Research Priorities in
Social Welfare Library and
Information Work

T. D. Wilson

INTRODUCTION

Early in 1974 the Postgraduate School of Librarianship and Information Science at Sheffield University entered into discussions on research needs in the social sciences with the Office for Scientific and Technical Information. Out of these discussions emerged the suggestion that a research 'forum' should be held which would bring together practitioners in the field of social welfare as well as librarians, information officers, and research workers. This field was chosen for several reasons: because there was at the time a growing interest in the need for some study of practitioners, rather than academics and research workers, in the social sciences; because of the increasing number of local government information services which serve such practitioners; and because of the existence of the Aslib Working Group on Information Needs in Social Welfare, which had already brought together a number of people from different backgrounds with an interest in such problems. The Forum was held in Sheffield in June 1974 with a total of 34 participants, and this paper reports the results of a modified 'Delphi' study designed to provide these participants with background information on research priorities. (Note 1)

The Delphi technique (Reilly, 1973) is so named because it was originally employed as a method of forecasting and, in its full form, it employs a mail questionnaire survey which is analysed and returned to respondents for a second 'round' of responses. In the case of the study reported here, the second round was replaced by the reporting of results to the Forum participants in the expectation that these results would influence judgements on the priorities to be assigned to specific research areas during the course of the Forum. The Delphi method was chosen as a result of reading the results of a similar research exercise carried out in the field of library education (Borko, 1973)1 and the for™ of the questions and the rating scale used were strongly influenced by Borko's research (see Appendix). More importantly, however, the method reveals what research respondents feel to be desirable and differences can be identified among the various interest-groups. Subsequently, interaction between members of these groups can lead to a greater understanding of why different priorities are assigned.

The Delphi questionnaire listing possible research projects was sent to 81 individuals known or suspected to be interested in the aims of the Forum. Apart from Forum participants, recipients were selected as follows: (a) individuals who had expressed an interest in the Forum either through membership of the Aslib Working Group on Information Needs in Social Welfare or by writing to the organizers for further information; (b) members of the 'York Group': persons working in social welfare who have established an organization as a result of the conference organized in February 1974 at York by the National Institute for Social Work; (c) librarians and others who attended a workshop on social welfare information organized by Aslib in November 1972. Table 1 below shows how the questionnaires were distributed and the response rates:

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS

The questionnaire included questions on the respondents' field of work, qualifications, years of service and sex. Tables 2-4. below present the results of analysis. The average number of years of service of respondents was 3.7

BROAD AREAS OF RESEARCH

The first part of the questionnaire listed four broad areas of potential research which respondents were asked to place in rank order of importance. This part of the questionnaire was not particularly successful because it was almost impossible to identify clearly separate research areas. The responses reflect this: for example, the mean rank of the four items ranged from 2.08 to only 2.79, and this narrow range was repeated within different respondent groups. On mean rankings all respondents agreed on the third and fourth ranking items; they were:

But respondents disagreed on the first and second ranking items: taking all responses, item 4 was ranked first and item l ranked second: i.e.,

However, taking respondents with librarianship or information work qualifications only, this order is reversed.

These mean rank order rankings over-simplify the situation, however: if we use majority rankings the picture is rather different. Taking all respondents again, only three items were clearly ranked: item l ranked first, and items 2 and 4 ranked second. Item 3 was ranked first by 13 respondents, second by 13 respondents, third by 13 respondents and fourth by 9 respondents. Taking both approaches together, therefore, all we can suggest is that items l and 4 are probably of more importance, in the view of respondents, than items 2 and 3; but item 2 is regarded as second in importance by 39% of respondents and item 3 created the greatest divergence of opinion with 53% of respondents ranking it either first or second.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH TOPICS

Analysis of responses, converting scores to ranks, reveals a difference of opinion between librarians and social welfare workers. Item 6, which was ranked first by librarians, was ranked second by members of the York Group:

Item 2, ranked first by members of the York Group, was ranked fourth by librarians:

Items 4 and 3, ranked second and third by librarians, were ranked fifth and seventh by members of the York Group:

Items 8 and 7, ranked third and fourth by members of the York Group, were ranked sixth and fifth by librarians:

From this analysis it can be seen that social welfare workers, that is, those interested in communication problems, see citizens' information and the internal organization of information services in social services departments as being the important problems, whereas librarians appear to attach more importance to the effectiveness of existing information services and to user needs. Table 5 below shows the rankings (based on mean scores) assigned to all items by all respondents and the other categories employed:

Using all responses and taking the mean scores, the items can be organized as follows:

1. Of moderate to great importance: Items 2, 4 and 6.

2 Of moderate importance: Items 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

3 Of slight to moderate importance: Items l and 5.

MEAN SCORES AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Two of the characteristics reported in para. 2 above were chosen for further analysis: possession of librarianship qualifications, and sex. The mean score assigned to all items by librarians' was 66.5, that assigned by 'non-librarians' was 58.7 – this is a statistically significant difference, indicating that, overall, librarians tend to assign higher scores to items than do non-librarians. With their professional interest in the field this is hardly surprising. The analysis by sex revealed no statistically significant differences

CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Inter-correlations between scores of all items of all respondents were calculated in the expectation that this might reveal groups of items which tended to be scored in a similar way. Two groups were distinguished:

There were also some negative correlations in the set: of these, the only ones open to some sort of logical interpretation were that, when items 2 and j were scored high, items c) and io were scored low. This would seem to indicate a concern for finding out more about the information needs of potential client groups before taking action on matters such as a clearing house for information, or educational programmes for information workers.

CONCLUSION

The aim of this exercise was to provide Forum participants with some information on potential areas for research and possible priorities. The mail survey technique was used as the quickest way of obtaining a wide variety of views, and as capable of providing results which participants could discuss. As noted earlier, the results of the analysis of the questionnaire responses were presented to the Forum participants in the form of a "background paper" with the intention of replacing the second round of a typical Delphi study by direct interaction between participants from different fields. During the Forum, discussion was concerned with the identification of relevant research themes, and this included discussion on the priorities to be assigned to these themes both directly and indirectly, since the more significant themes tended to recur as topics of discussion in different discussion groups. At the end of the Forum there was general agreement that a group of studies concerned with the state-of-the-art of information services in social welfare should be given priority in any research funding. This group included case studies of social services departments, their channels of communication, the information-seeking behaviour of practitioners, and the dissemination of research results. This list corresponds closely to the themes given greatest priority in the first round of the investigation. In conclusion, the Delphi technique offers a means whereby the informed opinions of a wide range of individuals can be sought and compared to obtain a consensus of opinion on matters of public or professional concern. If the respondents, or at least a selection of respondents, can be brought together for subsequent discussions, it seems likely that a stronger consensus can be achieved, with the valuable by-product of mutual understanding of alternative points of view.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Any researcher owes a debt of gratitude to those anonymous individuals who become the statistics in his paper, and that is a debt which I gratefully acknowledge. I would also like to thank the British Library R. & D. Department for providing funds for the Forum and the background research and, in particular, two members of that Department who commented helpfully on the questionnaire, David Russon and Alan MacGregor. Several members of the Aslib Working Group on Information Needs in Social Welfare contributed helpfully to various aspects of the work, particularly Maurice Line on questionnaire design and Maureen Webley on potentially useful respondents.

NOTE

1.   Mann, M. G., and Wilson, T. D. Report of proceedings of the forum together with background papers...  Available from the Postgraduate School of Librarianship and Information Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, price £2.00. [Now, June 2001, out-of-print]

REFERENCES

Borko, H., ed. Targets for research in library education. Chicago: American Library Association, 1973

Reilly, K. D. "The Delphi technique: fundamentals and applications", in Borko, op. cit., 187-199

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE STUDY

Section A: Broad areas of potential research

Listed below are four broad areas of potential research in the field of social welfare library and information research. We would like your opinion on the rank order importance of these areas. Please circle the appropriate rank number for each item.

1. Research into the identification of groups of potential users of any kind of information agency (e.g., public library, Citizen's Advice Bureau, voluntary agency information service, social service department information service, etc.) in the field of social welfare, and into their information needs and information-seeking behaviour.

2. Research into sources of information (books, journals, reports, etc.) and information searching tools (abstracting and indexing services, etc.) in the field of social welfare. Including, for example, their geographical and linguistic distribution, inter-relationships, intended audiences, coverage, overlap, etc., and into the dissemination by these means of information from one area of activity (e.g., research) into another (e.g., practice of teaching).

3. Research into information agencies (libraries, information services, advice centres, etc.): their functions, effectiveness, inter-relationships (including the potential for cooperation), staffing (including education and training), internal organization, and methods of organizing and retrieving information.

4· Research into the services offered by information agencies: their scope, relation to intended user groups, inter-relationships (including the scope for cooperation), and effectiveness. Including the design, coverage and effectiveness of information bulletins and other current-awareness methods.

Section B: Specific potential research themes

Listed below are l0 themes on which research might be undertaken. Please give your opinion on the importance of each by making a '/' mark at the appropriate point on each scale. The points on the scale have the following significance, and a '/' mark is given to show how to indicate your judgement:

In the position shown, the '/' mark indicates a score of about 35.

The following are the research projects that have been proposed:

1. A study to determine the problems of the diffusion of relevant research findings into the teaching and practice of social work, and to assess alternative methods of improving the situation. For example, by:

• investigating the role of the social work teacher as an information transfer agent between the fields of research and practice; or
• determining the extent to which informal communication networks among different groups succeed in transferring information.

2. A study to investigate the problems of citizens' access to social welfare information and the roles of central and local government departments, public libraries, and the communications media in resolving these problems.

3. A series of in-depth interview surveys of the information needs of special groups of social workers (e.g. probation officers, medical social workers) and the relation of these needs to the local provision of information services.

4. A study (or series of studies) to assess the effectiveness of the existing social welfare information agencies (public libraries, social service department information services, etc.) in providing information. For example, by:

• studying the potential for setting up a network for the communication of information among agencies;
• studying the potential for local cooperation between information agencies in providing services to social workers;
• evaluating existing Social Service Department information services with a view to laying down guidelines for the establishment of such services.

5. Studies of the nature and scope of existing collections of social welfare information, their use and relationship to national collections. For example, by:

• evaluating the collections held by public libraries, assessing the use made of them and providing guidelines for the development of collections;
• carrying out "document delivery tests" to assess the ability of libraries to satisfy potential user demands and to explore the role of the BLL in supplementing local collections.

6. A study (or series of studies) on the best method (or mix of methods) of providing an information service to individual social workers and social administrators. For example, by setting up and evaluating experimental services based on:

• information officers located in Social Services Departments;
• information officers located in local public libraries; and
• nationally produced publications such as the DHSS's "Current literature on community health and person social services" circulated to individuals.

7. A study of the existing methods of disseminating information in social welfare organizations to determine the extent of overlap, and whether there are significant gaps, with a view to providing guidelines for national services and for the design of new information dissemination tools, e.g., new forms of information bulletins, and reviews of research.

8. A study of the optimum method of organizing information in social welfare organizations (including locally generated information such as statistics and case records). This would include the study of potential for the use of computers and the development of appropriate tools such as classification schemes.

9. The establishment on an experimental basis of a clearing house for social welfare information enquiries, publicizing its services, evaluating its success, and assessing the feasibility of a permanent service.

10. A study to identify education and training requirements for information workers in the social sciences and, in particular, in social welfare.

Thank you for your assistance. In order to help us with our analysis of this questionnaire we would be grateful if you would answer the following personal questions:

1. In what kind of organization do you work at present? For example: public library, Social Services Department, voluntary social welfare organization, etc.:

2. For how many years have you been employed in this organization?

3. Do you have any formal qualifications in librarianship or information science? If so, please state qualification.

4. What is your official title?

5. Are you male .................. or female ..................? Please tick.

This paper was originally published in Journal of Librarianship, 7(4), October 1975, 252-260

Web Counter