Creative inquiry in EBP: “It’s not just …”

I recently came across a blog post on Why Bother With Creative Research Methods? by Dr Helen Kara. I’ve previously stepped into creative practice-based research methods in a case study on experiences in a regional university library makerspace using visual elicitation.

While my work in library evidence-based practice doesn’t always involve research methodologies in the strictest sense, practice-based research projects are certainly one aspect. They take time but contribute valuable insights for our evidence base, service improvement, and reporting.

Practice-based research also tends to result in me emphatically stating that evidence-based practice is not just dashboards and stats. ¹

Yes, it can include these, but it’s so much more.

When I mention evidence-based practice, people jump to reporting, data, and stats. This is fair given the number of technical queries that I’ve received about open textbook data dashboards over the last few years.

Every so often, though, it becomes a “Well yes, but it’s not just…” conversation.

Creativity, conversations, questions, reflection and reflexivity, partnership, qualitative evidence, values, and curiosity often get missed.

Different questions

A colleague and I recently discussed how we’d love for evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) to ask similar questions a evidence-based policymaking about our approach.

I’d argue that the title of one paper – Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine – also rings true for libraries. This paper looks at the intersection of values, actors, governance principles, and co-production and participatory methods in evidence-based policymaking.

Significantly, it also looks at commitment (or lack thereof) to a hierarchy of evidence.

This reflects an earlier discussion in EBLIP scholarship. In 2010, Koufogiannakis wrote on The Appropriateness of Hierarchies:

“Today I am even more resolved that it is time to remove the concept of a hierarchy of evidence from EBLIP. This concept is tied very closely to the medical model of evidence based medicine (EBM) and is solely focused on quantitative research. Library and information studies (LIS) is a social sciences discipline and as such is concerned mostly with questions of why we do things and how people function in the world. The actions of people are complex and not easily fit into tidy boxes of absolute truth, as are commonly given preference in science, technology and medicine fields.”

Then, returning to evidence-based policymaking, we find discussion on the “ceding of control by researchers” and a recognition that a “solution may not be ‘evidence-based’ in the way that scientists understand that phrase.” ² There’s a tension seen between research and policy impact.

An evidence ecosystem

If we aspire to EBLIP at an organisational level, we should acknowledge tensions and uncertainty and consider the limits we might have placed around evidence and inquiry.

I maintain that evidence-based practice at an organisational level requires engaging with cultural aspects, including any questions, concerns, and challenges. Thorpe’s and Howlett’s initial maturity model also reflects this through shared understanding, responsibility, and staff development. ³

For me, this also means acknowledging that evidence types and methods can look different between teams and between individual, operational, and strategic needs. Yet, we can still show curiosity and engagement across these bounds, with a shared commitment to evidence-based decision-making at an organisational level.

I quite like the idea of this being an evidence ecosystem.

People work in distinct evidence environments (E.g., divisions, teams, or disciplines) with structures influencing their evidence needs and approaches. Evidence also sits, however, within an organisational ecosystem that requires interaction and exchange.

This means engagement and knowledge sharing (though, of course, with caveats around ethics and privacy).

So, might encouraging exploration, embracing some uncertainty, and supporting creativity promote greater engagement with evidence in libraries?

Uncertainty

My last post suggested we should change how we communicate about evidence-based practice (specifically, value and impact) to present a more holistic understanding of what evidence can be.

In 2014, Jacobs and Koufogiannakis described:

“For EBLIP to be successful, librarians must acknowledge that uncertainty is acceptable and that questioning practice is a healthy part of growth and, as such, is a valid form of research inquiry.”

Creative research methods and humanities inquiry are one way we might capture the “exploration, partnership, and creativity” already occurring in practice in our evidence.

Why bother?

‘Why bother?’ is a fair question if our understanding of evidence-based practice is limited to reporting and we don’t recognise the purpose and potential of evidence beyond this.

We can be (and are) more creative, insightful, and bold.

Responding to the question ‘Why bother?’ when it comes to creative research methods, Kara suggests some benefits. These offer a good starting place for why we might consider more creative research methods in libraries (where appropriate). ⁴ Beyond the potential for more useful data, I find the ethical argument convincing in this instance because of the connection and participation it can strengthen. Kara notes:

“Creative methods of presentation can be more engaging for audiences, and help them to understand more fully and remember better the messages you convey.”

Our organisational environments delve into user and student partnerships, inclusive pedagogies, and narrative approaches to impact and marketing. Creative inquiry aligns with these needs and brings engagement for library users and professionals. It’s directly connected to practice and, often, organisational values and objectives.

Creative inquiry may accomplish several things at once:

• Purposeful alignment. Qualities present in creative research methods, like engagement, may align with organisational objectives and values, like partnership. This fulfils strategic and practice-based research needs simultaneously.

• Meaningful engagement. User engagement, embedded in the everyday practices of many library professionals, is realised in the process of evidence-based practice. Evidence-based practice is embedded in service delivery and elevates existing engagement.

• Supplanting assumptions. Creative methods and humanities inquiry facilitate the creation of evidence that displaces common assumptions about what evidence can be. This expands our toolkit of methods and the questions we could potentially be asking. If we’re placing limits on our evidence, I suspect we’re limiting the types of questions we think we can ask and problems we can solve too.

• Purpose beyond reporting. We need to communicate the value of evidence beyond reporting, and creative methods and humanities inquiry don’t always fit neatly into dashboards and reporting structures. ⁵ Challenging? Yes. Needed? Also yes.

• ‘Soft launching’ research skills. Embedding creative inquiry and reflection into existing processes creates opportunities to develop qualitative inquiry skills without the pressure of a full-blown research project. This is useful for time-poor practitioners and teams who can’t immediately take on a research project, but still engage in evidence-based practice. Additionally, low-tech options for creative methods may save time when it comes to long-term data creation (while also engaging users).

I’ll stop there and curb my enthusiasm (for now) as I can see each point above becoming slightly longer.

Humanities research

Much of what I’ve described lends itself to incorporating more humanities research into library evidence-based practice. As Jacobs and Koufogiannakis determine:

“Humanities research may not fit into a tidy checklist regarding validity and reliability of method, but it is perhaps best suited to answer the bigger, most important questions within librarianship.”

Using Open Access as an example, they consider how humanities research evidence (theory and reflection) can push us to examine different questions and to interrogate underlying values, principles, and concerns.

They also consider that librarians with humanities backgrounds may disengage from conversations on evidence-based practice if approaches don’t ring true to their practice and ideas. I think this extends beyond librarians with humanities backgrounds. When we have time pressures, complex environments, and ever-changing information and social landscapes, it’s no wonder we reduce evidence to reporting.

Reporting simplifies. It reduces what is complex to what is necessary. Often, it’s seen as a final step.

Yet, evidence-based practice is not an afterthought. It requires reflexive engagement, not passivity.

Given that the mere sight of nuance or complexity seems to “drive us back to the ‘safety’ of reporting…,” I am appreciative of how humanities inquiry may “keep us from being trapped by our own desire for certainty.”

It helps us to avoid a lacklustre vision for evidence-based practice in libraries.

While reporting is part of evidence-based practice at an organisational level, reporting itself is not enough to engage or motivate practitioners in evidence-based practice, and it certainly can’t address the bigger picture questions or wicked problems we encounter. The purpose and potential of evidence are often found in the messiness of practice and partnership.

Returning to Jacobs and Koufogiannakis, “we need to be able to accept that theory and reflection are valid and reliable forms of evidence” and create space for these.

There is room for exploration, curiosity, and creativity.

1. It’s also not just an afterthought. ↩︎
2. (Cairney & Oliver, 2017, p. 4, p. 9) ↩︎
3. Table 2, p. 98. ↩︎
4. Kara addresses misconceptions about creative research methods in other blog posts. ↩︎
5. (Douglas, 2020, p. 21) ↩︎