Grid for thinking about personal impact (with exemplar scenarios) s
l A Limited reach, high significance
B High reach, l high significance
s l
Significance
D High reach, variable significance
l
C High reach, l limited significance
Reach
largely demonstrated through statisti- cal measurement but a more nuanced approach may be needed to address significance.
Candidates whose claims for Fellow- ship concentrate on their contribution to LIS scholarship are perhaps in the strongest position to prove their im- pact, as an array of publishing metrics is well established in academia and others are attracting growing attention. Many relate to citations and give some indication of reach. Generally, the higher the number of times one’s work is referenced, the greater – it is believed – must be one’s impact as an author. Various criticisms may be made of these measures, however. The most damning is that figures pertaining to an article, for example, may do little more than reflect the degree of scholarly activity in the area it covers. By no means all cita- tions will necessarily relate to instances where the references are favourable; there may be cases where the claims of the writer under scrutiny are challenged or dismissed outright.5
Moreover, even
where the citing authors have found the work of their predecessor helpful, no insight into significance or even simply the contexts in which it was relevant to them can be gleaned from bare figures.
Diverse and qualitative cases These shortcomings point to the need for a more qualitative line that involves the use of case studies which, in their
January-February 2022
totality, may reveal how the candidate’s work on different subjects has been applied in different settings, in different ways and within different forms of material. Although, in referring to individual sources, the candidate’s principal aim may well be to stress the significance of their work, diversity in the nature of the citing doc- uments may convey a measure of reach, too. Ideally, for Fellowship purposes, to emphasise how far the reach of their work extends, the individual should draw atten- tion to at least some citing material that falls outside their own sector. This may sound too ambitious an aim but it should not be dismissed out of hand. Information – and certain information issues – are so pervasive that their effects are felt in areas far beyond those with which the author is directly involved and, where a professional has written about a general research method or suggested principles underpinning effective investigation more broadly, such pieces may attract widespread interest. If, however, the candidate attempts a qualitative analysis of instances in which their work has been cited, much depends on the most valuable sources being avail- able to the individual so that they can be seen personally. The candidate may be keen to maintain a combined qualitative/ quantitative strategy in areas beyond their publications. Favourable figures relating to, say, user surveys may be comple- mented with encouraging letters or other messages of appreciation from patrons or library managers.
A tool for thinking
Readers may find it helpful to see their own impact in terms of a set of positions on a grid, where reach is represented along the horizontal axis and significance the vertical. The two concepts are often discussed in concert but rarely are they united graphically in the manner shown in the grid. Here, four exemplar scenarios are indicated:
A. Material by the candidate has been ref- erenced only once but its use in the citing paper is fundamental to the issue(s) under discussion. The author may, for example, repeat the original writer’s research in a new context, adopt an outcome from the individual’s work as a focus for their own or explicitly seek to build on the efforts of the predecessor.6
B. Material by the candidate has been ref- erenced many times and on each occasion it is pivotal to the areas being addressed. This constitutes the ideal situation.
C. Material by the candidate has been ref- erenced many times but there are no in- stances in which it is especially important. For example, each time, it may be only one of dozens of documents mentioned perfunctorily in a literature review.
D. Material by the candidate has been ref- erenced many times but the degree of use made differs from one case to another.
Taking reach and significance further Most information professionals do not write papers for academic journals and those who
INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 37
s
s
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
