期刊名称：Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
印刷版ISSN：1715-720X
电子版ISSN：1715-720X
出版年度：2010
卷号：5
期号：1
页码：48-63
DOI：10.18438/B8Z628
语种：English
出版社：University Of Alberta
摘要：Objective – The aim of this paper is to examine how virtual community of practice principles might be used by information professionals with emphasis on the work of the Specialist Libraries for health professionals in England, UK. An evaluation conducted in 2004-2005 examined the operation of the Specialist Libraries, which the National Library for Health had contracted out to various organisations, and assessed their stage of development as communities of practice. Methods – Evaluation methods included observation of a meeting of information specialists, interviews with clinical leads and information specialists, and evaluation of the content and format of the Specialist Library websites. The evaluation framework was based on a systematic review of the literature to determine the critical success factors for communities of practice and their role in supporting evidence based practice. An updated literature review was conducted for this paper. Results – Operational structures varied but were mostly effective in producing communities of practice that were at an “engaged” stage. Some Specialist Libraries wished to move towards the “active” stage by supporting online discussion forums, or by providing question and answering services or more learning activities and materials. Although the evidence from the literature suggests there are few clear criteria for judging the effectiveness of communities of practice, the evaluation framework used here was successful in identifying the state of progress and how information professionals might approach designing virtual communities of practice. Conclusions – Structuring library and information services around community of practice principles is effective. Careful and participative design of the information architecture is required for good support for evidence based practice.
关键词：health libraries; communities of practice; evidence-based practice; systematic review
