Twenty Years of Business Information Literacy Research: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Objective – This study analyzes and synthesizes the business information literacy (BIL) literature, with a focus on trends in publication type, study design, research topic, and recommendations for practice. Methods – The scoping review method was used to build a dataset of 135 journal articles and conference papers. The following databases were searched for relevant literature published between 2000 and 2019: Library and Information Science Source, Science Direct, ProQuest Central, Project Muse, and the Ticker journal site. Included items were published in peer reviewed journals or conference proceedings and focused on academic libraries. Items about public or school libraries were excluded, as were items published in trade publications. A cited reference search was conducted for each publication in the review dataset. Results – Surveys were, by far, the most common research method in the BIL literature. Themes related to collaboration were prevalent, and a large number of publications had multiple authors or were about collaborative efforts to teach BIL. Many of the recommendations for practice from the literature were related to collaboration as well; recommendations related to teaching methods and strategies were also common. Adoption of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in BIL appears slow, and the citations have decreased steadily since 2016. The majority of the most impactful BIL articles, as measured by citation counts, presented original research. Conclusions – This study synthesizes two decades of literature and contributes to the evidence based library and information science literature. The findings of this scoping review illustrate the importance of collaboration, interest in teaching methods and strategies, appreciation for practical application literature, and hesitation about the Framework.

Library-faculty collaboration in the light of a business administration bachelor’s program: ‘The Scientific Wave’

“…As shown in earlier research there are several advantages for inter-professional library-faculty collaboration in higher education especially within the field of business administration (see Atwong & Heichman Taylor, 2008;Houlihan et al, 2020;McInnis Bowers et al, 2009;Smith & Edwards, 2012, Wu & Lee Kendall, 2006. This longitudinal case study contributes an illustration of how to build a successful library-faculty collaboration with focus on information literacy throughout a bachelor's program and furthermore the outcomes of such a collaboration from the perspectives of faculty, library and students in a Swedish context.…”

“…Additionally, the matter of lifelong learning is accentuated, and information literacy is seen as "a lifelong endeavour of knowledge and learning" (Grizzle & Torras Calvo, 2013, p. 71). Most disciplines acknowledge the importance of information literacy and as pointed out by Wu and Lee Kendall (2006), Smith and Edwards (2012) and Houlihan et al (2020), the ability to find, evaluate and use information is of major importance in the field of business administration and the business world. Hence, integration of information literacy skills into the business curriculum is vital for colleges and universities of business to significantly increase student learning outcomes and professional readiness (Atwong & Heichman Taylor, 2008;McInnis Bowers et al, 2009) while preparing students for "lifelong learning beyond graduation" (Wu & Lee Kendall, 2006, p. 93).…”

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

“…Currently, many methodological papers for scoping reviews are published in healthcare focussed journals and associated disciplines [6,[39][40][41][42][43]. Another area where further work could also occur is to gain greater understanding on how scoping reviews and scoping review methodology is being used across disciplines beyond healthcare including how authors, reviewers and editors understand, recommend or utilise existing guidance for undertaking and reporting scoping reviews.…”