Trends in health sciences library and information science research: an analysis of research publications in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association and Journal of the Medical Library Association from 1991 to 2007

Abstract

This study's findings demonstrate that progress is being made in health sciences librarianship research. There is, however, room for improvement in terms of research methodologies used, proportion of applied versus theoretical research, and elimination of barriers to conducting research for practicing librarians.

Research engagement of health sciences librarians: a survey of research-related activities and attitudes

“…In addition, health sciences librarians might participate more often in research grant-writing activities than their LIS counterparts (33% versus 16%) [21]. The distribution of research methods employed by health sciences librarians reported in our study differed from the methods observed by Gore et al in Bulletin of the Medical Library Association (BMLA)/JMLA articles [11]. While qualitative methods represented fairly similar percentages (18% and 14%, respectively), far fewer librarians in our study reported using solely quantitative methods (24% versus 88%).…”

“…Topical emphases in each of these areas were similar with the exception of research grant topics, which focused on outreach, end-user education, and technology topics, possibly reflecting the funding priorities of the various granting entities. We found that research conducted by librarians had a stronger focus on applied research in comparison to the Gore et al study (88% versus 70%) and less emphasis on ''professional concerns'' and ''related fields,'' with no reports of ''theoretical'' or ''general'' research [11]. This might reflect that unpublished research was a significant component of our study.…”

“…While qualitative methods represented fairly similar percentages (18% and 14%, respectively), far fewer librarians in our study reported using solely quantitative methods (24% versus 88%). Additionally, over half (54%) self-reported the use of mixed methods research compared to Gore et al (9%) [11].…”

“…This disparity was also observed in Fenske's analysis of research productivity in different institutional settings (academics, 64%; hospital librarians, 36%) [20], in the sources of authorship in the BMLA/JMLA identified in the Gore et al study (academics, 56%; hospital librarians, 2%) [11], and in Harvey's study of abstracts from MLA annual meetings (academics, 70%; hospital librarians, 15%) [29].…”

“…'' For each open-ended question, two authors independently coded the responses using the constant comparative method [9], and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Five broad subject categories were also applied [10,11]. Online only Table 1 outlines the subject classification scheme with broad and specific subject categories and definitions.…”