Of the 11 gaps that the authors identified in communication between research and practice in librarianship, I feel the Publication Gap most acutely. Very often the first thing I do when I want to answer a question in my field is to see how it may have already been answered in the literature. More often than not I don’t find the answer, or I end up wading through a sea of weak literature only to give up in frustration.
“Publication gap. The body of LIS research papers is small both in itself and as a proportion of the published literature (Feehan, Gragg, Havener, & Kester, 1987; Nour, 1985; Peritz, 1980). To some writers, the emphasis on pragmatic issues (Goodall, 1998; Montanelli & Mak, 1998, Rayward, 1983; Saracevic & Perk, 1973; Williamson, 1999) and the low proportion of practitioner authors relative to the number of practitioners in the field (Enger, Quirk, & Stewart, 1988; Fisher, 1999; Mularski, 1991; Olsgaard & Olsgaard, 1980; Stephenson, 1990; Swigger, 1985) are evidence that the relationship between research and practice is troubled and requiring attention.” (p. 32) [emphasis mine]
Haddow, G., & Klobas, J. E. (2004). Communication of research to practice in library and information science: Closing the gap. Library & Information Science Research, 26(1), 29-43. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2003.11.010
