Qualitative study reveals a spectrum of research engagement modes among library science academics, highlighting dynamic collaborative pathways beyond a simple research-practice gap.
This study explores how Australian library and information science (LIS) academics engage in research with LIS practitioners. Using a qualitative approach, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 20 Australian LIS academics. The thematic analysis identified six themes depicting research engagement: collaboration, empowerment, involvement, communication, utilisation, and disconnection. Taken together, these themes constitute the LIS Academic-Practitioner Research Engagement Spectrum – an empirically grounded framework that articulates how engagement is experienced and enacted across varying intentions, perceived roles, and outcomes. Rather than framing engagement in binary terms as a research–practice “gap,” the spectrum reconceptualises academic–practitioner engagement as a continuum of modes that may shift over time and across contexts. The paper also discusses enablers that shape engagement across the spectrum, offering insights into how and why academic-practitioner research relationships may evolve from empowering and mutual collaborations to experiences of disconnection. By explicitly mapping these modes of engagement, the study extends LIS scholarship through a nuanced analytical lens for understanding variation in research relationships. For practitioners and sector leaders, the spectrum offers practical insight into how different forms of engagement influence research relevance, translation, and long-term practice change. The study findings emphasise the importance of practitioner involvement in research to ensure that findings are both relevant to, and applicable within, the LIS sector. These findings are readily transferable to other Western LIS contexts beyond Australia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: