The most practical use of this model, however, is to point out some potential linkages between ‘‘applicability’’ and ‘‘constructivity’’ that also relate to recent work on ‘‘critical appraisal’’ and ‘‘applicability’’ by practitioners (Booth & Brice, 2004a, pp. 105–106). The theory functions model was de- veloped from data collected from theorists and their theoretical writings, as the purpose of the original study was to study the diffusion of theory among theorists. Notably, the model as it exists shows no direct link between the testing of theory and the application of theory. All connections appear to be mediated through the journal system studied.
This is entirely consistent with the observation that ‘‘two distinct and separate cultures exist – that researchers carry out their work without regard for practical value, and that practitioners have a deep resistance to reading research based on a perception that theory is unlikely to assist them with day-to-day decision making in their workplace. This is the view supported by the majority of commentators on the subject.’’ (Genoni, Haddow, &
Ritchie, 2004, p. 56). However, the model also shows that two of the main questions regarding ‘‘accessibility’’ are as oriented towards practitioners as they are towards theorists: ‘‘How easy is this theory to understand and utilize?’’ and ‘‘How else has this theory been communicated?’’ These two questions indicate that, ideally, the travels of theory should extend well beyond the boundaries of the journal system and into the communities of practice. It is recognized that practitioners, in fact, both read about research and do research. However, they don’t choose to use theory in the same way as do theorists, so their work is seldom published and valued in the same
way (Powell, Baker, & Mika, 2002). However, theories without applications and theories tested in a vacuum appear equally lacking as sources of ev- idence. The well-known ‘‘file drawer’’ problem of difficulty in publishing both the findings of apparently less significant results (Rosenthal, 1979) and replication studies also contribute to the inconclusiveness of much theory.
The issues of ‘‘doing research that is useful for theory and practice’’
(Lawler III, Mohrman, Mohrman, Ledford, & Cummings, 1985) and ‘‘the reciprocal transfer of learning from journals to practice’’ (Latham, 2001) are of long standing that have yet to be satisfactorily addressed in many fields.
For library and information science, however, a community of practice is coming into existence that is unusually well positioned and increasingly motivated to assist in bridging the gaps between the construction of theories, their testing, and their application. One of the primary differences between the tenure-track academic and the tenure-track librarian is the reward sys- tem for scholarly publication. An academic in a research-intensive institu- tion must publish in refereed scholarly journals, preferably prestigious ones, to achieve tenure; it is not mandatory for a librarian seeking tenure at the same institution to publish at the same level (Cubberley, 1996, pp. 13–14).
However, an increasing number of librarians, especially in academic li- braries, are being encouraged to enter the field with Ph.Ds in addition to the M.L.S. (Macauley, 2004). These tenure-track librarians are well prepared to publish in peer-reviewed scholarly journals or to present in a variety of public forums, and are presumably eager to do so. Although there has been little or no discussion in published advice for prospective tenure-track li- brarians as to the utility of testing or applying particular theories in practice as a possible subject for scholarly publication or presentation, such an end- eavor would clearly assist in bridging these ‘‘two cultures.’’ For example, one of the theories discussed above as part of the development of the the- ories function model is that of ‘‘organizational citizenship behavior.’’ An intriguingly ‘‘generative’’ use of that theory has been work on the so-called
‘‘customer citizenship behavior’’ that examines the voluntary helping be- haviors performed by customers in the retail environment, such as returning shopping carts or notifying employees of potential hazards in the aisles (Bettencourt, 1997). While there has been studies of organizational citizen- ship behaviors enacted by library employees, there has been no similar the- oretical extension into possible ‘‘library patron citizenship behaviors,’’
which would presumably be equally useful to both theory and practice.
Librarians without doctorates are also being encouraged to consume re- search findings more critically and creatively (Eldredge, 2004; Winning, 2004) and to employ evidence-based practices both for their own work BETSY VAN DER VEER MARTENS 44
(Clyde, 2004;Koufogiannis & Crumley, 2004) and for that of their clients (Booth, 2003; Booth & Brice, 2004a, b). Andrew Booth notes that, ‘‘it is important to preserve evidence-based practice as fundamentally prag- matic.yIts focus on everyday decision-making, as carried out by informa- tion practitioners, sees research as a tool to enlighten and inform practical decisions and policy.yA culture of evidence-based information practice is evidenced by both ‘well-informed practitioner behavior and well-informed research directions’’’ (Booth, 2003, p. 66). Relatedly, Bill Crowley notes that, ‘‘it is possible to use the LIS practitioner-generated literature as a point of entry for generating theory regarding the tacit knowledge of working professionals. However, such efforts should be guided by a superficially simple yet ultimately complex question: ‘What are the implications for practice?’’’ (Crowley, 1999, p. 288).
In his discussion of developing such communities of practice, Etienne Wenger urges the importance of what he terms ‘‘the duality of participation and reification’’ (Wenger, 1998, p. 63). This duality implies the necessity of the social negotiation of meaning around particular artifacts to develop communal practices. Further, he underscores the importance of the ‘bound- ary object’’ as an artifact (Star & Griesemer, 1989) around which commu- nities of practice may organize and the role of the ‘‘brokers’’ who connect elements of one practice into another (Wenger, 1998, p. 105). The role of citations as boundary objects has been discussed above. The potential par- ticipation of librarians as ‘‘brokers’’ or intermediaries between the commu- nity of scholarship and the community of practice may provide the other part of Wenger’s duality. He notes that ‘‘reificative connections’’ (such as citations) and ‘‘participative connections’’ (such as developing ‘‘critical ap- praisals,’’ ‘‘systematic reviews,’’ and ‘‘evidence-based librarianship’’) pro- vide distinct but complementary channels of communication. He points out also that as communities of practice ‘‘differentiate themselves and also in- terlock with each other, they constitute a complex social landscape of shared practices, boundaries, peripheries, overlaps, connections, and encounters’’
(Wenger, 1998, p. 118). It is not enough that librarians critically consume research and then apply it selectively and effectively: it is also important for the growth and development of theories as potential sources for and ex- planations of evidence that librarians contribute to the research culture by responding in the form of systematic reviews and published papers to the theorists’ claims. Wenger’s so-called ‘‘landscape of practice’’ could therefore provide a much-needed relief map to what is often barren theoretical terrain as well as providing more applicable and reliable theoretical direction to practice in return.
As the theory functions model continues to be revised and as both the journal system and the library environment continue to evolve, future ef- forts may well explore these potential changes in how theories diffuse.