Are we evidence based or informed? An LIS perspective

Are we evidence-based or informed, and does it matter?

When I was focused on the evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) space, I noticed a small handful of people in libraries preferred to say they were evidence-informed rather than evidence-based. This difference in language stuck with me.

From my observations in the LIS profession, most people use “evidence-based” to describe the active part of our practice (such as asking questions and collecting or analysing evidence). Being evidence-based is something that we are doing. Then, occasionally, we shift to “informed” to characterise the quality of our decision-making. It’s something to describe what we have done. ¹

Cautionary divides

A cursory search of EBLIP literature suggests this is fairly consistent with how we use these phrases interchangeably across the library and information profession. ² That is, except for a 2007 paper by Hunsucker, which describes the rationale behind the based vs. informed divide.

Hunsucker considers the evidence-informed language as the “cautionary position” toward evidence. ³ This position suggests that while we shouldn’t reject using evidence in decision-making, we shouldn’t insist on it. Thus, instead of being evidence-based, we should be evidence-informed.

This isn’t my position, and it’s a different take to the language used in non-library sectors too, but there are qualities in it that I’m sympathetic to.

Community context

I’ve spoken and written about being conscious of the impact that evidence can have on people through our decisions, which may come across as being cautious in how we apply evidence.

There have been plenty of discussions on matters such as how we assess feedback [evidence] on library services designed for specific communities when critical feedback comes from people who are stakeholders but who are not a part of that community and do not share their values. Trust, community engagement, lived experience expertise, and potential harm come to the fore.

And this is one reason I’m determined to see evidence-based decision-making done well. But, instead of forgoing evidence, I’m more partial to asking questions about:

• How our conception of the ‘best’ evidence available changes to reflect different research and user paradigms, and
• How values and social context are reflected in evidence.

Professional knowledge

When the idea of being ‘evidence-informed’ is raised, the purpose is often an attempt to include evidence that people don’t believe will qualify as evidence, such as professional experience or judgment.

Yet, I already consider professional expertise, experience, and judgement as evidence in EBLIP, alongside other types and methods that are sometimes relegated to the ‘not valued evidence’ pile. This need to include professional knowledge aligns with Koufogiannakis’s recommendation that:

“proponents of EBLIP also embrace the local evidence and the professional knowledge which go hand in hand with research evidence (see Figure 2). Each librarian needs to make those judgements within their own context and circumstances” (2011, p. 53)

Even in adopting local evidence, I suspect we err toward relying on usage data in libraries at the expense of other types. ⁴ This isn’t to say we entirely ignore other types of evidence, but that we often don’t consider these as evidence in their own right. This may result in less dialogue around how we synthesise different types of evidence as complementary in decision-making.

As I’ve previously described, engaging with reflection, uncertainty, complexity, and nuance – that often comes with local evidence and professional knowledge – is part of doing evidence-based practice well. When we classify neglected forms of evidence under an evidence-informed label in libraries, I do wonder if we reinforce their status as secondary or inferior to ‘real’ evidence, rather than complementary. This may impact what we consider part of our evidence base in libraries.

Are we already there?

In the health science, education, and policy landscape, ⁵ there is research on the difference between being evidence-based and -informed.

The health sciences literature suggests that being evidence-informed is a more “inclusive view of evidence.” ⁶ And, more adaptable. In episode 24 of the podcast Make Data Talk, Dr Selena Fisk describes the shift in medicine toward being evidence-informed, recognising that a solid evidence base is not always immediately available.

Yet, our organisational evidence base in libraries is already intended to include other types of evidence. A lack of clinical trials for an evidence base isn’t the same in libraries as in medicine. Further, health sciences evidence-informed practice has a model of its own. It is intended to be: cyclic, centres clients, sees practitioners as critical thinkers, and does not adopt a formal hierarchy of research evidence. ⁷

This resembles the direction EBLIP already moved in – just without the advocacy for a shift to the language of informed that we see in other sectors and disciplines. The 6A’s EBLIP model is cyclic, centres client/user needs, encourages critical reflection, and problematises the evidence hierarchy initially adopted in libraries from evidence-based medicine. ⁸

Final thoughts

I’m not sure a formal shift to ‘informed’ is needed in libraries when we’ve long recognised the need to include what evidence-informed aspires to in evidence-based practice.

Some people see the shift in language as necessary to describe decision-making at its most versatile. This is positive. It recognises the need to improve and diversify what our evidence base looks like. Yet, this language change occurs despite EBLIP having already shifted from the earlier rigidity of evidence-based librarianship (EBL), at least in theory.

So far, even though we align with the evidence-informed model outside of libraries, I’m not convinced that distinguishing evidence-informed from evidence-based in LIS adds any benefit to what the EBLIP framework already aspires to.

However, I am curious about different perspectives on this and whether (and how) this language evolves in the LIS profession.

1. I’d be interested in a review or content analysis of “evidence-based” or “-informed” in the LIS literature, especially differences in it’s proximity to “decision-making”. ↩︎
2. For example: Gillespie, 2014; Koufogiannakis, 2015; Muir, 2023 Thorpe & Howlett, 2020. ↩︎
3. Hunsucker (2007, p. 10) ↩︎
4. Koufogiannakis (2011, pp. 50-52) ↩︎
5. (Head, 2015; Kumah et al., 2022; Nevo & Slonim-Nevo, 2011; Owen et al., 2022) ↩︎
6. Rycroft-Malone (2011, p. 405) ↩︎
7. Kumah et al. (2022, p. 7, Table 1) ↩︎
8. Koufogiannakis & Brettle (2016) ↩︎