A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Key Findings -- Priorities

Federally-funded library research projects between 1983 and 1997, library research projects funded by non-Federal organizations, and other "professionally rigorous" published studies for the period were tabulated and assigned to appropriate priorities from the 1980s reports. (See the chapter on Research Methodology for further information]). In most cases projects and studies were credited under more than one priority. The tabulation given in Matrices A and B yields the following distribution of studies by priority:

Table III: Distribution of Research by Priority

Figure 1

The table above, and even more clearly, the graph, demonstrates that:

• Some of the 1980s priorities were frequently met by the research studies; others were less frequently met. There were no indications that the priorities, as a group, affected the direction of research.

On the other hand,

• A comparison of "priorities" met by the surveyed library research shows a remarkable coincidence in the percentage of projects groupable under specific priorities between those projects funded by the Federal government and those privately funded, while there are quite different distributions for published research.

From this we can logically conclude first, that either non-Federal funding sources followed the lead of Federal funding agencies in the distribution of library research support across priorities, or, as is more likely, that neither the Federal funding agencies nor the non-Federal funders appropriated support for library research in accordance with the 1980s priorities. The most reasonable explanation for the coincidence in Federal and non-Federal funding patterns is that both are attributable to a common factor other than the 1980s priorities and that the factor in question is simply the dynamic of research in the field as perceived and supported by recognized researcher "leaders."

Funded research takes place in a complex arena of individual and institutional priorities, the sociology of research communities, and the dynamics of the formation of requests for proposals process, responses to those requests, and their evaluations. In the absence of external factors, those researchers most likely to be funded are among those most likely to participate in funding decisions -- unless, of course, their own proposals are under consideration -- formally, as participants in peer-review panels, or informally, as advisors to program officers. This self-reinforcing cycle is central to the operation of what Thomas Kuhn called "normal science," and operates with respect to publication, citation, conference participation, tenure decisions, etc., as well as with respect to funding decisions.

If policymakers wish to establish priorities for research, priorities that may differ from those of the field, if only by establishing an order of importance among various choices, the identification of those priorities is not in itself sufficient. They must be strongly incorporated into the language of requests for proposals and into the guidelines for the proposal review process.

One mechanism frequently used to effect a national research agenda is the establishment of research centers with distinct research plans. The national centers of the U. S. Department of Education are good examples of this strategy. There is presently no national center for library research, which may account, in part, for the unfocused nature of library research in respect to the 1980s research priorities.

[Background]

[Key Findings -- Funding]