Review Article

Twenty Years of Business Information Literacy Research: A Scoping Review

Meggan A. Houlihan

College Liaisons Coordinator for Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts, and Business

Morgan Library

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America

Email: meggan.houlihan@colostate.edu

Amanda B. Click

Head of Research & Instruction

Nimitz Library

United States Naval Academy

Annapolis, Maryland, United States of America

Email: click@usna.edu

Claire Walker Wiley

Research & Instruction Librarian

Lila D. Bunch Library

Belmont University

Nashville, Tennessee, United States of America

Email: claire.wiley@belmont.edu

Received: 27 Feb. 2019 Accepted: 17 Aug. 2020

2020 Houlihan, Click, and Wiley. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the same or similar license to this one.

DOI: 10.18438/eblip29745

Abstract

Objective – This study analyzes and synthesizes the business information literacy (BIL) literature, with a focus on trends in publication type, study design, research topic, and recommendations for practice.

Methods – The scoping review method was used to build a dataset of 135 journal articles and conference papers. The following databases were searched for relevant literature published between 2000 and 2019: Library and Information Science Source, Science Direct, ProQuest Central, Project Muse, and the Ticker journal site. Included items were published in peer reviewed journals or conference proceedings and focused on academic libraries. Items about public or school libraries were excluded, as were items published in trade publications. A cited reference search was conducted for each publication in the review dataset.

Results – Surveys were, by far, the most common research method in the BIL literature. Themes related to collaboration were prevalent, and a large number of publications had multiple authors or were about collaborative efforts to teach BIL. Many of the recommendations for practice from the literature were related to collaboration as well; recommendations related to teaching methods and strategies were also common. Adoption of the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education in BIL appears slow, and the citations have decreased steadily since 2016. The majority of the most impactful BIL articles, as measured by citation counts, presented original research.

Conclusions – This study synthesizes two decades of literature and contributes to the evidence based library and information science literature. The findings of this scoping review illustrate the importance of collaboration, interest in teaching methods and strategies, appreciation for practical application literature, and hesitation about the Framework.

Introduction

Business librarians face unique challenges in the classroom. From faculty partner expectations to the diverse research skills required, this group must think creatively in order to achieve learning outcomes and demonstrate the value of information literacy (IL) on their campuses. This study, which is focused on the intersection of information literacy and the discipline of business, is important because business is the most popular undergraduate degree in the U.S. and has been for decades (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Business librarians can have a great impact on this large group of students with innovative and effective approaches to information literacy. This study uses the scoping review method in order to explore innovations and approaches to information literacy in business.

Two foundational documents from the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) have guided information literacy practice over the last 20 years: The Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (2000) and the Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education (2015). The Standards and Framework are built on the same principles, but the theory behind them and the implications for practice are quite different. The Standards include information literacy competencies and performance indicators, while the Framework includes knowledge practices and dispositions that can be harder to assess. The definition of information literacy has also evolved, and this change is reflected in the Framework document. This shift reflects a change in thinking in library and information science, but it has been met with some resistance. Survey results published in 2005 and 2018 demonstrate that business librarians have struggled with integrating them into their teaching practice for a number of reasons. In Cooney’s (2005) survey of business librarians, only a third of survey respondents reported incorporating the Standards into their instruction, and assessments of student learning in this area were rarely conducted. Cooney also discovered that business information literacy (BIL) instruction was still developing and that there was great room for improvement in collaboration between librarians and business faculty. Guth and Sachs (2018) recreated Cooney’s survey by exploring implementation of both the Standards and the newer Framework and discovered several interesting points of comparison with the 2005 responses. Most notably, both the average number of information literacy sessions taught annually and the number of librarians with business as part of their job title decreased. Responses showed an increase in the use of online tutorials for BIL efforts. Guth and Sachs also found that more than half (58%) of their survey respondents had incorporated or were in the process of incorporating the Standards in 2015, which is a notable increase from Cooney’s survey in 2005. However, 39% of the 2015 respondents had incorporated the Framework into their IL efforts.

These surveys provide valuable information on how business librarians are approaching information literacy, but these responses also prompt additional questions that may be answered through a scoping review of the literature. Examining the evidence available in the literature can provide deeper insight into these topics and serve as complementary evidence to inform the future direction of BIL.

Aims

This study utilizes the scoping review method in order to explore the following research question: How can the business information literacy literature be characterized regarding publication type, study design, findings, impact, and recommendations for practice? This scoping review aims to add to the evidence based literature in library and information science (LIS), report on the current state of BIL, and provide business librarians with insight that can be used to improve future information literacy efforts.

Methods

Scoping reviews are best used when the researcher wants to examine the nature of research activity in a particular field, summarize and disseminate findings, or identify gaps in the literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Thus far, this method is not common in the LIS discipline, aside from the health and medical librarianship subfield. It has, however, been used to explore mentoring programs for academic librarians (Lorenzetti & Powelson, 2015), implementation of Web 2.0 services (Gardois, Colombi, Grillo, & Villanacci, 2012), individualized research consultations (Fournier & Sikora, 2015), researchers’ use of social network sites (Kjellberg, Haider, & Sundin, 2016), and generational differences in library leadership (Heyns, Eldermire, & Howard, 2019).

This method aims to “map the literature on a particular topic or research area and provide an opportunity to identify key concepts; gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research” (Daudt, van Mossel, & Scott, 2013, p. 8). They differ from systematic reviews in a number of ways. Scoping reviews may be designed around broader research questions. Research quality may not be an initial priority. These studies may or may not include data extraction, and synthesis tends to be more qualitative (Brien, Lorenzetti, Lewis, Kennedy, & Ghali, 2010). Arksey and O’Malley (2005) identify the following stages in their scoping study framework:

1. Identify the research question(s)
2. Identify relevant studies
3. Select the studies
4. Chart the data
5. Collate, summarize, and report the results

The following sections describe each of these scoping review steps in the context of this study as well as an additional step we took in completing the review.

Identify the Research Question

This study was designed to analyze the BIL literature in order to identify trends in authorship, method, theory, research topic, findings, impact, and recommendations for practice.

Identify Relevant Studies

In order to identify the databases to be searched, we used a list of the top 25 LIS journals (Nisonger & Davis, 2005) and added two business librarianship-specific titles: Journal of Business and Finance Librarianship and Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review. We then identified the databases in which these 27 journals are indexed and conducted systematic searches. We searched the following databases for relevant literature published between January 2000 and December 2019: Library and Information Science Source, Science Direct, ProQuest Central, Project Muse, and the Ticker journal site. We searched for articles with “information literacy” and business or economics in the following fields: title, abstract, subject terms, and author-supplied keywords. We utilized database thesauri, when possible, as well as keyword searching.

Select the Studies

Items were included in the review if they were published in peer reviewed journals or conference proceedings and focused on academic libraries. Items about public or school libraries were excluded, as were items published in trade publications.

The LIS literature tends to include a great deal of articles that simply describe practice. For example, the publication might describe a teaching method, newly developed learning object, or outreach effort. This type of literature, which we have classified as “practical applications,” may inform the practice of other librarians and thus was included in the scoping review. The goal of the study was to identify publication trends not to exclude non-rigorous work.

Chart the Data

The publication dataset was divided into three sections, and two of the three researchers coded each third. Coding disagreements were settled by the third researcher. Each publication was coded for publication title and type, document type, authorship and collaboration, study population, research methods, theories and models, topics, key findings, and recommendations. The dataset was stored in a spreadsheet that included document citations and fields for every item in Table 1, with the exception of key findings and recommendations. Qualitative data analysis software NVivo version 12 was used to code the publications, including key finding and recommendation text. Some codes were selected prior to coding, but others emerged from the data throughout the coding process. The same 30 codes were used for topic, key findings, and recommendations, a list of which can be found in Appendix A.

Models and theories were coded for each publication only if they informed the study design or interpretation of the findings. Merely mentioning a theory or model in a literature review without specific application was not enough to warrant coding. Thirty research topics were used to code every publication, and each publication was assigned up to three topic codes.

Collate and Summarize the Results

The dataset was analyzed to identify trends in topics, research populations, methods, and more. Findings and recommendations that could inform the BIL instruction practice of academic librarians were of particular interest.

Table 1

Publication Feature Types and Items

Feature Type	Item
Publication	Category (e.g., journal article, conference paper)
	Date of publication
	Research classification (e.g., original research, literature review)
Study Design	Theory or model (e.g., grounded theory, technology acceptance model)
	Methods (e.g., interviews, surveys)
	Population (e.g., undergraduate business students, librarians)
Content	Topics (e.g., assessment, information-seeking behavior, workplace information literacy)
	Key findings
	Recommendations

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for BIL scoping review.

Cited Reference Search

In order to explore the impact of the publications included in the scoping review, we conducted a cited reference search. We searched for each publication in Google Scholar and recorded the number of times each had been cited. Note that this part was an addition to the study design and not a step in the scoping review method.

Results

The original searches outlined in the methods identified more than 1,200 articles, but after removing duplicates and out-of-scope articles, the final dataset included 135 publications. These 135 publications met the criteria for inclusion and were further analyzed. Figure 1 provides more detail on the publication selection process in the form of a PRISMA Flow Diagram. See Appendix B for the list of all included publications.

Publication Categories

Of these 135 included publications, 132 (98%) were published in peer reviewed journals. Although, it is important to note that not all of these articles presented original research, despite their peer reviewed status. Forty-two different journal titles and two conference proceedings were represented. Only four journals published five or more articles that met the study criteria, including The Journal of Academic Librarianship (5 articles), Journal of Information Literacy (8 articles), Reference Services Review (15 articles), and Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship (49 articles). Three papers published in conference proceedings met the study criteria and were included. Two papers were published in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences and one in Qualitative & Quantitative Research Methods in Libraries. A list of all titles can be found in Appendix C.

Date of Publication

As demonstrated in Figure 2, there has been a continued but irregular growth in the number of BIL publications per year between January 2000 and December 2019. The average number of publications per year is 6.75, and publications on the topic peaked in 2012 and 2016, with fifteen publications each year.

Research Classification

Of the 135 publications included in the study, 85 were identified as research articles (63%), 37 as “practical applications” publications (27%), nine as think pieces (7%), and four literature reviews (3%). Any publication with a methods section was considered to be original research, although exceptions were made for non-U.S. publications that used alternative research paper terminology or format. If a methods section was clearly present but not labeled as such, it was included in the dataset. “Practical applications” publications typically described a successful lesson plan, collaboration, or learning activity implemented by a library. Think pieces are publications that usually include an extensive review of the literature but also the author’s analysis of or opinion on the topic. Figure 3 shows the number of each document type published by year.

Study Population

Publications were coded for study population if appropriate, including populations like undergraduate business students and business faculty. Populations were identified in three publication types: original research, practical applications, and think pieces. For example, a practical applications publication might describe a new BIL initiative that focused specifically on MBA students, and so it would be coded with a population even though it was not a research study. Sixty-one percent of the publications in the dataset studied undergraduate business students. Some specified subgroups, such as first-year business students (14 publications), undergraduate marketing students (six publications), and undergraduate management students (six publications). Twenty-six articles focused on master’s level graduate business students, and 15 of these 26 studied MBA students specifically. Of the 85 original research articles, 68% studied undergraduate business students and 20% studied graduate business students. The most common populations are listed in Table 2. All population types outside of these four (e.g., corporate librarians, PhD business students) appeared fewer than five times.

Figure 2

BIL publications per year, 2000–2019.

Figure 3

Document type by year, 2000–2019.

Table 2

Study Populations with Total Number and Percentages of Appearances

Study Populations	Total Number of Publications	Percentage of Publications
Undergraduate business students	83	61%
Graduate business students (master’s level)	26	19%
Business faculty	8	6%
Business librarians	5	4%

Authorship

A total of 263 authors from various disciplines and positions are represented in the study. Author position (e.g., business librarian, LIS faculty) was not always clear. Authors were only coded when positions were specified in the article or in the database record, resulting in some authors being coded as unknown. Fifty-two publications were published by a single author, and 83 publications were collaboratively authored. The most common type of collaboration involved librarian co-authorships (26) followed by at least one librarian and one business faculty member (25). Interestingly, seven publications were authored solely by business faculty collaborations that did not include librarians. There was a steady increase in co-authored publications between 2000 and 2019 (see Figure 4).

Research Methods

Eighty-five publications used a research method to gather information related to BIL. Within this dataset, eight unique research methods were applied. Surveys were by far the most common method, used in 72% of the original research publications. Many studies used multiple types of surveys, and in fact there were five different survey types: IL self-assessment, pre- and posttest, IL skills assessment, feedback, and other. Distinctions between the categories were as follows: IL self-assessment surveys gauged student perceptions of their individual IL skill levels (e.g., How comfortable are you identifying peer reviewed sources?). Pre- and posttest surveys were distributed both before and after an instruction session or IL intervention. IL skills surveys focused on assessing IL skill level (e.g., Please identify the Boolean operators in the following search statement.). Feedback surveys requested input on a learning object or activity such as a research guide or lesson plan. The other survey category covered any survey that did not fit into those listed above. See Figure 5 for more detail about the multiple types of surveys. Additional methods included content analysis, interviews, case studies, and focus groups. Nineteen publications utilized more than one research method, and 66 publications relied on one method only. The most popular research methods and the frequency of each can be found in Table 3; all other methods appeared fewer than five times.

Figure 4

Number of publications with multiple authors by year, 2000–2019.

Table 3

Most Popular Research Methods with Number and Percentage of Publications in Which They Appeared

Research Method	Total Number of Publications	Percentage of Publications
Survey	61	72%
Content analysis	17	13%
Interviews	12	10%
Case study	10	7%

Figure 5

Percentages of surveys by type.

Applied Theories and Models

Only 15 of the 135 (11%) publications indicated use of a theory or model in informing their study design, and seven of those publications used more than one. Only three models or theories appeared more than once, Bloom’s taxonomy (Jefferson, 2017; Nentl & Zietlow, 2008), adult learning theory (An & Quail, 2018; Quinn & Leligdon, 2014), and the Seven Pillars of Information Literacy (McKinney & Sen, 2012; Webber & Johnson, 2000).

Research Topics

The top six codes applied were collaboration

and faculty partnerships, teaching methods and strategies, assessment, IL skills, information-seeking behavior, and online tutorials. The top ten topics can be seen in Table 4. All other codes appeared nine or fewer times. See Appendix A for the topics codebook.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Key findings were coded for original research articles. The top five key findings were related to IL skills, instruction impact, student perceptions, information-seeking behavior, and online resources. The top ten key findings topics can be seen in Table 5. Some publications warranted the use of multiple codes related to the same idea. For example, “instruction impact” was used in conjunction with an additional code such as “evaluation of information” in order to reflect that 1) learning was self-reported and 2) learning was related to information evaluation. In a 2012 article, Finley and Waymire found that students self-reported an increased comfort level with “evaluating the credibility, accuracy, and validity of sources” (p. 34) after receiving IL instruction. Regarding the nesting of codes, evaluation of information is an IL skill and thus might be considered part of that topic. However, publications are often focused on this specific skill, more so than other IL skills. Evaluation of information clearly emerged from the data as its own code.

Fewer than half of the publications offered specific recommendations. The recommendations that did appear were most frequently related to collaboration/faculty partnerships, teaching methods/strategies, and assessment.

Table 4

Most Popular Research Topics with Number and Percentage of Publications in Which They Appeared

Research Topic	Number of Publications	Percentage of Publications
Collaboration and faculty partnerships	47	35%
Teaching methods and strategies	46	34%
Assessment	42	31%
IL Skills	20	15%
Information-seeking behavior	15	11%
Online tutorials	15	11%
One-shot sessions	14	10%
Instruction impact	13	10%
Student perceptions	12	9%
Workplace IL	12	9%

Cited IL Standards and Frameworks

This body of literature cited a variety of IL standards and frameworks, including the Australia and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework (ANZIL), Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AASCB) Accreditation Standards, Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) Seven Pillars of Information Literacy, Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education, ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, and BRASS’s Business Research Competencies. Overall, the following standards were cited most often: ACRL Standards (59 references), AASCB Standards (24 references), and ACRL Framework (16 references). Figure 6 illustrates the number of citations per year for each of these. Twenty-five publications cited more than one standard or framework. The Business Research Competencies developed by BRASS, the Business Reference and Services Section within RUSA (Reference & User Services Association), were cited only twice.

Cited Reference Search

In order to better understand the impact of the BIL literature, a cited reference search was conducted in Google Scholar for all 135 publications. Table 6 lists the top ten most highly cited publications from the dataset. There are, of course, numerous ways to measure the impact of a publication, but for the purposes of this study citations were chosen to illustrate the impact snapshot. In addition, it is important to note that some of the publications in the dataset were published recently and thus have not yet been cited frequently.

Table 5

Most Popular Key Findings Topics with Number and Percentage of Publications in Which They Appeared, Examples from the Publications, and Topic Definitions

Key Finding Topics and Definitions	Number of Publications	Percentage of Publications	Example From Publications
IL skills: Assessment or perception of the ability to evaluate, locate, or use information ethically	28	21%	“Generally speaking, librarians, library administrators, and faculty believe that students are lacking the necessary information literacy skills. This stands in contrast to the perceptions of many students, who tend to see their skills as well developed or adequate for completing school assignments” (Detlor, Julien, Willson, Serenko, & Lavallee, 2011, p. 583).
Instruction impact: Participant self-reported change in learning or understanding due to IL instruction or learning object	23	17%	“Based on the quiz performance, it seems that the instructional videos did prepare students for the library instruction session by teaching basic business research concepts” (Camacho, 2018, p. 33).
Student perceptions: Participant self-reported learning or understanding of the library, librarian, or resources	16	12%	“The feedback…indicated that this group of first year [business] students were comfortable with the prospect of undertaking library research and expected to be able to meet course research expectations” (Matesic & Adams, 2008, p. 7).
Evaluation of information: Assessment of or self-reported information evaluation skills and/or behaviors	13	10%	“Prior studies have suggested that some employees do not always evaluate information . . . but this study found that 82% of all jobs mentioned evaluation skills” (Gilbert, 2017, p. 127).
Information-seeking behavior: Behaviors related to finding needed information in- and outside of the library setting	13	10%	“The results also confirmed the authors’ suspicions that students largely rely on web-based search engines, like Google, to conduct their research” (Bryant & Hooper, 2017, p. 411).
Online resources: Feedback on or reported use of online resources such as a database, website, or research guide	12	9%	“Research analysis found a range of attitudes toward the use of Wikipedia in higher education, with all interviewees expressing a level of caution regarding its use” (Bayliss, 2013, p. 49).
Workplace IL: Needed or used IL skills in the workplace setting	12	9%	“The university students who performed better on a commercial assessment of information literacy produced better emails, memos, and technical reports as reflected in their grade in a business communications course” (Katz, Haras, & Blaszczynski, 2010, p. 146).
Assessment: Measured student learning through a pre- and posttest or similar method	12	9%	“Across all four categories of knowledge including library usage experience, post-instruction session averages are significantly higher than pre-instruction session” (Gong & Loomis, 2009).
Collaboration, and faculty partnerships: Identified collaboration within the library or institution in IL efforts	10	7%	“We found that successfully implementing the integration of IL skills into the business curriculum was contingent upon the level of continuous institutional support and faculty commitment to the process” (Rodríguez, Cádiz, & Penkova, 2018, p. 127).
Teaching methods and strategies: Reported use of a specific teaching method or strategy used for IL efforts	9	7%	“This study confirms the findings from the library science literature that a research guide is effective when targeted to a class as a course page and there is concurrent instruction on how to use the page by the librarian” (Leighton & May, 2013, p. 135).

Figure 6

Number of publications citing the ACRL Standards, ACRL Framework, and AACSB Standards by year, 2000–2019.

Table 6

Ten Most Highly Cited Publications in this Study with Citation Count

Number of Times Cited in Google Scholar	Full Citation
490	Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295
482	Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150002600602
203	Williams, J., & Chinn, S. J. (2009). Using Web 2.0 to support the active learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 165–174. Available at http://jise.org/volume20/n2/JISEv20n2p165.html
159	O’Sullivan, C. (2002). Is information literacy relevant in the real world? Reference Services Review, 30(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210416492
100	Fiegen, A. M., Cherry, B., & Watson, K. (2002). Reflections on collaboration: Learning outcomes and information literacy assessment in the business curriculum. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210451295
91	Donaldson, K. A. (2000). Library research success: Designing an online tutorial to teach information literacy skills to first-year students. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00025-7
87	Lombardo, S. V., & Miree, C. E. (2003). Caught in the web: The impact of library instruction on business students' perceptions and use of print and online resources. College & Research Libraries, 64(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.1.6
81	Detlor, B., Julien, H., Willson, R., Serenko, A., & Lavallee, M. (2011). Learning outcomes of information literacy instruction at business schools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21474
76	Cooney, M., & Hiris, L. (2003). Integrating information literacy and its assessment into a graduate business course: A collaborative framework. Research Strategies, 19(3–4), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2004.11.002
75	Klusek, L., & Bornstein, J. (2006). Information literacy skills for business careers: Matching skills to the workplace. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 11(4), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v11n04_02

Discussion

Competing IL Standards and Frameworks

Citation of the Standards in BIL peaked in 2012, more than a decade after they were adopted (see Figure 6). Adoption of the Framework seems slow, and the citations have actually decreased steadily since 2016. This is potentially due to unfamiliarity with the document, which was finalized just four years ago, coupled with the lengthy scholarly publishing process. However, there may well be a spike in usage as more business librarians become knowledgeable about and comfortable with it. ACRL has made a concerted effort to educate librarians on the Framework and promote its use in the information literacy instruction classroom. The ACRL publication Disciplinary Applications of Information Literacy Threshold Concepts (Godbey, Wainscott, & Goodman, 2017) shared 25 examples of ways that subject librarians have successfully incorporated the Framework into class content, and the book includes one example from business-related disciplines. The widely popular ACRL Sandbox, which is an open access repository where librarians can share lesson plans and activities that incorporate the Framework, had 25 out of almost 225 lesson plans focused on business or economics at the time of this writing (ACRL, 2020).

The AACSB Standards were cited far less often than the Standards but more often than the Framework. While these Standards do not specifically use the phrase “information literacy,” McInnis Bowers et al. (2009) point out that “four of the six curricular standards for quality management education put forth by AACSB International were closely tied to information-literacy skills, namely, communication abilities, ethical understanding and reasoning abilities, analytical skills, and use of information technology” (p. 113). More than three-fourths of the articles that cited the AACSB Standards also cited the ALA Standards.

Figure 7

Original research and practical application publications by year, 2000–2019.

Study Design

Research or Practice?

In the BIL literature, original research and practical applications are the two most common publication types. Both original research and practical application publications generally increased in frequency between 2000 and 2019—although original research increased more. Figure 7 shows a trend in the BIL literature, beginning in 2010, in which original research was published more commonly than practical application publications Practical applications publications are common in the overall LIS literature, and the BIL subset is no exception. These types of publications have been criticized for not being generalizable or rigorous (Wilson, 2013, 2016). Potential explanations for this trend in LIS have been explored, and a main reason for this is the lack of formalized support for librarians to conduct their own research. Babb summarizes the issue in this way: “Research carried out by librarians was considered important for the profession, while often simultaneously considered extraneous to the individual jobs of librarians” (Babb, 2017, p. ii). Wilson (2016) notes that this issue is not unique to LIS, and that all disciplines have a range of quality that appears in the literature. She recommends these six strategies or areas for improvement in LIS research: confidence, collaboration, mentorship, education, recognizing that practice makes better, and developing specific research needs for specific areas of librarianship. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the practical applications publications are highly valued and used by librarians because they are, in fact, practitioners.

Use of the Survey Method

The survey method is clearly popular with LIS practitioners and researchers. The prevalence of the survey method is not surprising. A 2004 content analysis of “librarianship research” (Koufogiannakis, Slater, & Crumley, 2004) and a 2018 systematic review of LIS research (Ullah & Ameen, 2018) both found the questionnaire/survey to be the most common method. Of the studies that used the survey method, many used multiple types of surveys. For example, Camacho (2018) reported on a project in which librarians and business faculty collaborated on the development of instructional videos for a flipped classroom. The first survey tested the IL skills of the students who had watched the video (e.g., “Why are peer-reviewed articles considered authoritative?”) (p. 30). A second follow-up survey collected feedback on the new instructional videos (e.g., “What suggestions do you have for improving the videos in the future?”) (p. 33).

It seems that the survey method is often used to demonstrate impact and effectiveness in the classroom. Half of the 62 survey method publications had assessment as a topic, and many shared key findings related to instruction impact (29 publications), IL skills (26 publications), and student perceptions (24 publications). Atwong and Heichman Taylor (2008), for example, developed a survey “to measure students' self-reported knowledge before and after a training module developed and conducted by librarian and faculty” in order to demonstrate instruction impact (p. 433). Detlor et al. (2011) used the standardized IL testing instrument SAILS, in conjunction with interviews, to study undergraduate business students. Findings from this paper indicated that students were skilled at evaluating sources but struggled with search skills.

Researchers most often used IL self-assessment surveys and pre- and posttests to study undergraduate business students, and IL self-assessment surveys and IL skills surveys to study graduate business students. Note that pre- and posttests and IL skills surveys may ask the same types of questions (e.g., Which words in the following list are Boolean operators?), but the IL skills survey is given just one time and the pre- and posttest is given before and after some sort of IL intervention, such as a tutorial or one-shot session. For example, a business librarian and a communications librarian collaborated to develop new IL instruction for undergraduate business students taking a public speaking course. Pre- and posttest surveys using Likert-scale responses measured the effectiveness of the IL sessions. Participants responded to statements such as “I feel comfortable accessing business-related information through the library” (Nielsen & Jetton, 2014, p. 347). In this case, the survey was both a pre- and posttest and also an IL self-assessment. Cooney and Hiris (2003) developed an Information Literacy Inventory, a survey instrument that combined IL skills (e.g., “Information posted on the Internet is available for fair use and is not covered by copyright restrictions. True or false?”) and IL self-assessment questions (e.g., “How would you rate your comfort level in conducting the research for the term paper required in this course?”) (p. 226, 227). The authors surveyed graduate business students taking a course on international financial markets and used the findings to develop BIL instruction for the MBA program.

Focus on Undergraduate Business Students

The BIL literature is generally focused on improving instruction practice. Business librarians tend to spend much of their teaching time with undergraduate students. In a 2019 survey, 90% of business librarian respondents reported teaching undergraduate students, and 54% reporting teaching graduate students (Houlihan, Wiley & Click, 2019). Thus, it is not surprising that undergraduate business students made up the study population in more than half of the publications in this dataset. Stonebraker & Fundator (2016) conducted a longitudinal study of undergraduate management students, using a pre- and posttest that “measured students’ knowledge of business resources, as well as students’ ability to recognize when different types of information are needed to answer specific business questions” (p. 440). In a departure from the heavy use of surveys in the BIL literature, Bauer (2018) used journaling, an ethnographic method. Upper-level business undergraduate students kept journals about their research processes as they completed semester-long projects. Findings showed that participants often struggled in the early stages of the research process, were concerned with the credibility of information, and understood that web searching alone was not sufficient for their assignments (Bauer, 2018, p. 6).

Authorship and Collaboration

Collaboration was a very common topic in the BIL literature; 41% of the practical application and 31% of the original research publications were about collaboration or faculty partnerships. The most common types of author collaboration in this dataset were between two librarians or between a librarian and a business professor. Librarian collaborators were more likely to publish practical application papers. Original research publications were more likely to be authored by a librarian and business faculty. These findings support Wilson’s (2016) recommendation, noted previously in the “Research or Practice?” section, that collaboration is an important strategy in improving the quality of LIS research. Librarian’s collaborative efforts tended to focus on teaching methods and strategies, which may explain why practical application publications are more common with this population. For example, librarians Detmering and Johnson (2011) describe the revision of BIL instruction for an introductory course, “highlighting the importance of thinking critically throughout the information-seeking process” (p. 105) instead of demonstrating library tools. Papers authored by librarian and business professor teams were, not surprisingly, often about collaboration and faculty partnerships. Many of these publications focused on assessment efforts as well. In one case, a business librarian and an accounting professor collaborated to design a research assignment for a class on government and nonprofit accounting (Finley & Waymire, 2012). They assessed student IL skills by analyzing the bibliographies of the first draft and final version of student papers. This article is notable because it described one of the few librarian/business faculty collaborations in which the librarian participated in the grading process.

Interdisciplinary collaboration on research has many benefits. Scholars can experience personal growth as they learn to approach research from a different perspective. They have the opportunity to learn about different methods, models, and theories. This type of work can be especially rewarding for business liaison librarians as they forge deeper connections with the faculty they work with and learn more about the business research landscape. In a recent study, Tran and Chan (in press) found that librarians are motivated to seek research collaborators for a number of reasons, including accessing needed expertise, seeking a sounding board, and sharing the research workload. Respondents indicated that seeking collaborators in the workplace is a preferred strategy. These findings all support the idea that business librarians can benefit from collaborating with business faculty—and vice versa.

Impact

A cited reference search was conducted in Google Scholar to identify the most impactful publications as illustrated in Table 6. Seven of the top ten publications were published between 2000 and 2003, which is to be expected; the longer a publication has been out, the more opportunity it has to be cited by other scholars. Interestingly, five of the top ten publications were written by authors outside of the United States, including the top two. Six of the most highly cited publications present original research.

It is also interesting to note that three of these publications appear in journals outside the LIS field (Studies in Higher Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, and The Internet and Higher Education). More than one-third of the publications in the 135 paper dataset were published in the Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, but only one of the top 10 most highly cited articles was published here. According to Google Scholar’s LIS journal rankings, three of the journals represented here are considered top publications in the field: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), Journal of Information Science (JIS), and College & Research Libraries (C&RL). In the complete dataset of 135 articles, these journals appear eight times total: three articles in JASIST, three in C&RL, and two in JIS. All eight were published more than five years ago, with the exception of one C&RL paper published in 2018.

Recommendations for Practice

While all of the publications shared findings or described experiences, many did not provide specific recommendations for practice. Of those that did, however, these recommendations most commonly fell under one of the following categories: teaching methods and strategies, collaboration, or assessment.

Teaching methods and strategies recommendations focused on the flipped classroom, problem-based learning, and the use of business models and concepts in IL. Cohen (2016) calls the flipped-instruction model a “catalyst for collaboration” and recommends bringing “disciplinary faculty ‘on board’ with homework assignments, in-class activities, assessment” and supporting technologies (p. 20). Fiegen (2011), who reviewed 30 years of BIL literature, advises librarians to adopt “a regular practice of preassignments” (p. 287). Problem-based learning was also regularly endorsed. Brock & Tabaei (2011) recommend “using real-life problems and scenarios to encourage the development of information literacy skills” (p. 367), while Devasagayam, Johns-Masten, and McCollum (2012) suggest “experiential exercises that demand involvement, engagement, application, and reinforcement through repetition” (p. 6). Authors also recommend that librarians use methods, frameworks, and concepts that are familiar to business students when teaching BIL. O’Neill (2015) uses the Business Canvas Model, a “popular tool for helping entrepreneurs plan and iterate their business concepts,” in the BIL classroom (p. 458). Others recommend using the case method, which students regularly encounter in their business classes, to teach BIL concepts (Spackman & Camacho, 2009; Stonebraker & Howard, 2018).

The nature of teaching in this discipline is more practical than theoretical since BIL requires a unique set of knowledge and search skills. The low number of theories and models used as well as the scant evidence for implementation of the Framework could indicate that some librarians teaching business prioritize teaching disciplinary knowledge over more abstract information literacy concepts.

The many recommendations related to collaboration tended to be vague in nature, positing that collaboration between librarians and business faculty is important and necessary but giving few practical ideas for how to build these relationships. The literature does, however, identify some specific ways that librarians and business faculty can work together, including identifying resources for purchase (Camacho, 2015), supporting experiential learning (Griffis, 2014), identifying skills gaps (Macy & Coates, 2016), and developing IL outcomes (Stagg & Kimmins, 2014).

The assessment recommendations ranged from general calls for more assessment to the recommendation of specific methods. As a result of her review of the BIL literature, Fiegan (2011) recommends pre- and posttests and graded assessments. In our study, we tracked the number of publications in which librarians were part of the grading process, and six met this criterion. Examples of librarians participating in the grading process included Strittmater’s (2012) study about a faculty-librarian collaboration in which the author creates online exercises and participates in the grading process. Additionally, librarian-business professor team Cooney and Hiris (2003) collaboratively graded term papers for IL related skills based on a checklist. Other methods are recommended as well, including reflective writing (McKinney & Sen, 2012), rubrics (Mezick & Harris, 2016), and systematic reviews (Fiegen, 2010). Sokoloff and Simmons (2015) write about the value of citation analysis but note that “the method would elicit more meaningful results in the presence of other, complementary evidence” (p. 170).

Conclusions

This scoping review was designed to explore the last two decades of BIL research, in order to support LIS practitioners in their evidence based practice. Findings indicated a dependence on the survey method in BIL research, a focus on collaboration between business librarians and business faculty, interest in new teaching methods, and a hesitation to implement the ACRL Framework in BIL. With the introduction of the Framework in 2015, all teaching librarians have the opportunity to rethink information literacy efforts based on this new paradigm. While there is an abundance of literature about the ACRL Framework and threshold concepts, relatively little literature exists that specifically focuses on how business librarians have utilized this document to improve information literacy assignments, lesson plans, learning activities, and assessments. Further research on this topic would help inform efforts to integrate the Framework into BIL.

References

An, A., & Quail, S. (2018). Building BRYT: A case study in developing an online toolkit to promote business information literacy in higher education. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 12(3/4), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2018.1498615

Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. http://hdl.handle.net/11213/7668

Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2015). Framework for information literacy for higher education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework

Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2020). ACRL Framework for Information Literacy Sandbox. https://sandbox.acrl.org/

Atwong, C. T., & Heichman Taylor, L. J. (2008). Integrating information literacy into business education: A successful case of faculty-librarian collaboration. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802202227

Babb, M. N. (2017). An exploration of academic librarians as researchers within a university setting [Master’s thesis, University of Alberta]. Education and Research Archive. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/15c87b25-5656-41c6-9242-42a0fb7ed74c

Bauer, M. (2018). Ethnographic study of business students' information-seeking behavior: Implications for improved library practices. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1449557

Bayliss, G. (2013). Exploring the cautionary attitude toward Wikipedia in higher education: Implications for higher education institutions. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(1), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2012.740439

Brien, S. E., Lorenzetti, D. L., Lewis, S., Kennedy, J., & Ghali, W. A. (2010). Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implementation Science, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-2

Brock, S., & Tabaei, S. (2011). Library and marketing class collaborate to create next generation learning landscape. Reference Services Review, 39(3), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111161377

Bryant, N. P., & Hooper, R. S. (2017). Learning to learn: Using an embedded librarian to develop web-based legal information literacy for the business student. Southern Law Journal, 27(2), 387–416.

Camacho, L. (2015). The communication skills accounting firms desire in new hires. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 20(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2015.1072895

Camacho, L. (2018). If we built it, would they come? Creating instruction videos with promotion in mind. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1431867

Cohen, M. E. (2016). The flipped classroom as a tool for engaging discipline faculty in collaboration: A case study in library-business collaboration. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 22(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2015.1073162

Cooney, M. (2005). Business information literacy instruction: A survey and progress report. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 11(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/j109v11n01_02

Cooney, M., & Hiris, L. (2003). Integrating information literacy and its assessment into a graduate business course: A collaborative framework. Research Strategies, 19(3–4), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2004.11.002

Daudt, H. M., van Mossel, C., & Scott, S. J. (2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(48). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48

Detlor, B., Julien, H., Willson, R., Serenko, A., & Lavallee, M. (2011). Learning outcomes of information literacy instruction at business schools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21474

Detmering, R., & Johnson, A. M. (2011). Focusing on the thinking, not the tools: Incorporating critical thinking into an information literacy module for an introduction to business course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.554771

Devasagayam, R., Johns-Masten, K., & McCollum, J. (2012). Linking information literacy, experiential learning, and student characteristics: Pedagogical possibilities in business education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(4).

Donaldson, K. A. (2000). Library research success: Designing an online tutorial to teach information literacy skills to first-year students. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00025-7

Fiegen, A. M. (2010). Systematic review of research methods: The case of business instruction. Reference Services Review, 38(3), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321011070883

Fiegen, A. M. (2011). Business information literacy: A synthesis for best practices. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.606095

Fiegen, A. M., Cherry, B., & Watson, K. (2002). Reflections on collaboration: Learning outcomes and information literacy assessment in the business curriculum. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210451295

Finley, W., & Waymire, T. (2012). Information literacy in the accounting classroom: A collaborative effort. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.629566

Fournier, K., & Sikora, L. (2015). Individualized research consultations in academic libraries: A scoping review of practice and evaluation methods. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 10(4), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.18438/b8zc7w

Gardois, P., Colombi, N., Grillo, G., & Villanacci, M. C. (2012). Implementation of Web 2.0 services in academic, medical and research libraries: a scoping review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 29(2), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00984.x

Godbey, S., Wainscott, S. & Goodman, X. (2017). Disciplinary applications of information literacy threshold concepts. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries. https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/disciplinary-applications-information-literacy-threshold-concepts

Gilbert, S. (2017). Information literacy skills in the workplace: Examining early career advertising professionals. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(2), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1258938

Gong, X., & Loomis, M. (2009). An empirical study on follow-up library instruction sessions in the classroom. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 10(1). https://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/gong_x01.html

Griffis, P. J. (2014). Information literacy in business education experiential learning programs. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2014.952987

Guth, L., & Sachs, D. E. (2018). National trends in adoption of ACRL information literacy guidelines and impact on business instruction practices: 2003–2015. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1467169

Heyns, E. P., Eldermire, E. R. B., & Howard, H. A. (2019). Unsubstantiated conclusions: A scoping review on generational differences of leadership in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(5).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102054

Houlihan, M., Wiley, C., & Click, A. (2019). Information literacy survey of business librarians [Unpublished raw data].

Jefferson, C. O. (2019). Good for business: Applying the ACRL Framework threshold concepts to teach a learner-centered business research course. Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review, 2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3998/ticker.16481003.0002.101

Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295

Katz, I. R., Haras, C., & Blaszczynski, C. (2010). Does business writing require information literacy? Business Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569910365892

Kjellberg, S., Haider, J., & Sundin, O. (2016). Researchers' use of social network sites: A scoping review. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.008

Klusek, L., & Bornstein, J. (2006). Information literacy skills for business careers: Matching skills to the workplace. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 11(4), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v11n04_02

Koufogiannakis D. (2012). The state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(2), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8Q021

Koufogiannakis, D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E. (2004). A content analysis of librarianship research. Journal of Information Science, 30(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551504044668

Leighton, H. V., & May, D. (2013). The library course page and instruction: Perceived helpfulness and use among students. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2013.804019

Lombardo, S. V., & Miree, C. E. (2003). Caught in the web: The impact of library instruction on business students' perceptions and use of print and online resources. College & Research Libraries, 64(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.1.6

Lorenzetti, D. L., & Powelson, S. E. (2015). A scoping review of mentoring programs for academic librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(2), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.12.001

McInnis Bowers, C. V., Chew, B., Bowers, M. R., Ford, C. E., Smith, C., & Herrington, C. (2009). Interdisciplinary synergy: A partnership between business and library faculty and its effects on students’ information literacy. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(2), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802362179

Macy, K. V., & Coates, H. L. (2016). Data information literacy instruction in business and public health. IFLA Journal, 42(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035216673382

Matesic, M. A., & Adams, J. M. (2008). Provocation to learn: A study in the use of personal response systems in information literacy instruction. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v3i1.327

McKinney, P., & Sen, B. A. (2012). Reflection for learning: Understanding the value of reflective writing for information literacy development. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 110–129. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/LLC-V6-I2-2012-5

Mezick, E. M., & Hiris, L. (2016). Using rubrics for assessing information literacy in the finance classroom: A collaboration. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1169970

National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Bachelor's degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2016-17. Digest of Educational Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_322.10.asp

Nielsen, J., & Jetton, L. L. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of collaborative subject specific library instruction. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(1), 343–350. http://qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/143

Nentl, N., & Zietlow, R. (2008). Using Bloom's taxonomy to teach critical thinking skills to business students. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(1–2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310802177135

Nisonger, T., & Davis, C. (2005). The perception of library and information science journals by LIS education deans and ARL library directors: A replication of the Kohl–Davis study. College & Research Libraries, 66(4), 341–377. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.4.341

O’Neill, T. W. (2015). The Business Model Canvas as a platform for business information literacy instruction. Reference Services Review, 43(3), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-02-2015-0013

O’Sullivan, C. (2002). Is information literacy relevant in the real world? Reference Services Review, 30(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210416492

Rodríguez, K., Cádiz, L., & Penkova, S. (2018). Integration of information literacy skills into the core business curriculum at the University of Puerto Rico Río Piedras. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1467168

Spackman, A., & Camacho, L. (2009). Rendering information literacy relevant: A case-based pedagogy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.08.005

Stonebraker, I., & Fundator, R. (2016). Use it or lose it? A longitudinal performance assessment of undergraduate business students' information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(4), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.04.004

Stonebraker, I., & Howard, H. A. (2018). Evidence-based decision-making: Awareness, process and practice in the management classroom. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.09.017

Sokoloff, J., & Simmons, R. (2015). Evaluating citation analysis as a measurement of business librarian consultation impact. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 20(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2015.1046783

Stagg, A., & Kimmins, L. (2014). First year in higher education (FYHE) and the coursework post-graduate student. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.005

Strittmatter, C. (2012). Developing and assessing a library instruction module for a core business class. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 95–105. –https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.630645

Quinn, T., & Leligdon, L. (2014). Executive MBA students’ information skills and knowledge: Discovering the difference between work and academics. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(3), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2014.916540

Tran, N-Y., & Chan, E. (in press). Seeking and finding research collaborators: An exploratory study of librarian motivations, strategies, and success rates. College & Research Libraries. https://works.bepress.com/yen-tran/25/

Ullah, A., & Ameen, K. (2018). Account of methodologies and methods applied in LIS research: A systematic review. Library & Information Science Research, 40(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2018.03.002

Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150002600602

Williams, J., & Chinn, S. J. (2009). Using Web 2.0 to support the active learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 165–174. Available at http://jise.org/volume20/n2/JISEv20n2p165.html

Wilson, V. (2013). Formalized curiosity: reflecting on the librarian practitioner-researcher. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8ZK6K

Wilson, V. (2016). Librarian research: Making it better? Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11(1), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8VD0N

Appendix A

Codebook for Research Topics, Key Findings, and Recommendations

Active learning

Assessment

Case study (student assignment)

Client-based projects/student consulting/problem-based learning

Collaboration/faculty partnerships

Credit-bearing courses

Critical thinking

Data literacy

Embedded librarianship

Evaluation of information

Financial literacy

ACRL Framework

Information literacy skills

Information literacy standards

Information access

Information seeking behavior

Instruction impact

International libraries

Non-traditional students

One-shot sessions

Online resources

Online teaching

Online tutorials

Orientation

Outreach

Reference services

Scholarly communication

Student perceptions

Teaching methods & strategies

Technology

Appendix B

All Included Publications

1. Akhras, C. (2013). Interactive technology: Enhancing business students’ content literacy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 332–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.065

2. An, A., & Quail, S. (2018). Building BRYT: A case study in developing an online toolkit to promote business information literacy in higher education. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 12(3/4), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290X.2018.1498615

3. Artemchik, T. (2016). Using the instructional design process in tutorial development. Reference Services Review, 44(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-12-2015-0050

4. Atwong, C. T., & Heichman Taylor, L. J. (2008). Integrating information literacy into business education: A successful case of faculty-librarian collaboration. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802202227

5. Bauer, M. (2018). Ethnographic study of business students' information-seeking behavior: implications for improved library practices. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1449557

6. Baxter, K., Johnson, B., & Chisholm, K. (2016). Evaluating and developing an information literacy programme for MBA students. New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal, 56(1), 30–45. https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE26797875

7. Bayliss, G. (2013). Exploring the cautionary attitude toward Wikipedia in higher education: Implications for higher education institutions. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 19(1), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2012.740439

8. Booker, L. D., Detlor, B., & Serenko, A. (2012). Factors affecting the adoption of online library resources by business students. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2503–2520. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22723

9. Borg, M., & Stretton, E. (2009). My students and other animals. Or a vulture, an orb weaver spider, a giant panda and 900 undergraduate business students .... Journal of Information Literacy, 3(1), 19–30. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/219

10. Boss, K., & Drabinski, E. (2014). Evidence-based instruction integration: A syllabus analysis project. Reference Services Review, 42(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-07-2013-0038

11. Bravo, R., Lucia, L., & Martin, M. J. (2013). Assessing a web library program for information literacy learning. Reference Services Review, 41(4), 623–638. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-05-2013-0025

12. Brock, S., & Tabaei, S. (2011). Library and marketing class collaborate to create next generation learning landscape. Reference Services Review, 39(3), 362–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111161377

13. Brodsky, M. (2019). The role of business librarians in teaching data literacy. Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review, 1(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3998/ticker.16481003.0001.301

14. Bryant, N. P., & Hooper, R. S. (2017). Learning to learn: Using an embedded librarian to develop web-based legal information literacy for the business student. Southern Law Journal, 27(2), 387–416.

15. Camacho, L. (2015). The communication skills accounting firms desire in new hires. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 20(4), 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2015.1072895

16. Camacho, L. (2018). If we built it, would they come? Creating instruction videos with promotion in mind. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1431867

17. Campbell, D. K. (2011). Broad focus, narrow focus: A look at information literacy across a school of business and within a capstone course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.605622

18. Cochrane, C. (2006). Embedding information literacy in an undergraduate management degree: lecturers' and students' perspectives. Education for Information, 24(2-3), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.3233/efi-2006-242-301

19. Cohen, M. E. (2016). The flipped classroom as a tool for engaging discipline faculty in collaboration: A case study in library-business collaboration. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 22(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2015.1073162

20. Cohen, M. E., Poggiali, J., Lehner-Quam, A., Wright, R., & West, R. K. (2016). Flipping the classroom in business and education one-shot sessions: A research study. Journal of Information Literacy, 10(2), 40–63. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/PRA-V10-I2-3

21. Conley, T. M., & Gil, E. L. (2011). Information literacy for undergraduate business students: Examining value, relevancy, and implications for the new century. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.581562

22. Cooney, M. (2005). Business information literacy instruction: A survey and progress report. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 11(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/j109v11n01_02

23. Cooney, M., & Hiris, L. (2003). Integrating information literacy and its assessment into a graduate business course: A collaborative framework. Research Strategies, 19(3-4), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2004.11.002

24. Costa, C. (2009). Use of online information resources by RMIT University economics, finance, and marketing students participating in a cooperative education program. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 40(1), 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2009.10721377

25. Cramer, S., Campbell, D. K., & Scanlon, M. G. (2019). Increasing research quality in entrepreneurial students: Best practices in faculty-librarian partnerships. Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review, 2(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.3998/ticker.16481003.0002.102

26. Cullen, A. (2013). Using the case method to introduce information skill development in the MBA curriculum. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18(3), 208–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2013.795740

27. Cullen, J. G. (2013). Applying RADAR with new business postgraduates. Journal of Information Science, 40(1), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551513510094

28. Cunningham, N. A., & Anderson, S. C. (2005). A bridge to FARS and information literacy for accounting undergraduates. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 10(3), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/j109v10n03_02

29. D’Angelo, B. J. (2001). Using source analysis to promote critical thinking. Research Strategies, 18(4), 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0734-3310(03)00006-5

30. Decarie, C. (2012). Dead or alive: Information literacy and dead(?) celebrities. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 166–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911432737

31. Detlor, B., Julien, H., Willson, R., Serenko, A., & Lavallee, M. (2011). Learning outcomes of information literacy instruction at business schools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(3), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21474

32. Detmering, R., & Johnson, A. M. (2011). Focusing on the thinking, not the tools: Incorporating critical thinking into an information literacy module for an introduction to business course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.554771

33. Devasagayam, R., Johns-Masten, K., & McCollum, J. (2012). Linking information literacy, experiential learning, and student characteristics: Pedagogical possibilities in business education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(4).

34. Donaldson, K. A. (2000). Library research success: Designing an online tutorial to teach information literacy skills to first-year students. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00025-7

35. Dubicki, E. (2010). Research behavior patterns of business students. Reference Services Review, 38(3), 360–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321011070874

36. Dunaway, M. K., & Orblych, M. T. (2011). Formative assessment: Transforming information literacy instruction. Reference Services Review, 39(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111108097

37. Feast, V. (2003). Integration of information literacy skills into business courses. Reference Services Review, 31(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320310460942

38. Fiegen, A. M. (2010). Systematic review of research methods: The case of business instruction. Reference Services Review, 38(3), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321011070883

39. Fiegen, A. M. (2011). Business information literacy: A synthesis for best practices. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.606095

40. Fiegen, A. M., Cherry, B., & Watson, K. (2002). Reflections on collaboration: Learning outcomes and information literacy assessment in the business curriculum. Reference Services Review, 30(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210451295

41. Finley, W., & Aurand, T. W. (2019). The business school undergraduate: An explorative study of exposure to writing and secondary research terminology. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 19(4), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i4.2207

42. Finley, W., & Waymire, T. (2012). Information literacy in the accounting classroom: A collaborative effort. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.629566

43. Frand, J. L., Borah, E. G., & Lippincott, A. (2008). InfoIQ: Targeting information and technology lifelong needs. Public Services Quarterly, 3(3-4), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228950802110486

44. Friehs, C. G., & Craig, C. L. (2008). Assessing the effectiveness of online library instruction with finance students. Journal of Web Librarianship, 2(4), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/19322900802484438

45. Gil, E. L. (2017). Maximizing and assessing a one-shot information literacy session: A case study. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1285748

46. Gil, E. L. (2019). Introducing information literacy into a marketing budget class assignment: A case study. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 24(1/2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2019.1632646

47. Gilbert, S. (2017). Information literacy skills in the workplace: Examining early career advertising professionals. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(2), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1258938

48. Gong, X., & Loomis, M. (2009). An empirical study on follow-up library instruction sessions in the classroom. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 10(1). https://southernlibrarianship.icaap.org/content/v10n01/gong_x01.html

49. Griffis, P. J. (2014). Information literacy in business education experiential learning programs. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2014.952987

50. Gunasekara, C. S. (2008). Fostering independent learning and critical thinking in management higher education using an information literacy framework. Journal of Information Literacy, 2(2), 74–85. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/ART-V2-I2-2008-1

51. Gunasekara, C., & Gerts, C. (2017). Enabling authentic assessment: The essential role of information literacy. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 66(4), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2017.1399014

52. Gunn, M., & Miree, C. E. (2012). Business information literacy teaching at different academic levels: An exploration of skills and implications for instructional design. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(1), 18–34. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/PRA-V6-I1-2012-2

53. Guth, L., & Sachs, D. E. (2018). National trends in adoption of ACRL information literacy guidelines and impact on business instruction practices: 2003–2015. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1467169

54. Henninger, E. A., & Hurlbert, J. M. (2007). Using the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education: A framework for teaching cultural diversity in a management course. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 12(2), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1300/j109v12n02_02

55. Hesseldenz, P. (2012). Information literacy and the evolving MBA degree. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(4), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.712496

56. Holler, C. (2008). Incorporating vendor-created training into information literacy instruction: A case study. Communications in Information Literacy, 2(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2009.2.2.61

57. Holler, C. M. (2009). Client-based projects and the ACRL Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 28(1-2), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639260902862041

58. Hossain Shoeb, Z. (2011). Information literacy competency of freshman business students of a private university in Bangladesh. Library Review, 60(9), 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242531111176781

59. Howard, H. A., Wood, N., & Stonebraker, I. (2018). Mapping information literacy using the Business Research Competencies. Reference Services Review, 46(4), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-12-2017-0048

60. Hristova, M., & Miree, C. (2013). Longitudinal update: Business information literacy teaching at different academic levels. Journal of Information Literacy, 7(2), 153–155. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/PRJ-V7-I2-2013-2

61. Jefferson, C. O. (2019). Good for business: Applying the ACRL Framework threshold concepts to teach a learner-centered business research course. Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review, 2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3998/ticker.16481003.0002.101

62. Johnston, B., & Webber, S. (2003). Information literacy in higher education: A review and case study. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309295

63. Julien, H., Detlor, B., Serenko, A., Willson, R., & Lavallee, M. (2011). Preparing tomorrow's decision makers: Learning environments and outcomes of information literacy instruction in business schools. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 348–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.605669

64. Katz, I. R., Haras, C., & Blaszczynski, C. (2010). Does business writing require information literacy? Business Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569910365892

65. Keiser, B. E. (2016). How information literate are you? A self-assessment by students enrolled in a competitive intelligence elective. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(3–4), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226613

66. Kelly, A. S., Williams, T. D., Matthies, B., & Orris, J. B. (2011). Course-integrated information literacy instruction in introduction to accounting. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 16(4), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.605651

67. Kirkwood, H., & Dejoie, R. (2016). Business information literacy integration into a freshman summer bridge course for underrepresented minorities. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(3–4), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226611

68. Klusek, L., & Bornstein, J. (2006). Information literacy skills for business careers: Matching skills to the workplace. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 11(4), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v11n04_02

69. Lahlafi, A. E., Rushton, D., & Stretton, E. (2012). Active and reflective learning initiatives to improve web searching skills of business students. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(1), 35–49. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/PRA-V6-I1-2012-3

70. Leavitt, L. (2016). Taking the plunge! A case study in teaching a credit-bearing information literacy course to business undergraduate students. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(3-4), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226617

71. Leigh, J. S. A., & Gibbon, C. A. (2008). Information literacy and the introductory management classroom. Journal of Management Education, 32(4), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562908317023

72. Leighton, H. V., & May, D. (2013). The library course page and instruction: Perceived helpfulness and use among students. Internet Reference Services Quarterly, 18(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10875301.2013.804019

73. Li, J. (2012). Serving as an educator: A southern case in embedded librarianship. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.661198

74. Lipu, S., & Hill, A. (2005). High level learning by design: The nuts and bolts of assessment and evaluation in a Doctorate of Business Administration program. The Australian Library Journal, 54(3), 200–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2005.10721758

75. Lombardo, S. V., & Miree, C. E. (2003). Caught in the web: The impact of library instruction on business students' perceptions and use of print and online resources. College & Research Libraries, 64(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.64.1.6

76. Long, C. M., & Shrikhande, M. M. (2005). Improving information-seeking behavior among business majors. Research Strategies, 20(4), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resstr.2006.12.022

77. Macy, K. V., & Coates, H. L. (2016). Data information literacy instruction in business and public health. IFLA Journal, 42(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035216673382

78. Magi, T. J. (2003). What's best for students? Comparing the effectiveness of a traditional print pathfinder and a web-based research tool. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 3(4), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2003.0090

79. Majid, S., Hayat, I., Patel, R. P., & Vijayaraghavan, S. (2012). Information needs and seeking behaviour of business students. Singapore Journal of Library & Information Management, 41, 14–35.

80. Makani-Lim, B., Agee, A., Wu, D., & Easter, M. (2014). Research in action: Using rubrics to assess information literacy skills in business education. Journal of Business and Educational Leadership, 5(1), 3–17. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3554636121/research-in-action-using-rubrics-to-assess-information

81. Matesic, M. A., & Adams, J. M. (2008). Provocation to learn: A study in the use of personal response systems in information literacy instruction. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v3i1.327

82. McFarland, D., & Chandler, S. (2002). “Plug and play” in context: Reflections on a distance information literacy unit. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 7(2–3), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1300/J109v07n02_10

83. McInnis Bowers, C. V., Chew, B., Bowers, M. R., Ford, C. E., Smith, C., & Herrington, C. (2009). Interdisciplinary synergy: A partnership between business and library faculty and its effects on students’ information literacy. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(2), 110–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802362179

84. McKinney, P., & Sen, B. A. (2012). Reflection for learning: Understanding the value of reflective writing for information literacy development. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 110–129. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/LLC-V6-I2-2012-5

85. Mezick, E. M., & Hiris, L. (2016). Using rubrics for assessing information literacy in the finance classroom: A collaboration. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1169970

86. Michalak, R., & Rysavy, M. D. (2016). Information literacy in 2015: International graduate business students' perceptions of information literacy skills compared to test-assessed skills. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(2), 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1145787

87. Natt, A. (2013). What is business information literacy and can the corporate librarian contribute anything to the discourse? Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 18(2), 146–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2013.769290

88. Nentl, N., & Zietlow, R. (2008). Using Bloom's taxonomy to teach critical thinking skills to business students. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(1–2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310802177135

89. Nielsen, J., & Jetton, L. L. (2014). Assessing the effectiveness of collaborative subject-specific library instruction. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(1), 343–350. http://qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/143

90. O’Neill, T. W. (2015). The Business Model Canvas as a platform for business information literacy instruction. Reference Services Review, 43(3), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-02-2015-0013

91. O’Sullivan, C. (2002). Is information literacy relevant in the real world? Reference Services Review, 30(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320210416492

92. Orme, W. A. (2004). A study of the residual impact of the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial on the information-seeking ability of first year college students. College & Research Libraries, 65(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.3.205

93. Perkins, D., & Solis, E. (2017). Traveling forward: Revisiting online instruction for global sites. Public Services Quarterly, 13(4), 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2017.1357517

94. Petermanec, Z., & Šebjan, U. (2018). The impact of components of information literacy on student success in higher education. Knjiznica, 62(1–2), 151–168.

95. Phillips, C. M. H. (2010). Students’ research experiences during consulting projects: Three themes emerging from case studies. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 29(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639261003742157

96. Price, R., Becker, K., Clark, L., & Collins, S. (2011). Embedding information literacy in a first-year business undergraduate course. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 705. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003725350

97. Quinn, T., & Leligdon, L. (2014). Executive MBA students’ information skills and knowledge: Discovering the difference between work and academics. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(3), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2014.916540

98. Rae, S., & Hunn, M. (2015). Assessing the impact of embedding online academic and information literacy resources into a first year business course. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 10(4), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.18438/b80c76

99. Rae, S., Hunn, M., & Lobo, A. (2019). Sustainable, continuous improvement in online academic and information literacy support. Journal of the Australian Library & Information Association, 68(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2018.1561600

100. Reilly, P. (2015). Strategies to ensure deep learning occurs in MBA information literacy workshops. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 20(3), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2015.1042812

101. Reilly, P. (2017). Creative approaches to teaching graduate research methods workshops. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 9(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v9i1.232

102. Reiter, L., & Huffman, J. P. (2016). Yes Virginia, it will scale: Using data to personalize high-volume reference interactions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.09.011

103. Rodríguez, K., Cádiz, L., & Penkova, S. (2018). Integration of information literacy skills into the core business curriculum at the University of Puerto Rico Río Piedras. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(2), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1467168

104. Ross, M., Perkins, H., & Bodey, K. (2013). Information literacy self-efficacy: The effect of juggling work and study. Library & Information Science Research, 35(4), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2013.04.008

105. Rushton, D., & Lahlafi, A. (2013). Development, implementation and impact of active and reflective learning initiatives to improve web searching skills of international business students at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 885–894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.298

106. Serenko, A., Detlor, B., Julien, H., & Booker, L. D. (2012). A model of student learning outcomes of information literacy instruction in a business school. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(4), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22606

107. Simon, C. (2009). Graduate business students and business information literacy: A novel approach. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 14(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560802361981

108. Skipton, M. D., & Bail, J. (2014). Cognitive processes and information literacy: Some initial results from a survey of business students’ learning activities. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 19(3), 181–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2014.915080

109. Sokoloff, J. (2012). Information literacy in the workplace: Employer expectations. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2011.603989

110. Sokoloff, J., & Simmons, R. (2015). Evaluating citation analysis as a measurement of business librarian consultation impact. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 20(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2015.1046783

111. Solis, E., & Perkins, D. (2017). Globetrotting students and faculty: Adapting library instruction to global sites. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 11(1-2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533290x.2016.1229419

112. Spackman, A. (2016). Client-based experiential learning and the librarian: Information literacy for the real world. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(3-4), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226616

113. Spackman, A., & Camacho, L. (2009). Rendering information literacy relevant: A case-based pedagogy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(6), 548–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2009.08.005

114. Spahr, K. (2015). Influences on undergraduate business students' perceptions about the adequacy of library information resources. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 34(4), 214–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639269.2015.1096183

115. Stagg, A., & Kimmins, L. (2012). Research skills development through collaborative virtual learning environments. Reference Services Review, 40(1), 61–4. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321211203630

116. Stagg, A., & Kimmins, L. (2014). First year in higher education (FYHE) and the coursework post-graduate student. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.005

117. Stebbing, D., Shelley, J., Warnes, M., & McMaster, C. (2019). What academics really think about information literacy. Journal of Information Literacy, 13(1), 21–44. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/JIL/article/view/PRA-V13-I1-2

118. Stonebraker, I. (2015). Flipping the business information literacy classroom: Redesign, implementation, and assessment of a case study. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 20(4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1288519

119. Stonebraker, I. (2016). Toward informed leadership: Teaching students to make better decisions using information. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21(3-4), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1226614

120. Stonebraker, I. (2017). Library-sponsored case competitions: Best practices and assessment of learning gains. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2016.1258937

121. Stonebraker, I., & Fundator, R. (2016). Use it or lose it? A longitudinal performance assessment of undergraduate business students' information literacy. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(4), 438–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.04.004

122. Stonebraker, I., & Howard, H. A. (2018). Evidence-based decision-making: Awareness, process and practice in the management classroom. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(1), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.09.017

123. Stonebraker, I., Maxwell, C., Garcia, K., & Jerrit, J. (2017). Realizing critical business information literacy: Opportunities, definitions, and best practices. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 22(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2017.1288519

124. Strittmatter, C. (2012). Developing and assessing a library instruction module for a core business class. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.630645

125. Tariq, M., Mahmood, K., Ur Rehman, S., & Mustafa, G. (2018). Online information searching skills of business students. Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries, 20, 39–59.

126. Taylor, L. H. (2008). Information literacy in subject-specific vocabularies: A path to critical thinking. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 15(1-2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691310802177127

127. Tingle, N. (2018). Taking care of business (before class): Information literacy in a flipped classroom. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1510254

128. Tooman, C., & Sibthorpe, J. (2012). A sustainable approach to teaching information literacy: Reaching the masses online. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.629556

129. Usry, M. L., Law, M., Leinbach, W., Magolis, D. E., Staley, A. B., & Shapeero, M. (2010). E-discovery: What future business leaders need to know. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 15(2), 78–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963560903554674

130. Valle Santos, M., & Mayoral, R. M. (2018). Information literacy in managers’ education. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2018.1510253

131. Watstein, S. B., Scanlon, M. G., & Cramer, S. (2015). Q/A on teaching credit classes for entrepreneurship research. Reference Services Review, 43(3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1108/rsr-06-2015-0030

132. Webber, S., & Johnston, B. (2000). Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science, 26(6), 381–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555150002600602

133. Wilhelm, J., & Vaaler, A. (2018). Looking for the library: Using an undergraduate business syllabi analysis to inform an instruction program. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 23(3–4), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2019.1624451

134. Williams, J., & Chinn, S. J. (2009). Using Web 2.0 to support the active learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 165–174. Available at http://jise.org/volume20/n2/JISEv20n2p165.html

135. Wu, Y. D., & Lee Kendall, S. (2006). Teaching faculty's perspectives on business information literacy. Reference Services Review, 34(1), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320610648789

Appendix C

All Journal Titles

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal

Australian Academic & Research Libraries

Australian Library Journal

Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian

Business Communication Quarterly

College & Research Libraries

College & Undergraduate Libraries

Communications in Information Literacy

Education for Information

Electronic Journal of Academic & Special Librarianship

Evidence Based Library & Information Practice

IFLA Journal

Internet Reference Services Quarterly

Journal of Academic Librarianship

Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship

Journal of Business and Educational Leadership

Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice

Journal of Information Literacy

Journal of Information Science

Journal of Information Systems Education

Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning

Journal of Management Education

Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology

Journal of the Australian Library & Information Association

Journal of Web Librarianship

Knjiznica

Library & Information Science Research

Library Review

New Review of Academic Librarianship

New Zealand Library & Information Management Journal

Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education

Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries

Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library & Information Practice & Research

portal: Libraries and the Academy

Public Services Quarterly

Reference Services Review

Research Strategies

Singapore Journal of Library & Information Management

Southern Law Journal

Studies in Higher Education

The Internet and Higher Education

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Ticker: The Academic Business Librarianship Review