory Group would then be convened to look at broad areas in which a number of bids had been submitted. Their job would be to prioritize research in the area identified. In future, research will be grouped into three areas: Health Technology Assessment Pro-gramme (existing) Service Delivery and Organization (new) New and Emerging Technologies (new) These two funding bodies (BLRIC/LIC and NHS) might be seen as the major players for those working in health sciences information. Given this, there are a couple of philosophical questions that are worth considering. (These are not intended to be critical as we certainly don’t possess any right answers.)1 Since the research priorities are apparently coming from different directions (health and information), how can the information professional, caught in the middle, reconcile these two and arrive at research that is relevant and useful to both (and funded by both!). The answer, as one of our trusty researchers put it, is likely to lie in ‘cutting a deal with the clinicians’, and getting involved in a multi-disciplinary research team.2 What is the best way of arriving at research priorities? Options might be: (a) demand led (i.e. researchers send in ideas and they are considered for funding) or (b) identify programme areas. In the case of (b), what should researchers do if their project doesn’t ‘fit in’? Is the setting up of programmes of research a self-fulfilling prophecy? So how have Health LIS professional bodies tackled these questions? A quick and dirty search of databases and the Internet reveals a couple of interesting research strategies from relevant professional bodies in the USA. In 1995 the US Special Libraries Association held a forum involving practitioners, academics and others to obtain ‘new strategic directions in the area of research’. 6 Priorities identified were: to develop, find, test and assess multiple tools by which to measure ‘value’ of services provided by information professionals to decision-makers in a variety of settings; to define and assess LIS staff core competencies (including future roles); input/outcome (value) of librarian participation in nonlibrary project/research teams. This latter area is interesting in that they seem to want to look at what the LIS professional can add to the research team (as mooted above). They want to ask the question ‘What can librarians do?’. As opposed to ‘What do librarians do?’. Hernon & Schwartz 7 criticized the forum’s emphasis on proving the value of the LIS service. They wondered whether the intention of such research would be ‘not so much to add to knowledge or improve decision-making or planning, but rather to support the status quo or very survival of a library and people’s jobs...’ (p. 325). Interestingly, the SLA are about to revisit their 1995 priorities to find out if they were the right ones and what happened as a result of the setting of priorities. 8 Also in the USA, the MLA’s approach 9 has been to look at what health information professionals can do with research rather than to list priorities, suggesting that: on the one hand, health sciences librarians must be familiar with health care research methods and sources in order to provide information services, and on the other, they must pay particular attention to the development and application of their own research knowledge base. This implies that librarians can be taught the skills to put them in a good position as researchers. They need to be consumers of research so that they can use it to influence clinicians and managers, but at the same time they need to be producers of research too. The research priorities of the professional bodies seem to raise questions about:1 What is the most appropriate role for the LIS professional in relation to research?2 What are the most appropriate types of priorities—should they focus on providing solutions to problems of change affecting LIS or on trying to validate the existence of LIS? Finally, what have practitioners got to say about research priorities? Results from a survey of the UK Health Librarians’ Group in 1996, 10 showed that the research topics rated as most important by respondents were: information technology, user needs and education, value/impact of LIS. Other commonly suggested topics included: issues specific to health information provision, information retrieval, access and provision, marketing and perceptions, finance/budgeting, and co-operation between libraries and between LIS and parent organizations. One of the difficulties in interpreting the results of this study was grouping people’s replies to an open question. Some people gave very detailed responses (e.g. identifying the best search engine for clinical users), while others gave a very broad response (e.g. IT). It was also difficult to interpret whether people wanted to see basic research or development/demonstration projects. A major study of research priorities in health information is currently being carried out by Dwyer. 11 She is using a 3–4 round Delphi methodology with panel groupings of: HLG, LFN, UHSL, educationalists, journal editors, professional group chairs and organizations (a similar method was used by MacMillan et al. to examine nursing research priorities 12). An open-ended round 1 requested up to five ‘burning issues’ requiring research. These were used as the basis for round 2. The sifting process then continues until consensus is reached. Because this research is still in progress, only preliminary findings can be reported, but these findings indentify the following as important: Topics requiring collaborative research—the role of LIS in clinical decision-making, identifying methods for integrating information provision into the clinical process, investigating LIS delivery to primary healthcare professionals, auditing the provision of LIS services to health professionals at a distance, and identifying levels of need and provision of services required for distance learning. Topics of value to LIS professionals—clinical librarianship, IT, evidence-based practice, alliances, and value/impact. Topics impacting on user needs—access, clinical librarianship alliances, and IT. The Delphi method employed seems to have been a good way of getting a range of people’s views. Although Dwyer may have encountered some of the problems experienced by Farmer & Richardson 10 in categorizing various responses, she does seem to be arriving at a series of concrete research questions, with further analysis ongoing. We have already tried to raise a few questions about research priorities, but taking all of the above into account, here are a few more that might be worthy of a few quiet moments of [1Why are practitioners’ research priorities so much more concrete than those of the funding bodies?2 Are LIS research priorities too subjectively focused on ‘proving’ the value of LIS to managers and funders? Should research priorities be more focused on answering practical questions, such as those suggested by Dwyer’s respondents and Pirie (see below)?3 Can research priorities suck people into circular arguments? The funding body says X is an important issue, people read this and start to write about it or do research, others read this and become influenced by it. X becomes an important topic.4 Are research priorities important? What happens as a result of them? Do they result in productive research that answers questions? How should research priorities be arrived at? Provided by Wendy Pirie, Faculty Information Consultant & Site Services Manager, Medical School Library, Aberdeen University. We asked Wendy Pirie to give a practitioner’s perspective on the above article. Wendy pointed out that research priorities differ according to the type of health information service one works in—a research library will have different priorities from an academic library. (This might be one reason why research priorities as set by funding and professional bodies have to be general.) The research skills required and their application also vary according to the library’s user group and role. She went on to say: ‘I think that research in any or all of Dwyer’s ‘‘High Ratings’’ list will have a benefit to the profession as a whole —many of the topics listed in section 1 (requiring collaborative research) have particular significance in the context of the recent NHS in Scotland/SLIC ‘Enabling Access’ document. 13 The mechanics of how to deliver a service to NHS users nationally is, I feel, probably easier to organize than the more fundamental problems of: (1) promoting the service to users who may never have seen a need to utilize LIS in their daily work; and (2) educating them in the intricacies of LIS, particularly if the user is in a remote location. The authors would like to thank Wendy Pirie, Maureen Dwyer and Andrew Booth for their contributions. Special thanks to Alison McNaughton for researching this item. If you would be interested in providing a practitioner commentary on any of our columns, please get in touch giving details of your interest area.