Library and Information Science Society Home → English page

三田図書館・情報学会誌論文(論文ID LIS059105)

Re-Examination of Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL): A Content Analysis of Journal Articles
No.59, p.105-115

【目的】 図書館業務における研究成果の活用と研究の実践を促進するエビデンス・ベースト・ライブラリアンシップ(EBL) の適用可能性と問題点を検討する。

【方法】 日本の雑誌論文100論文に対してEBLで挙げられている根拠のレベル, 課題, 主題領域を調査し集計した。

【成果】 日本の図書館情報学論文はEBLの根拠のレベルでは, 事例研究と専門家の意見が大半を占め, EBLのレベルの高いとされるサミングアップは2件にとどまった。 また, EBLで示されている三つの課題にあてはまらず, 課題のない論文が30と多かった。 主題領域にも偏りがみられた。 しかし, EBLの枠組みを検討すると, EBLがエビデンス・ベースト・メディシン(EBM)の影響を強く受けているため, 図書館情報学文献に適用するには困難が多いことが確認された。


Purpose: The evidence-based librarianship (EBL) approach promotes the application of research results to library services and at the same time, is a promising methodological framework for further improving the quality of research in library science. In this paper, the issues surrounding EBL and its application are discussed.

Method: One hundred Japanese journal articles on library and information science were coded according to the level of their EBL evidence (one of seven levels), the three types of EBL questions, and the domain of the article as defined in the EBL approach.

Results: Thirty three articles were identified as case studies (Level 6) and fifty three articles were identified as expert opinion (Level 7). Only two articles were coded as summing up (Level 2) which are said to have high EBL evidence. Thirty percent of the papers did not contain questions; therefore, they were not able to be assigned to one of the three types of questions. Fifteen of the articles were in the “collections” domain and twenty three were in the “management” domain; however, no articles were in the “marketing/promotion” domain. Since the concept of EBL is derived from evidence-based medicine (EBM), it can be difficult to apply it to articles in library and information science.

本文PDF (489K)