Academic Librarian Research: An Update to a Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities


822

Academic Librarian Research: An 
Update to a Survey of Attitudes, 
Involvement, and Perceived 
Capabilities

Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini*

This article reports the results of a 2015 survey that updates and ex-
tends the authors’ 2010 survey of academic librarians, to learn of the 
current state of their attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities 
in the research process. A key change in the 2015 survey is the use of 
an expanded research confidence scale, designed by the authors. They 
also added questions on research training and institutional support for 
research. The results of this survey add to the growing body of research 
examining the success factors for librarian-researchers. Research self-
efficacy continues to be a predictor of research success. Institutional 
support for research, including both formal and informal mentorship, is 
increasing and associated with research success.

Introduction
For decades now librarians have been conducting research and disseminating the 
results of their research. Academic librarians have produced most of this research, 
primarily due to the impact of faculty status for many academic librarians and the 
influence of research practice among the teaching faculty. In the early 2000s, the pro-
fession began to focus on evidence-based practice, assessment, and accountability, 
leading more librarians to think about how research might enhance their performance 
as librarians—bridging the gap between research and practice. However, there has 
been a nagging fear that research conducted by librarians does not meet recognized 
standards for reliability and validity and that “publish or perish” has had a negative 
impact on the quality of librarian research.

In 2010, the authors began thinking about ways to increase the number of librarians 
who conduct and disseminate research that meets the highest standards for rigor. In-
spired by NSF-funded research training for anthropologists, the authors thought novice 
librarian-researchers might benefit from a similar program, consisting of both providing 
instruction in social science research methods and assembling a group of like-minded 
librarians who would support one another’s research efforts. The authors read widely 

 Marie R. Kennedy is Serials & Electronic Resources Librarian and Kristine R. Brancolini is Dean of the 
Library, both at Loyola Marymount University; e-mail: marie.kennedy@lmu.edu, brancoli@lmu.edu. ©2018 
Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/) CC BY-NC.

mailto:marie.kennedy@lmu.edu
mailto:brancoli@lmu.edu
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


Academic Librarian Research  823

in the literature on the topic of librarian-researchers and conducted a national survey 
of academic librarians to describe the current state of academic librarians conducting 
social science research. The results regarding both barriers to research and supports 
for research were used to develop a research-focused continuing education program 
for academic librarians. Based on survey instruments developed by Powell, Baker, and 
Mika1 and Henry and Neville,2 the authors’ December 2010 survey focused on current 
research practice, confidence in completing the steps of a research project, methods 
training experiences, and institutional support for conducting research.3 

Informed by the historical literature and the results of their survey of current 
academic librarians, the authors developed a research-focused continuing education 
program for academic librarians, the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship 
(IRDL). IRDL is designed to overcome some of the identified barriers to librarian re-
search productivity and to increase the ability of librarians to conduct reliable and valid 
research. In 2013, the authors received funding for IRDL from the Institute of Museum 
and Library Services to support three cohorts of approximately 20 novice librarian-
researchers in completing research methods training and a year-long research project 
of their own design. The program addresses many of the research barriers identified 
by academic librarians, including lack of research skills, lack of research confidence, 
lack of time, lack of a research community, and lack of institutional support—with 
an emphasis on providing librarians with appropriate training in research methods, 
which builds research confidence, and with time to focus attention on a single research 
project within a supportive environment. 

In 2015, the authors conducted a new survey to gauge any changes that may have 
occurred since their 2010 survey and to discern research success factors among academic 
librarian-researchers. The 2015 survey expanded upon the 2010 instrument, includ-
ing additional questions based upon recent findings regarding librarian-researchers, 
as well as the authors’ experience with the 2013 and 2014 IRDL cohorts. This article 
reports the findings of the 2015 survey; and, to provide a longitudinal perspective, the 
authors also compare the responses from their 2010 survey and the study by Powell, 
Baker, and Mika, which addressed many of the same issues.4

The authors find the following definition of research to be useful when discussing 
the breadth of the types of research in which academic librarians participate:

“The process of arriving at dependable solutions to problems/questions/hypoth-
eses through the planned and systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation 
of data: it may be applied or theoretical in nature and use quantitative or qualita-
tive methods. (This definition does not include library research that is limited to 
activities such as compiling bibliographies and searching catalogs).”5 

This definition was used as a guide for respondents to both the 2010 and 2015 surveys.

Literature Review
An examination of the literature indicates that academic librarians are actively conduct-
ing research that supports decision making at their libraries, evaluates the operation 
of libraries, contributes to theoretical underpinnings of librarianship, and advances 
the field of information and library science. Librarians are motivated to conduct re-
search by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. The most common extrinsic factors are 
the requirements of promotion and tenure and annual merit pay increases, but many 
researchers also note the strength of intrinsic factors such as personal satisfaction, 
intellectual curiosity, and the desire to contribute to their profession.6 The concept of 
a practitioner-researcher is widely accepted in fields such as healthcare, education, and 



824  College & Research Libraries September 2018

social work, but this description was not applied to librarians until 2000.7 Watson-Boone 
connected the work of Peter Jarvis, author of The Practitioner-Researcher: Developing 
Theory from Practice, with the research published by academic librarians.8 Jarvis studied 
professionals as problem solvers and continuous learners.9 Watson-Boone examined 24 
articles in The Journal of Academic Librarianship through the lens of practitioner-researchers 
and concluded that the authors of these articles “illustrate the ability to problematize 
and study issues related to everyday academic library practice; subsequent publish-
ing then advances knowledge of librarianship. The authors’ efforts improve their own 
practice and further develop their own levels of expertise.”10 This approach to librarian 
research has led to a new appreciation for the benefits that conducting and disseminat-
ing research accrue to the individual, to the institution, and to the profession. 

 An analysis of the authorship of library and information science (LIS) research 
articles found that librarian-researchers are active contributors of research to the profes-
sion’s most important peer-reviewed journals.11 Academic librarians author the majority 
of articles published in LIS journals,12 including the profession’s most highly regarded 
peer-reviewed journals.13 Galbraith et al. studied the authorship of articles published 
in the top 23 high-impact LIS journals in 2007 and 2009. They found that 42 percent of 
the articles were written by academic librarians and 19 percent by LIS professors.14 Of 
the librarian authors, 65 percent worked at libraries with faculty status and tenure. The 
study’s authors also found that faculty status—with its attendant need to “publish or 
perish”—does not contribute to the publication of many low-quality articles. Rather, 
“faculty status may actually encourage publication in the most respected journals.”15 
The criteria for tenure and promotion have intensified during the past two decades, 
and the research output of academic librarians reflects these changes. 

Researchers have studied the obstacles that librarians confront in the conduct of 
research. Some of the obstacles to conducting research are reported as lack of time to 
complete a research project, unfamiliarity with the research process, lack of support 
for research (both emotional and monetary), lack of research confidence, discourag-
ing jargon, inadequate education in research methods, and lack of motivation.16 Many 
librarians report that they received little or no training in research methods as part of 
their LIS master’s degree. However, Luo found no statistically significant relationship 
between taking a research methods course and a librarian’s research involvement.17 
This finding is consistent with Powell, Baker, and Mika18 and Kennedy and Brancolini;19 
neither study found a statistically significant relationship between conducting research 
and the respondents’ belief that the LIS master’s degree prepared them to conduct 
research. Librarians have found other ways to fill gaps in their research methods 
education, most notably self-education activities (such as professional reading and 
online tutorials) and continuing education programs (such as courses, workshops, 
and conference programs). 

As the barriers and challenges to librarian research success are now better under-
stood, researchers may turn their attention to the factors that enable research success. 
Researchers have recently focused on institutional and administrative support.20 These 
studies address the possibility of shifting organizational culture to be more aware and 
more supportive of research in academic libraries, which will ultimately help address 
the “lack of time” and “lack of support” barriers to librarian research. In something of a 
paradigm shift, many researchers have changed their language from the negative—how 
to overcome barriers—to the positive—identifying factors that lead to the successful 
completion and dissemination of research. Hoffman, Berg, and Koufogiannakis con-
ducted a comprehensive literature review of empirical studies focused on research 
success factors, both in librarianship and in other fields.21 They found that research 
success requires many interrelated conditions. They grouped 16 factors into three 



Academic Librarian Research  825

categories: “individual attributes, peers and community, and institutional structures 
and supports,”22 with many factors occurring in more than one category. Hoffman, 
Berg, and Koufogiannakis found that research mentoring is a well-recognized success 
factor for practitioner-researchers in fields such as medicine. Mentoring is a common 
practice in academic libraries, but its effectiveness as a research success factor has not 
been studied extensively in librarianship. Most research has focused on early career 
researchers, but Hollister recently studied posttenure and continuing-appointment 
librarians.23 Hollister found that librarians who described their library atmosphere as 
nurturing, encouraging, or supportive of scholarship were significantly more likely 
to be producing research than those who reported library cultures and structures that 
were described with words like demoralizing, exhausting, unsupportive, and hostile.24 

The authors’ 2010 survey examined both research barriers and success factors, but 
with the development of IRDL, they have turned their attention to providing deeper 
insight into success factors that have been identified in recent articles. The authors 
added questions to the 2015 survey to more fully explore three factors: the impact of 
research self-efficacy (research confidence); educational experiences—the completion 
of a master’s thesis and statistics courses; and formal and informal research mentor-
ing and other forms of institutional support. Here is the rationale for expanding the 
survey on those three factors. 

Research Self-efficacy (Q10-17). Research self-efficacy has been found to be a predictor 
of research success among practitioner-researchers in a variety of disciplines, includ-
ing psychologists,25 psychotherapists,26 and physicians.27 People with a high degree of 
research self-efficacy have confidence in their ability to perform successfully the tasks 
associated with conducting research.28 Like academic librarians, some members of 
these practitioner-researcher communities report that they struggle with the demands 
of job performance and conducting research. To measure research self-efficacy among 
academic librarians, the authors developed a 10-item research self-confidence scale, 
the Librarian Research Confidence Scale (LRCS) for use in the 2010 survey. Research 
confidence was found to be a statistically significant predictor of research success 
among academic librarians.29 

Researchers studying other communities of practitioner-researchers found that 
research self-efficacy can be increased through instruction and encouragement. 
Holden et al. measured research self-efficacy to assess learning in a research training 
environment, a social work graduate program.30 They created a research self-efficacy 
scale appropriate to social work education to use as “an outcome measure for a series 
of evaluations of social work research education,”31 which consists of a two-semester 
research sequence required by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). Holden 
et al. found statistically significant increases in research self-efficacy over one semester’s 
instruction, both for participants and for each question. To measure the effects of the 
IRDL summer research workshop on research self-efficacy and to focus the workshop 
curriculum on areas of low self-efficacy, the authors revised their 10-item LRCS to 
create an expanded, 38-item research self-efficacy scale, LRCS-38. The authors used 
LRCS-38 with three cohorts of IRDL Scholars. However, the authors had not tested 
this scale with a large sample of librarians, which is required for factor analysis. The 
authors included the LRCS-38 as part of the 2015 survey and have since performed a 
factor analysis on those results, which will be reported in a future article.

Master’s thesis (Q 21–Q22) and statistics courses (Q22–Q23). All academic librarians 
possess a master’s degree—or perhaps two, typically a MLIS and a subject master’s—but 
not a PhD. The 2010 survey found that only 26 percent of respondents felt that their 
LIS master’s program prepared them to conduct research, but what elements in a LIS 
master’s program might contribute to research success?32 Sassen and Wahl observed, 



826  College & Research Libraries September 2018

“An academic librarian who has not written a thesis or dissertation almost certainly has 
a less rigorous educational background in research methods than the typical teaching 
faculty member.”33 Researchers in psychology education have studied the graduate 
research training environment and found that one research success factor after graduate 
school is the early, “minimally threatening” introduction to research: “It is important to 
involve graduate students in scientific work from very early on in their training, and at 
a level that is appropriate to their understanding of research.”34 In talking informally 
with proficient librarian-researchers, many noted that they developed an interest in 
social science research during the completion of a master’s thesis in their LIS program. 
While attending the conference Qualitative & Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML), 
the authors noticed that some of the presenters were recent LIS graduates from Eu-
ropean LIS programs who were sharing the results of their master’s thesis research. 
These observations led the authors to wonder about the impact of completing a master’s 
thesis, either in LIS or in another master’s degree program. Does this experience have 
a relationship to research productivity? The authors added two questions to address 
this question, one regarding the completion of a thesis in their LIS program and one 
in another master’s degree program.

It is not necessary for a social science researcher to be an expert in statistics, but a 
basic understanding of statistics is necessary to undertake quantitative data analysis 
and helps researchers understand the ways in which a given research question may be 
formulated and studied.35 The authors’ 2010 survey included questions about research 
methods courses, but what about other specific courses? Among the 10 questions on 
research confidence, the question on analyzing data scored the lowest. On a scale of 
1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very confident,” out of 818 
respondents the mean score was 3.26, which was the lowest score. On the expanded 
38-item scale used to measure research confidence among IRDL Scholars, the questions 
on quantitative data analysis accounted for three of the five lowest average scores before 
the IRDL summer research workshop: “Knowing which statistical test(s) to run” (1.24); 
“Identifying which statistical package may assist you in analyzing your data” (1.36); 
“Knowing how to report the results of the statistical test(s) you have run” (1.70).36 To 
learn more about academic librarians’ study of statistics, the authors added two ques-
tions, one asking whether the respondent had taken a course in statistics, and, if so, 
when: during their LIS master’s program, their bachelor’s program, another master’s 
program, or another time? In a search of the literature for other studies that examine 
the effect of a master’s thesis or a statistics course on research success, none were found. 

Research mentoring and other institutional support (Q25). There is evidence that research 
mentoring may be an important success factor. Hoffman, Berg, and Koufogiannakis 
found that research mentoring is a well-established research success factor in other 
practitioner-research professions, but it has not been studied extensively in LIS.37 Re-
search mentoring has been studied extensively in fields such as professional psychol-
ogy38 and academic medicine.39 In a well-designed and rigorous study of the academic 
advancement of women, minority, and generalist faculty in academic medicine, Palepu 
et al. examined mentoring and career development among junior faculty.40 Among 
1,302 junior faculty respondents, 54 percent had received recent mentoring, defined as 
in the past three years. The faculty with mentors rated their research preparation and 
research skills higher than those without a recent mentor (3.8 vs. 2.9, p < .0001, on a 
six-point scale, 1 = low and 6 = high). The faculty with mentors allocated more time to 
research than did those without mentors (28% vs. 15%, p < .0001). The faculty members 
with mentors were also more likely to have been awarded a research grant.41 There 
were no differences between the two groups regarding the number of publications in 
peer-reviewed journals (mean 12.5 vs. 13.5), but the authors speculated that the junior 



Academic Librarian Research  827

faculty may not have had time to publish their research yet.42 This finding is inconsistent 
with that of Levinson et al., who found that women medical school faculty who had 
mentors during their training averaged 13.1 publications compared with 10.3 articles 
for respondents without a mentor (p < .05).43 Levinson et al. also found that women 
faculty who had mentors spent more time on research, an average of 25 percent of their 
time, compared with 21 percent for women faculty who had not had mentors. Palepu et 
al. found no differences between the groups of medical school faculty regarding their 
self-assessments of their teaching, administrative and clinical skills, suggesting that, for 
junior faculty, recent mentoring had the biggest impact on their research confidence.44 

Recently, researchers have begun examining mentoring as a research success factor 
among academic librarian-researchers. Sassen and Wahl and Smigielski, Laning, and 
Daniels studied research success factors among librarians employed by the Association 
of Research Libraries member institutions.45 Sassen and Wahl found that 91 percent of 
the responding libraries offer informal mentoring and 52 percent offer formal mentor-
ing.46 Smigielski, Laning, and Daniels found formal mentoring programs in 83 percent 
of libraries that grant tenure and 66.7 percent of libraries that do not.47 Mentoring was 
the fourth most prevalent institutional support mechanism for research among all 
responding libraries.48 Mentoring programs in academic libraries are often broader in 
scope than research mentoring, including learning about the institution and the profes-
sion, becoming professionally active through service, advising on dossier preparation, 
advancing in the organization,49 and developing leadership skills.50 Zhang, Deyoe, and 
Matveyeva conducted a study of the research mentoring program at Wichita State 
University Libraries and made recommendations for the development of an effective 
research mentoring program.51 However, there have been few empirical studies on 
the effects of mentoring on research productivity in academic libraries. In a study of 
research productivity among the librarians of the Pennsylvania State University system, 
Fennewald found that, among interviewees, the most significant factor in research 
productivity was “the collegial support conveyed in formal and informal mentoring.”52 
To gather more data on informal and formal research mentoring, the authors added 
these options to the list of institutional supports in the 2015 survey. They also added 
the response options of short-term pretenure research leave and incentives, such as 
merit pay or bonuses.

As both the 2010 and 2015 surveys were based upon the instrument developed by 
Powell, Baker, and Mika, the authors will comment on their findings in comparison to 
the authors’ 2010 and 2015 findings, as appropriate.53 To make it clear when the data 
were gathered for all surveys, the year that the survey was conducted will be noted, 
instead of the year the results were published: Powell, Baker, and Mika conducted 
their survey in 2000, Kennedy and Brancolini conducted their survey in 2010,54 and 
the current survey was conducted in 2015. Although Powell, Baker, and Mika used a 
stratified random sample for their survey and the authors used purposive samples, the 
comparison of results over 15 years provides insight into how the research attitudes, 
involvement, and perceived capabilities of academic librarians may have changed and 
offer suggestions for how librarian-researchers might overcome research barriers and 
more effectively foster research success. 

Problem Statement
This 2015 update survey aimed to capture a snapshot of the current attitudes and 
preparedness to conduct research to update what was learned five years prior, address-
ing the same questions as the 2010 survey: How do librarians currently participate in 
research? How confident do librarians feel about completing the various steps in the 
research process? How many and which kind of research design/methods trainings 



828  College & Research Libraries September 2018

have librarians participated in, up to this point in their careers? How are librarians 
supported by their institutions in conducting research? The results of the 2010 survey 
helped to formulate the initial curriculum of a professional continuing education 
program about research design for practicing librarians. Functionally, in this 2015 
survey, the authors wished to determine if any changes to the continuing education 
curriculum were warranted so it remains current and focused on skills as well as at-
titudes. In addition, the authors aimed to contribute to the ongoing discussion in the 
literature of success factors for librarians conducting research.

Institute for Research Design in Librarianship
Based on the results of the 2010 survey, the authors designed a continuing education 
program for academic librarians, the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship 
(IRDL). IRDL is funded through the Institute for Museum and Library Services Laura 
Bush 21st Century Librarian program grant (2013–2016 award #RE-06-13-0060-13; 
2016–2019 #RE-40-16-0120-16), with matched funds from Loyola Marymount University, 
the home of IRDL. These funds permit the participants to attend IRDL at no personal 
cost (award includes travel, lodging, food, educational experience). The design of IRDL 
comes directly from the results of the 2010 survey, to focus on areas where librarians 
reported feeling the least confident or had the least experience. The authors of this 
article are the IRDL project codirectors.

Participants apply to the selective year-long program by submitting a research pro-
posal, a statement about why they wish to attend IRDL, and a letter of support from 
their library’s dean or director. An advisory board of practitioner-librarians, along 
with the project directors, craft a cohort that is diverse in several criteria: race (with 
emphasis given to self-reported ethnic and racial minorities); type of library (includes 
archives); geographical location; functional area of the library in which the applicant 
works; and area of research interest.  

Once selected, the participants, called Scholars, prepare for the week-long workshop 
with a series of readings. During the workshop, the curricular focus is on hands-on 
experience with a variety of methods typically used in social science research. Ample 
time for one-on-one consultation is given throughout the workshop, so that the Scholars 
put their learning into immediate practice by revising their research protocols.

After the workshop is complete, the Scholars are supported for the academic year 
while they return to their home institutions and conduct their research projects. Mea-
surements are taken throughout the workshop and following year to evaluate the ef-
fectiveness of the IRDL model. The model has been refined in all three years of the first 
grant (2013–2016 award), based on the results of the measurements, and will continue 
to be adjusted in the new three-year grant cycle. The 2015 survey about which this 
article is written was designed in part to discover if attitudes and needs of academic 
librarians have changed since 2010 and how those changes may be incorporated into 
the design of IRDL. For more information about IRDL, the reader may visit the project 
website at http://irdlonline.org. 

Methods 
Survey Design 
To prepare for the 2010 survey, the authors carefully combed the literature, noting 
obstacles that librarians identified as barriers to conducting research. The authors built 
the survey around four areas of concern that would influence the curriculum design of 
the eventual IRDL: current research practice (reading, conducting research); confidence 
in completing the steps in a research project; any methods training completed; and 
identifying any institutional support for conducting research. Several of the questions 

http://irdlonline.org


Academic Librarian Research  829

were based upon those of Powell, Baker, and Mika’s survey and Henry and Neville’s,55 
though some of their research questions diverged from those of the authors.

The flow of the 2015 survey followed that of the 2010 survey, with most of the 
questions phrased in the same way, in the same order. In 2015, the authors included 
an expanded confidence scale, additional response options for some questions, and 
four new questions about methods training. Unlike the 2010 survey, the 2015 survey 
had no forced responses. For the 2015 survey instrument and call for participation, 
see appendices A and B.

Current Research Practice
The authors wanted to gain information about how actively engaged academic librar-
ians are in their current research practice. Knowing whether academic librarians signify 
an interest in reading and/or conducting research, and how sincerely they are currently 
participating, would suggest to us if there was a potential audience for a continuing 
education opportunity related to research design. The 2010 study demonstrated to 
the authors the desire among academic librarians to continue their education for this, 
so the authors developed the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship. The au-
thors’ interest in repeating these questions is to note if there are any differences in the 
engagement in research practice in the current environment.

The survey began with a definition of “research,” as noted earlier. The authors asked 
the respondents several questions about their research practice, starting with how the 
respondent stays current with the research literature. The authors asked if it is assumed 
that the respondent reads research literature as part of her job (Q1). The authors asked 
if the respondent is allowed time on the job for reading research literature (Q2). The 
authors asked if the respondent regularly scans the tables of contents or abstracts 
of research-based articles and then followed by asking if he regularly reads the full 
content of research-based articles (Q3, Q4). If the respondent does not regularly read 
research-based articles, the authors asked her to mark the possible reasons why, giving 
six options plus an “other” category that she could complete (Q5). If the respondent 
does regularly read research-based articles, the authors asked him to list the titles of 
two journals in which he regularly reads those articles (Q6). 

The next three questions were about conducting research. At Q7, the authors asked 
if the respondent has conducted research since completing his library or information 
science (LIS) master’s degree, giving an optional response for “N/A (Do not have an 
LIS master’s degree).” If a respondent indicated that he has conducted research, the 
authors then asked if he has disseminated the results of the research to an external 
audience (Q8). If she responded that she has disseminated the results, the authors 
followed with a question about how they were disseminated; eight possible options 
were listed, plus an “other” category that she could complete (Q9).

Confidence
At this section, the authors introduce the largest change from the 2010 survey, a greatly 
expanded confidence scale. An exploratory factor analysis completed on the responses 
to the original 10-item scale suggested three factors were present, and so the authors 
expanded the questions about confidence within those three factors: planning, data, 
and reporting.56 Two of the items from the 10-item scale, “Performing a literature re-
view” and “Identifying research partners, if needed,” performed poorly in the factor 
analysis; “Performing a literature review” was reworded but “Identifying research 
partners, if needed” was not included in the further development of the scale. From the 
nine resulting items, the authors expanded within each of the three factors. Included 
in the scale, under the factor planning, the authors include Groups 1–3 (described 



830  College & Research Libraries September 2018

below). Under the factor data are included Groups 4–5, and under the factor reporting 
are included Groups 6–8.

At Q10–17, the authors asked the respondents to rate their confidence in perform-
ing the discrete steps in a research project, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at 
all confident,” 2 being “Slightly confident,” 3 being “Moderately confident,” 4 being 
“Confident,” and 5 being “Very confident.” The following thirty-eight items were 
measured, in eight groupings: 

Group 1, the research question task (three items): (Q10) Turning your topic into a 
research question; Constructing a question that is reasonable in scope (not too narrow/
large, given your time and other assets such as money, support, research assistance); 
Determining if your research topic makes a contribution to the field, based on the 
relevant literature. 

Group 2, research design (six items): (Q11) Designing a project to answer your 
question; Identifying other research studies similar to yours in order to examine the 
methods used; Exploring research designs that are appropriate for your question; 
Choosing a research design that is appropriate for your question; Selecting the methods 
and procedures for your question; Developing a timeline for the study. 

Group 3, review of the literature (five items): (Q12) Writing a review of the litera-
ture appropriate for your research topic; Determining how your study can contribute 
to the existing literature; Identifying appropriate information sources in which to 
conduct your literature search; Using relevant keywords to discover literature about 
your research topic; Determining if a piece of literature is an appropriate source for 
your research question. 

Group 4, data gathering (eleven items): (Q13) Gathering data; Determining which 
members of a population to include in your study; Determining how many members 
of a population to include in your study; Choosing appropriate qualitative data col-
lection technique(s); Choosing appropriate quantitative data collection techniques; 
Choosing an appropriate data gathering procedure (what kind of data are you going 
to gather and how are you going to do it) (examples: in-depth interviews, focus groups, 
observation); Identifying appropriate sources of existing data; Knowing how to design 
a focus group; Knowing how to run a focus group; Knowing how to design a survey; 
Knowing how to administer a survey. 

Group 5, data analysis (five items): (Q14) Analyzing data; Knowing how to orga-
nize the data you have gathered, or how to arrange existing data you may be using; 
Identifying which statistical package may assist you in analyzing your data; Know-
ing which statistical test(s) to run; Knowing how to code qualitative data to identify 
themes and sub-themes. 

Group 6, writing results (four items): (Q15) Reporting results in written format; 
Knowing the components to construct a traditional social sciences journal article; 
Knowing how to apply a style guide (APA or MLA, for example); Knowing how to 
report the results of the statistical test(s) you may have run. 

Group 7, verbally presenting results (two items): (Q16) Reporting results verbally; 
Knowing how to adapt your written research paper for oral presentation. 

Group 8, disseminating results (two items): (Q17) Determining an appropriate format 
for disseminating results (poster/presentation/article); Identifying appropriate places 
to disseminate results (publication/conference). 

Methods Training 
The authors asked seven questions related to research training. The authors asked if the 
respondent believes that his LIS master’s degree adequately prepared him to read and 
understand research-based literature (Q18) and then asked if the respondent believes 



Academic Librarian Research  831

that it adequately prepared him to conduct original research (Q19). At Q20, the authors 
asked if the respondent wrote a thesis in completing the LIS degree and, at Q21, if the 
respondent wrote a thesis in completing another master’s degree. The authors asked 
if the respondent had taken at least one course in statistical analysis (Q22). If the re-
spondent signified that she had, then a question followed about when she had taken 
the course(s) in statistical analysis, with response options: Part of my undergraduate 
work; part of my MLS coursework; part of my coursework for a non-MLS graduate 
degree; and other (with a text box for an explanation) (Q23). The authors asked the 
respondent to check any educational activities about research methods in which she 
has ever participated and to check all that applied (Q24). Questions 20–23 were newly 
added to the 2015 survey.

Demographic Information
The authors asked three questions to gather demographic information, to learn if 
research activities are supported at their current institutions, if their positions are 
tenure track, and if they have an advanced degree other than the LIS master’s degree. 
The authors requested that the respondent check all the following research support 
options that his institution or library provided for librarians, giving eleven possibilities 
plus an option for “no research support for librarians” as well as “other” (with a text 
box for an explanation) (Q25). The authors asked if the respondent had worked in a 
position eligible for tenure and/or promotion, promotion only, or neither tenure nor 
promotion (Q26). Finally, the authors asked if the respondent has another graduate 
degree, in addition to her LIS degree, giving an optional response for “N/A (Do not 
have an LIS master’s degree)” (Q27).

At Q28, the authors presented an optional text entry box for comments and feedback. 
On the last screen of the survey were featured citations to publications that informed 
some of the questions and Kennedy’s contact information if the respondent wanted a 
report of the results of the survey. 

Through field testing, the authors estimated that the survey would take fewer than 
ten minutes to complete. The survey protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review 
Board at the authors’ university. 

Survey Dissemination
The survey was constructed using the software Qualtrics and was administered via 
the Internet. The authors solicited participation via listservs on which academic and/
or research librarians are members (see appendix B for the listservs to which the call 
was posted). There was one call for participation; no follow-up was pursued after the 
initial post. The survey was available for a month. There were no restrictions on who 
could choose to respond to the survey. 

Results
The authors examined the survey responses regarding their four areas of concern: 
the current research practice of the respondent academic librarians; a self-evaluation 
of their confidence in performing the steps in the research process; a list of methods 
training courses in which they have participated; and demographic and institutional 
data related to support of library research.

Of the 793 respondents who began the survey, 669 of them completed it. For this 
analysis, incomplete surveys were not eliminated. The authors used all available data 
from each question to assist in comparing the responses from the Powell, Baker, and 
Mika 2000 survey, and the authors’ own survey, conducted in 2010. The analysis here 
does not intend to generalize to the population of academic librarians since the sample 



832  College & Research Libraries September 2018

of respondents was not systematically gathered. To be clear about the results, the au-
thors report the total number of respondents (n) of each question. 

Reading and Conducting Research
Eighty-four percent of the survey respondents (n = 767) say that it is assumed they 
will read research-based literature as part of their job as professional librarians, and 80 
percent (n = 767) are allowed time on the job to do so; about 6 percent did not know if 
it was assumed they will read research-based literature as part of their job, and about 9 
percent did not know if they were allowed time on the job to read. Seventy-eight percent 
(n = 767) scan tables of contents of journals that contain research-based literature, but 
only 58 percent regularly read the full content of those articles. The main reason stated 
for not regularly reading research-based literature is time; an overwhelming 199 (of n 
= 469) respondents noted this reason. Forty-four respondents noted that they did not 
enjoy reading research articles/no interest. Of those respondents who regularly read 
research-based articles, they identified College & Research Libraries as the main journal 
they read, followed by The Journal of Academic Librarianship (see appendix C for the top 
fifteen journals noted in response to Q6, listing the titles of the journals in which the 
respondents regularly read research-based articles).

Seventy-seven percent of respondents (n = 721) have conducted research since com-
pleting the LIS degree, with 2 percent noting that they did not have an LIS master’s 
degree. Of the 553 respondents who conducted research since completing the LIS 
degree, 83 percent (454) of them disseminated the results of their research. The main 
venues sought for dissemination were: presented at national conference; published in 
a refereed journal; presented at regional conference; and presented at home institution 
in an informal forum. 

See table 1 for a comparison of responses from the 2010 and 2015 surveys, as well as 
the 2000 Powell, Baker, and Mika survey results, about reading and conducting research.

Confidence
The authors asked the respondents to rate their confidence in performing the discrete 
steps in a research project, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 
being “Very confident.” The 38 components were clustered together into eight groups 
of related tasks. In this section of results, the largest number of respondents in each 
grouping is noted. The largest number of respondents in the first group, the research 
question task (284; n = 707), marked their confidence at 4 for “Turning your topic into 
a question that can be tested.” In the next task, about research design, 277 respondents 
(n = 696) marked their confidence at 5 for “Identifying other research studies similar 
to yours in order to examine the methods used.” In the next (third) task, about the 
review of literature, 402 respondents (n = 690) marked their confidence at 5 for “Us-
ing relevant keywords to discover literature about your research topic.” A total of 240 
respondents (n = 670) marked their confidence at 5 for the fourth task, “Gathering 
data.” Fully 331 respondents (n = 667) marked their confidence at 1 at the fifth task, 
analyzing data, for “Knowing which statistical test(s) to run.” In the sixth task, about 
the written reporting of results, 403 respondents (n = 664) marked their confidence at 5 
for “Knowing how to apply a style guide (APA or MLA, for example).” In the seventh 
task, about the verbal reporting of results, 250 (n = 660) marked their confidence at 4 
for “Reporting results verbally.” In the eighth task 270 respondents (n = 660) marked 
their confidence at 4 for “Determining appropriate format for disseminating results 
(poster/presentation/article).” 

See appendix D for a few examples of line graphs of each of the tasks and their 
responses on the confidence scale. The reader may notice in the graphs that most of 



Academic Librarian Research  833

TA
B

L
E

 1
R

ea
di

ng
 a

nd
 C

on
du

ct
in

g 
R

es
ea

rc
h,

 C
om

pa
ri

so
n 

am
on

g 
20

00
, 2

01
0,

 a
nd

 2
01

5

 
20

00
 (P

ow
el

l, 
B

ak
er

, a
nd

 M
ik

a)
20

10
20

15

n
Pe

rc
en

ta
ge

 
R

an
ge

s 
of

 T
he

ir
 4

 
R

es
po

ns
e 

G
ro

up
s

C
ou

nt
Pe

rc
en

ta
ge

 o
f t

he
 

To
ta

l R
es

po
ns

e 
fo

r t
he

 
Q

ue
st

io
n

C
ou

nt
Pe

rc
en

ta
ge

 o
f t

he
 

To
ta

l R
es

po
ns

e 
fo

r 
th

e 
Q

ue
st

io
n

Is
 it

 a
ss

um
ed

 th
at

 y
ou

 w
ill

 re
ad

 
re

se
ar

ch
 li

te
ra

tu
re

 a
s 

pa
rt

 o
f y

ou
r 

jo
b 

as
 a

 p
ro

fe
ss

io
na

l l
ib

ra
ri

an
?

61
1

55
.2

%
–7

1.
5%

80
1

88
.4

1%
 (n

 =
 9

06
)

64
5

84
.0

9%
 (n

 =
 7

67
)

A
re

 y
ou

 a
llo

w
ed

 ti
m

e 
on

 th
e 

jo
b 

fo
r r

ea
di

ng
 re

se
ar

ch
 li

te
ra

tu
re

?
60

3
38

.2
%

–6
0.

8%
72

3
79

.8
0%

 (n
 =

 9
06

)
61

0
79

.5
3%

 (n
 =

 7
67

)

D
o 

yo
u 

re
gu

la
rl

y 
re

ad
 th

e 
fu

ll 
co

nt
en

t o
f r

es
ea

rc
h-

ba
se

d 
ar

tic
le

s…
?

59
4

54
.1

%
–6

7.
7%

71
1

78
.4

7%
 (n

=9
06

)
44

8
58

.4
1%

 (n
=7

67
)

If
 y

ou
 d

o 
no

t r
eg

ul
ar

ly
 re

ad
 

re
se

ar
ch

-b
as

ed
 a

rt
ic

le
s 

fr
om

 
th

e 
jo

ur
na

ls
 o

n 
th

e 
pr

ev
io

us
 

qu
es

tio
n,

 w
hy

 n
ot

?

no
t r

el
ev

an
t t

o 
th

ei
r j

ob
s,

 6
2

23
9 

re
sp

on
se

s
tim

e,
 2

07
55

5 
re

sp
on

se
s

tim
e,

 1
99

46
9 

re
sp

on
se

s

H
av

e 
yo

u 
co

nd
uc

te
d 

re
se

ar
ch

 
si

nc
e 

yo
u 

co
m

pl
et

ed
 y

ou
r l

ib
ra

ry
 

or
 in

fo
rm

at
io

n 
sc

ie
nc

e 
(L

IS
) 

m
as

te
r’

s 
de

gr
ee

?

qu
es

tio
n 

w
or

de
d 

di
ffe

re
nt

ly
 fr

om
 

K
en

ne
dy

 &
 B

ra
nc

ol
in

i (
20

10
, 2

01
5)

52
8

61
.5

4%
 (n

=8
58

)
55

3
76

.7
0%

 (n
=7

21
)

H
av

e 
yo

u 
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
 th

e 
re

su
lts

 o
f y

ou
r r

es
ea

rc
h 

to
 a

n 
ex

te
rn

al
 a

ud
ie

nc
e?

qu
es

tio
n 

w
or

de
d 

di
ffe

re
nt

ly
 fr

om
 

K
en

ne
dy

 &
 B

ra
nc

ol
in

i (
20

10
, 2

01
5)

40
6

77
.1

8%
 (n

=5
26

)
45

4
82

.5
5%

 (n
=5

50
)



834  College & Research Libraries September 2018

the respondents highly rated their own confidence levels in completing the steps of a 
research project. The authors created a variable during analysis called Average Confi-
dence and, for the thirty-eight steps on the 5-point scale (a possible 190 total points), 
an average of 3.41 (n = 647) was calculated. 

As in 2010, the authors were interested to learn whether a respondent had conducted 
research since achieving the LIS degree was predicted by their confidence levels in 
performing the steps of a research project. To test this, the authors conducted a binary 
logistic regression in SPSS (Version 24), using the Enter method. The dependent vari-
able was constructed from Q7, about whether the respondent has conducted research 
since completing his library or information science (LIS) master’s degree, giving an 
optional response for “N/A (Do not have an LIS master’s degree).” For this test, the 
authors removed the responses with the “N/A” answer since they were interested in 
the responses from those who had an LIS degree, which left behind only “yes” or “no” 
responses. The authors computed a new variable, Average Confidence, from Ques-
tions 10–17, as the independent variable. The resulting model identified a significant 
correlation between conducting research and confidence at the 95 percent confidence 
level (n = 694). Because the confidence scale ranged from 1 to 5, any one-point change 
in an answer to any one-scale item (such as going from 3 to 4) represents a 3.3 percent 
increase in the odds of conducting research (p < 0.001). This suggests that confidence in 
performing the discrete steps in a research project continues to be useful as a predictor 
for whether a librarian conducts research.

Given that confidence was not a variable considered in the survey completed by 
Powell, Baker, and Mika and that the authors’ own scale was altered greatly from the 
2010 and 2015 versions, a comparative table related to confidence measures is not 
presented. The reader may find further information about the scale development from 
2010 and 2015 in the article by Brancolini and Kennedy.57

Methods Training
The authors asked seven questions related to research methods training. Fifty-five 
percent (n = 659) believe that their LIS master’s degrees adequately prepared them to 
read and understand research-based literature, but only 17 percent (n = 659) believe 
that their LIS master’s degrees adequately prepared them to conduct original research. 
Twelve percent of the respondents (n = 659) completed a thesis as part of their LIS 
degree, and 27 percent (n = 659) wrote a thesis in completing another master’s degree. 
About half of the respondents (53%, n = 659) have taken at least one course in statisti-
cal analysis, and of those taking the course, 46 percent (n = 468) took it as part of their 
undergraduate coursework. Of the educational activities about research methods in 
which they have ever participated, the top three are: self-education activities (examples: 
professional reading, online tutorial); formal master’s degree LIS course(s) (examples: 
research methods, statistics); and continuing education program(s) (examples: courses, 
workshops, conference programs).

The authors expected that librarians would report having conducted research since 
achieving the LIS degree if they believed that their LIS degrees prepared them to conduct 
research. To test this, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the 
relation between conducting research (variable constructed from Q7, about whether 
the respondent has conducted research since completing his library or information 
science [LIS]) master’s degree, with optional response for “N/A [Do not have an LIS 
master’s degree]” removed) and belief that the LIS master’s degree had prepared the 
respondent to conduct original research (variable constructed from Q19, about whether 
the respondent believes his/her LIS master’s degree adequately prepared him/her to 
conduct original research, with the “N/A” answer removed from the set). The relation 



Academic Librarian Research  835

between these variables was not significant (chi-square with 1 degree of freedom = 1.65, 
p = 0.199). This finding is like the analysis of the 2010 data, in that whether librarians 
conduct research is not related to their belief that their LIS master’s degree programs 
prepared them to do so. It is also consistent with the findings of Powell, Baker, and Mika.58 

In the 2015 survey, the authors introduced two new questions, (1) asking if the re-
spondent had written a thesis in completing the LIS degree, and (2) if the respondent 
had written a thesis in completing another graduate degree. The authors anticipated 
that librarians may report having conducted research since achieving the LIS degree 
if they already had experience with reporting of research by writing a thesis. To test 
this, a chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between 
conducting research (variable constructed from Q7, about whether the respondent 
has conducted research since completing his library or information science [LIS] 
master’s degree, with optional response for “N/A [Do not have an LIS master’s de-
gree]” removed) and writing a thesis in completing the LIS master’s degree (variable 
constructed from Q20, about whether the respondent wrote a thesis in completing 
the LIS degree, with the “N/A” answer removed from the set). The relation between 
these variables was not significant (chi-square with 1 degree of freedom = 0.325, p = 
0.568). The relationship between the variables of conducting research and writing a 
thesis in completing another graduate degree, however was significant (chi-square 
with 1 degree of freedom = 9.121, p = 0.003). Three-hundred eleven (of 462) that had 
conducted research since completing the LIS degree did not write a thesis in complet-
ing another graduate degree.

See table 2 for a comparison of responses from the 2000, 2010, and 2015 surveys, 
about methods training.

Demographic Information
Institutional Support
The authors added possible research success factors to the question on institutional 
support. In response to the question about research support options provided by their 
institutions or libraries, the two options noted most frequently are travel funds (partial 
reimbursement), and workshops or other forms of continuing education. Thirty-seven 
(5.62% of the respondents, n = 658) responded that their institutions or libraries provided 
no research support for librarians. The authors expected to find a relationship between 
those librarians reporting that they had conducted research and those reporting some 
institutional support. To test this, a chi-square test of independence was performed to 
examine the relation between conducting research (variable constructed from Q7, about 
whether the respondent has conducted research since completing his library or informa-
tion science [LIS] master’s degree, with optional response for “N/A [Do not have an LIS 
master’s degree]” removed) and institutional support for research (variable constructed 
from Q25, about any research support options that the institution provides for librar-
ians). The relation between these variables was found to be significant (chi-square with 
1 degree of freedom = 39.803, p < 0.001). Powell, Baker, and Mika also found a significant 
correlation between institutional support and librarians conducting research.59 

The authors looked closer at two new items in the list of research support, formal and 
informal mentorship. They performed a chi-square test of independence to examine the 
relation between conducting research (variable constructed from Q7, about whether the 
respondent has conducted research since completing his library or information science 
[LIS] master’s degree, with optional response for “N/A [Do not have an LIS master’s 
degree]” removed) and formal mentorship (the item for “formal mentorship [experi-
enced librarian researcher partners with novice researcher]” was checked at Q25). Of 
the 96 respondents (out of 646 total respondents, 15%) who noted that their institution 



836  College & Research Libraries September 2018
TA

B
L

E
 2

M
et

ho
ds

 T
ra

in
in

g,
 C

om
pa

ri
so

n 
am

on
g 

20
00

, 2
01

0,
 a

nd
 2

01
5

 
20

00
 (P

ow
el

l, 
B

ak
er

, a
nd

 
M

ik
a)

20
10

20
15

C
ou

nt
Pe

rc
en

ta
ge

 
of

 th
e 

To
ta

l 
R

es
po

ns
es

 fo
r 

th
e 

Q
ue

st
io

n

C
ou

nt
Pe

rc
en

ta
ge

 
of

 th
e 

To
ta

l 
R

es
po

ns
es

 fo
r 

th
e 

Q
ue

st
io

n

C
ou

nt
Pe

rc
en

ta
ge

 
an

d 
th

e 
To

ta
l 

R
es

po
ns

es
 fo

r 
th

e 
Q

ue
st

io
n

D
o 

yo
u 

be
lie

ve
 th

at
 y

ou
r L

IS
 m

as
te

r’
s 

de
gr

ee
 a

de
qu

at
el

y 
pr

ep
ar

ed
 y

ou
 to

 re
ad

 
an

d 
un

de
rs

ta
nd

 re
se

ar
ch

-b
as

ed
 li

te
ra

tu
re

? 

31
0 

(r
es

po
ns

e 
is

 Y
E

S)

51
.6

%
 

(n
=6

01
)

46
3 

(r
es

po
ns

e 
is

 
Y

E
S)

56
.8

0%
 (n

=8
15

)
36

2 
(r

es
po

ns
e 

is
 Y

E
S)

54
.9

3%
 

(n
=6

59
)

D
o 

yo
u 

be
lie

ve
 th

at
 y

ou
r L

IS
 m

as
te

r’
s 

de
gr

ee
 a

de
qu

at
el

y 
pr

ep
ar

ed
 y

ou
 to

 
co

nd
uc

t o
ri

gi
na

l r
es

ea
rc

h?
 

17
8 

(r
es

po
ns

e 
is

 Y
E

S)

30
%

 (n
=5

94
)

21
2 

(r
es

po
ns

e 
is

 
Y

E
S)

26
.0

1%
 (n

=8
15

)
11

3 
(r

es
po

ns
e 

is
 Y

E
S)

17
.1

5%
 

(n
=6

59
)

D
id

 y
ou

 w
ri

te
 a

 th
es

is
 in

 c
om

pl
et

in
g 

yo
ur

 L
IS

 d
eg

re
e?

qu
es

tio
n 

no
t a

sk
ed

qu
es

tio
n 

no
t a

sk
ed

 in
 2

01
0

80
 (r

es
po

ns
e 

is
 Y

E
S)

12
.1

4%
 

(n
=6

59
)

D
id

 y
ou

 w
ri

te
 a

 th
es

is
 in

 c
om

pl
et

in
g 

an
ot

he
r m

as
te

r’
s 

de
gr

ee
?

qu
es

tio
n 

no
t a

sk
ed

qu
es

tio
n 

no
t a

sk
ed

 in
 2

01
0

17
6 

(r
es

po
ns

e 
is

 Y
E

S)
26

.7
1%

 
(n

=6
59

)
H

av
e 

yo
u 

ta
ke

n 
at

 le
as

t o
ne

 c
ou

rs
e 

in
 

st
at

is
tic

al
 a

na
ly

si
s?

qu
es

tio
n 

no
t a

sk
ed

qu
es

tio
n 

no
t a

sk
ed

 in
 2

01
0

35
0 

(r
es

po
ns

e 
is

 Y
E

S)
53

.1
1%

 
(n

=6
59

)
W

he
n 

di
d 

yo
u 

ta
ke

 y
ou

r c
ou

rs
e(

s)
 in

 
st

at
is

tic
al

 a
na

ly
si

s?
qu

es
tio

n 
no

t a
sk

ed
qu

es
tio

n 
no

t a
sk

ed
 in

 2
01

0
16

1 
as

 p
ar

t o
f u

nd
er

gr
ad

ua
te

 
co

ur
se

w
or

k
46

.1
3%

 
(n

=4
68

)
A

ny
 e

du
ca

tio
na

l a
ct

iv
iti

es
 a

bo
ut

 re
se

ar
ch

 
m

et
ho

ds
 in

 w
hi

ch
 y

ou
 h

av
e 

ev
er

 
pa

rt
ic

ip
at

ed

1.
 s

el
f-

ed
uc

at
io

n 
ac

tiv
iti

es
 

(s
uc

h 
as

 p
ro

fe
ss

io
na

l r
ea

di
ng

, 
on

lin
e 

tu
to

ri
al

)

1.
 s

el
f-

ed
uc

at
io

n 
ac

tiv
iti

es
 (s

uc
h 

as
 p

ro
fe

ss
io

na
l r

ea
di

ng
, o

nl
in

e 
tu

to
ri

al
)

qu
es

tio
n 

w
or

de
d 

di
ffe

re
nt

ly
 fr

om
 K

en
ne

dy
 

&
 B

ra
nc

ol
in

i (
20

10
, 2

01
5)

2.
 fo

rm
al

 m
as

te
r’

s 
de

gr
ee

 L
IS

 
co

ur
se

(s
) (

su
ch

 a
s 

re
se

ar
ch

 
m

et
ho

ds
, s

ta
tis

tic
s)

2.
 fo

rm
al

 m
as

te
r’

s 
de

gr
ee

 L
IS

 
co

ur
se

(s
) (

su
ch

 a
s 

re
se

ar
ch

 
m

et
ho

ds
, s

ta
tis

tic
s)

3.
 c

on
tin

ui
ng

 e
du

ca
tio

n 
pr

og
ra

m
(s

) (
su

ch
 a

s 
co

ur
se

s,
 

w
or

ks
ho

ps
, c

on
fe

re
nc

e 
pr

og
ra

m
s)

3.
 c

on
tin

ui
ng

 e
du

ca
tio

n 
pr

og
ra

m
(s

) (
su

ch
 a

s 
co

ur
se

s,
 

w
or

ks
ho

ps
, c

on
fe

re
nc

e 
pr

og
ra

m
s)



Academic Librarian Research  837

offered a formal mentorship, 88 (92%) of those have conducted research. The relation 
between these variables was found to be significant (chi-square with 1 degree of freedom 
= 10.975, p < 0.001). They then examined informal mentorship and performed a similar 
chi-square test. Of the 259 (out of 646, 40%) who noted that their institution offered an 
informal mentorship (journal club discussions or article/proposal feedback sessions), 
227 (88%) of those have conducted research. The relation between the variables was 
found to be significant (chi-square with 1 degree of freedom = 19.677, p < 0.001).

Powell, Baker, and Mika asked three questions about support for conducting re-
search, each with a yes/no response requested to the following: if respondents have 
time during working hours to do research; if they received internal or external support 
for research. One out of five (20%) of their respondents noted that they received at least 
one of these three support mechanisms. 

Faculty Status and Additional Graduate Degrees
The authors asked a question about faculty status and another question about additional 
graduate degrees. Fifty-five percent (n = 658) of the 2015 survey participants responded 
that they have worked in a position as a librarian that is eligible for promotion and/
or tenure. Forty-eight percent (n = 658) have another MA, MS, or PhD, in addition to 
their LIS degree. Powell, Baker, and Mika did not include questions about promotion/
tenure or additional advanced degrees in their 2000 survey. The authors changed the 
wording of the questions about promotion and tenure in this recent survey so a com-
parison between the 2010 and 2015 is not represented in table 3.

TABLE 3
Demographic Information, Comparison among 2000, 2010, and 2015

 2000 (Powell, Baker, 
and Mika)

2010 2015

Count Percentage 
of the 
Total 

Responses 
for the 

Question

Count Percentage 
of the 
Total 

Responses 
for the 

Question

Count Percentage 
and the 
Total 

Responses 
for the 

Question
Research 
support 
options 
that your 
institution 
or library 
provides 
for 
librarians

468 have 
time during 

working 
hours, 
receive 

internal or 
external 

support for 
research

26.04% 
(n=1,797)

466 (travel 
funds, partial 

reimbursement)

20.28% 
(2,297)

401 (travel 
funds, partial 

reimbursement)

16.12% 
(2,487)

452 
(workshops 

or other forms 
of continuing 

education)

19.67% 
(2,297)

303 
(workshops 

or other forms 
of continuing 

education)

12.18% 
(2,487)

Do you 
have 
another 
graduate 
degree, in 
addition to 
your LIS 
degree?

question not asked 321 (response 
is YES)

39.68% 
(n=809)

317 (response 
is YES)

48.17% 
(n=658)



838  College & Research Libraries September 2018

The relationship between the variables of conducting research since completing the 
master’s LIS degree (constructed from Q7, about whether the respondent has conducted 
research since completing his library or information science [LIS] master’s degree, 
with optional response for “N/A [Do not have an LIS master’s degree]” removed) and 
eligibility for promotion and/or tenure was found to be significant, with 440 of the 509 
respondents who noted that they had conducted research had also worked in a position 
as a librarian that is eligible for promotion and/or tenure (chi-square with 1 degree of 
freedom = 32.097, p < 0.001). Similarly, the relationship between conducting research 
and the completion of an additional graduate degree was found to be significant (chi-
square with 1 degree of freedom = 17.451, p < 0.001).

Discussion 
The 2010 survey was designed to gather data to scan the environment related to research 
attitudes and capabilities of academic and research librarians, as well as to assist in 
the development of a curriculum for a professional continuing education opportunity 
in research design. This 2015 survey was administered to determine if there were any 
significant changes that should be addressed in an update to the curriculum. Gathering 
a snapshot of current research-related attitudes and capabilities in the 2015 survey also 
allows the authors to begin to examine trends in this area over time. The large number 
of responses from the 2015 survey suggests that research is still a pressing issue for 
academic and research librarians. The results of the survey may assist in tailoring a 
revision to the curriculum in the following ways: 

Current research practice. The authors learned from the survey that academic 
librarians are currently participating in reading research-based literature as part 
of their jobs. As in 2010, the respondents to the 2015 survey note time as the largest 
stated barrier to reading literature. During the initial three years of the Institute for 
Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL), the authors, who are the IRDL project 
codirectors, had multiple informal conversations with the Scholars about how to 
effectively manage time for the research process, especially as it relates to unantici-
pated delays due to changes to a research design midstream, or needing extended 
time to conduct analysis while learning new methodological techniques. In future 
IRDL workshops, the codirectors will demonstrate time-management techniques, like 
the Pomodoro Method and Gantt charts, to give the Scholars practical ideas about 
how to manage their research time. The codirectors have also devised a script for 
the Scholars to talk with their home institutions’ managers about how to schedule 
time for reading and research.

The largest observed change from the results of the 2010 and 2015 surveys is related 
to the question, “Do you regularly read the full content of research-based articles…?” 
There was a 20 percent drop from 2010 to 2015 in the respondents signifying that they 
read the full content of research-based articles (78.47% in 2010, 58.41% in 2015). Since 
the sampling mechanism chosen by the authors was purposive, the authors do not 
intend to draw general conclusions about why this change may have occurred. As it 
relates to a possible curriculum revision, however, it may spur a conversation with the 
IRDL Scholars about the value gained by reading deeply, rather than simply skimming 
abstracts of research-based articles. 

Confidence. The authors’ use of a more granular confidence scale in the 2015 survey 
was helpful for the authors mainly in the future development and assessment of the 
curriculum for the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship. Having a more accu-
rate measurement of confidence in the subcomponents of conducting a research project 
provides guidance for specific attention to those areas in the curriculum, especially as 
it relates to hands-on activities that are developed to reinforce preworkshop readings. 



Academic Librarian Research  839

Regarding the major components, compared to that of the 2010 survey, the authors do 
not observe any differences significant enough for comment.

Methods training. In 2015, compared to the responses of 2010, a lower percentage of 
respondents believe that their LIS master’s degree prepared them to conduct original 
research (in 2010, 26%; in 2015, 17%).

The ratio of participation in educational activities about research methods remained 
the same in the five years between surveys, with self-education activities (examples: 
professional reading, online tutorial) being the first mentioned in both surveys, with 
formal master’s degree LIS course(s) (examples: research methods, statistics) mentioned 
second, and continuing education program(s) (examples: courses, workshops, confer-
ence programs) mentioned third.

Demographic information. In the 2010 survey, 98 (n = 809) responded that their in-
stitution or library provided no research support options. This is a higher percentage 
(12%) than was reported in 2015 (around 7%), and it is encouraging to see this figure 
decreasing in the last five years, especially given the significant relationship between 
a librarian conducting research and their receiving support from their institution.

These survey results have implications for a broader application than the cur-
ricular adjustment for the IRDL. Related to current research practice, for example, a 
continuing concern is the time needed to complete any step in the research process. 
That issue, coupled with the finding that only about 60 percent of the 2015 survey re-
spondents read the full content of research-based articles, may find a resolution via a 
journal club, in which the participants are prompted at a regularly scheduled interval 
to thoroughly read journal articles. Related to confidence, a finding from this study is 
that the respondents noted their lack of confidence in knowing which statistical test(s) 
to run. Participating in a workshop or course may mitigate that lack of knowledge, so 
that, when embarking on a research project, the librarian can do so confidently. The 
results of this survey noted that respondents participate in self-education activities to 
boost their knowledge about research methods. A list of such professional readings and 
courses could be constructed, so that others could participate in similar self-education 
activities, without the required research to discover ones that are appropriate. Related 
to demographic information, the authors were heartened to learn that institutions are 
providing more support for librarians conducting research. Librarians can advocate 
for increased support, and more diverse options for “support,” so that librarians may 
participate more fully in research activities.

Limitations of This Study and Future Research
Now that the authors have completed two surveys of academic librarians about 
their research capabilities and interests and, in this article, compared it with similar 
work completed in 2000, the authors can begin to think about trends in this area. The 
next iteration of this survey, presumably in 2020, should employ a stricter sampling 
mechanism to provide an authoritative understanding of the research process for the 
respondents. The authors may consider replicating the survey, using a modification of 
the sampling design described in the work by Powell, Baker, and Mika. They surveyed 
librarians from all types of libraries, so they sampled members of four professional 
associations. The authors would likely limit sampling in a future survey to members 
of the association most closely aligned with academic librarians, the Association of 
College and Research Libraries. The authors may also want to look at other, more re-
cent survey instruments that focus specifically on academic librarians, such as the one 
used by Hoffman, Berg, and Koufogiannakis to survey Canadian academic librarians.60 

The 2015 survey asked about the availability of institutional support for research, but 
it did not specifically ask which of these supports had been used by respondents. The 



840  College & Research Libraries September 2018

authors are especially interested in exploring more extensively the impact of mentor-
ship, as high percentages of the respondents from institutions with mentoring programs 
reported research success, 92 percent for those with formal mentoring and 88 percent 
for those with informal mentoring. Future research might ask librarian-researchers 
specific questions about their mentoring experiences. The study published by Palepu 
et al. provides a possible model for further exploration of the relationship between 
research mentoring and research success, especially among novice researchers.61 

Summary 
In this article, the authors report findings from a 2015 survey of academic librarians 
about their attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities in the research process. 
An update to a survey the authors conducted five years prior, the findings from a 
purposive sample were similar. Regarding the authors’ interest in discovering how 
librarians are currently participating in research, a notable finding from this survey 
was that only 58 percent of the respondents regularly read the full content of research 
articles; this is a significant decrease from the 2010 survey (78.5%). This is disturbing, 
as research articles are primary sources of evidence for use in evidence-based practice 
and research ideas. As illustrated in the figures in appendix D, confidence in complet-
ing the steps in the research process appears very similar between the 2010 and 2015 
surveys. Seventeen percent of the respondents believed that their LIS master’s degree 
adequately prepared them to conduct original research, 9 percent fewer than in the 
2010 survey (26.01%). This is cause for concern, as LIS master’s programs consider the 
relevance of their curricula and academic librarians search for ways to enhance and 
upgrade their research skills. The 2015 survey added some questions that reflect the 
latest research on research success factors for academic librarians: a more granular 
measure of research self-efficacy, academic preparation for research, and effective 
forms of institutional support for research, including formal and informal mentoring. 
The results confirm the importance of institutional support for librarian research suc-
cess and provide new support for formal and informal research mentoring programs 
in academic libraries.



Academic Librarian Research  841

Appendix A. The Survey Instrument
Welcome to the 2015 Academic Librarian Research Survey. Please complete this survey 
only one time.

For purposes of this study, we are defining research as: The process of arriving at 
dependable solutions to problems/questions/hypotheses through the planned and 
systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data: it may be applied or theo-
retical in nature and use quantitative or qualitative methods. (This definition does not 
include library research that is limited to activities such as compiling bibliographies 
and searching catalogs.)

Q1. Is it assumed that you will read research literature as part of your job as a profes-
sional librarian?

 □ Yes
 □ No
 □ Don’t know

Q2. Are you allowed time on the job for reading research literature?
 □ Yes
 □ No
 □ Don’t know

Q3. Do you regularly scan the tables of contents or abstracts of research-based articles 
in any journals like the ones listed here? (This is a sample list of journals that contain 
research-based articles)
College & Research Libraries
Information Processing & Management
Information Technology & Libraries
Journal of Academic Librarianship
Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology
Journal of Library Administration
Library Resources & Technical Services 

 □ Yes 
 □ No

Q4. Do you regularly read the full content of research-based articles in any journals 
like the ones listed in the previous question?

 □ Yes (skip to Q6)
 □ No

Q5. If you do not regularly read research-based articles from the journals on the previ-
ous question, why not? Check all that apply. If you choose Other, please tell us why 
you do not regularly read any of those journals.

 □ Do not have enough expertise in research methods 
 □ Do not consider research-based articles to be relevant to my job 
 □ Prefer to read essays, opinion pieces, etc. 
 □ It is not expected that I will read research articles 
 □ I do not enjoy reading research articles / no interest 
 □ I do not have time 
 □ Other _____ (text entry)

[Q6 displays if the answer to Q4 is Yes]
Q6. List the titles of two journals in which you regularly read research-based articles.

 □ Journal 1 _____ (text entry)
 □ Journal 2 _____ (text entry) 



842  College & Research Libraries September 2018

Q7. Have you conducted research since you completed your library or information 
science (LIS) master’s degree?

 □ Yes
 □ No
 □ n/a (Do not have an LIS master’s degree)

[Q8 displays if the answer to Q7 is Yes]
Q8. Have you disseminated the results of your research to an external audience? 

 □ Yes 
 □ No  

[Q9 displays if the answer to Q8 is Yes]
Q9. How have you disseminated the results of your research? Check all that apply. If 
you choose Other, please tell us how you have disseminated the results of your research.

 □ Published a book (solo or co-author) 
 □ Published in a book (contributed article) 
 □ Published in a refereed journal (peer-reviewed, print or online)
 □ Published in a non-refereed journal (print or online)
 □ Published in conference proceedings 
 □ Presented at a national conference 
 □ Presented at a regional conference 
 □ Presented at my home institution in an informal forum
 □ Other _____ (text entry) 

The following eight sections ask you to rate your level of confidence in performing 
steps in a research project.

Q10. 1. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry]

• Turning your topic into a question that can be tested 
• Constructing a question that is reasonable in scope (not too narrow/large, given 

your time and other assets such as money, support, research assistance).
• Determining if your research topic makes a contribution to the field, based on 

the relevant literature.
Q11. 2. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry]

• Designing a project to test your question
• Identifying other research studies similar to yours in order to examine the 

methods used.
• Exploring research designs that are appropriate for your question.
• Choosing a research design that is appropriate for your question.
• Selecting the methods and procedures for your question.
• Developing a timeline for the study. 

Q12. 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry]

• Writing a review of the literature appropriate for your research topic.
• Determining how your study can contribute to the existing literature.



Academic Librarian Research  843

• Identifying appropriate information sources in which to conduct your literature 
search.

• Using relevant keywords to discover literature about your research topic.
• Determining if a piece of literature is an appropriate source for your research 

question.
Q13. 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry]  

• Gathering data
• Determining which members of a population to include in your study.
• Determining how many members of a population to include in your study.
• Choosing appropriate qualitative data collection technique(s).
• Choosing appropriate quantitative data collection techniques.
• Choosing an appropriate data gathering procedure (what kind of data are you 

going to gather and how are you going to do it) (examples: in-depth interviews, 
focus groups, observation).

• Identifying appropriate sources of existing data.
• Knowing how to design a focus group.
• Knowing how to run a focus group.
• Knowing how to design a survey.
• Knowing how to administer a survey.

Q14. 5. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry] 

• Analyzing data
• Knowing how to organize the data you have gathered, or how to arrange exist-

ing data you may be using.
• Identifying which statistical package may assist you in analyzing your data.
• Knowing which statistical test(s) to run.
• Knowing how to code qualitative data to identify themes and sub-themes.

Q15. 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry] 

• Reporting results in written format
• Knowing the components to construct a traditional social sciences journal article.
• Knowing how to apply a style guide (APA or MLA, for example).
• Knowing how to report the results of the statistical test(s) you may have run.

Q16. 7. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry] 

• Reporting results verbally
• Knowing how to adapt your written research paper for oral presentation.

Q17. 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Not at all confident” and 5 being “Very 
confident,” how would you rate your confidence in performing the following steps 
in a research project?
[Likert scale 1-5 presented for each entry]



844  College & Research Libraries September 2018

• Determining an appropriate format for disseminating results (poster/presenta-
tion/article)

• Identifying appropriate places to disseminate results (publication/conference)
Q18. Do you believe that your LIS master’s degree adequately prepared you to read 
and understand research-based literature?

 □ Yes 
 □ No
 □ n/a (Do not have an LIS master’s degree)

Q19. Do you believe that your LIS master’s degree adequately prepared you to conduct 
original research?

 □ Yes 
 □ No
 □ n/a (Do not have an LIS master’s degree)

Q20. Did you write a thesis in completing your LIS degree?
 □ Yes 
 □ No
 □ n/a (Do not have an LIS master’s degree)

Q21. Did you write a thesis in completing another master’s degree?
 □ Yes 
 □ No
 □ n/a (Do not have an LIS master’s degree)

Q22. Have you taken at least one course in statistical analysis?
 □ Yes 
 □ No

[Q23 displays if the answer to Q22 is Yes]
 □ Q23. When did you take your course(s) in statistical analysis? Please check 

all that apply. If you choose Other, please tell us when you took your 
course(s) in statistical analysis.

 □ Part of my undergraduate coursework 
 □ Part of my MLS coursework 
 □ Part of my coursework for a non-MLS graduate degree 
 □ Other _____ (text entry) 

Q24. Please check any educational activities about research methods in which you 
have ever participated. Check all that apply. If you choose Other, please tell us about 
the educational activities about research methods in which you have participated.

 □ Formal master’s degree LIS course(s) (e.g., research methods, statistics) 
 □ Formal doctoral degree LIS course(s) (e.g., research methods, statistics) 
 □ Formal master’s degree non-LIS course(s) (e.g., courses in other depart-

ments) 
 □ Formal doctoral degree non-LIS course(s) (e.g., courses in other depart-

ments) 
 □ Continuing education program(s) (e.g., courses, workshops, conference 

programs) 
 □ Staff development program(s) provided by your organization 
 □ Self-education activities (e.g., professional reading, online tutorial) 
 □ None of these
 □ Other _____ (text entry) 

Q25. Check all of the following research support options that your institution or library 
provides for librarians. Check all that apply.

 □ Release time during the work week 
 □ Short-term pre-tenure research leave 



Academic Librarian Research  845

 □ Sabbaticals for librarians 
 □ Travel funds (full reimbursement) 
 □ Travel funds (partial reimbursement) 
 □ Incentives (merit pay or bonuses) 
 □ Research grants 
 □ Formal mentorship (experienced librarian researcher partners with novice 

researcher) 
 □ Informal mentorship (journal club discussions or article/proposal feedback 

sessions) 
 □ Research design consultant or statistical consultant 
 □ Workshops or other forms of continuing education 
 □ No research support for librarians 
 □ Other _____ (text entry) 

Q26. Have you worked in a position as a librarian that is eligible for promotion and/
or tenure?

 □ Tenure and promotion 
 □ Promotion only 
 □ Neither tenure nor promotion 

Q27. Do you have another graduate degree, in addition to your LIS degree?
 □ Yes      
 □ No      
 □ n/a (Do not have an LIS master’s degree) 

Q28. Do you have any comments or feedback for the researchers?



846  College & Research Libraries September 2018

Appendix B. Wording of Call for Participation

The following e-mail was posted to these listservs: Academic PR (Public relations and 
marketing in academic libraries); ARL-ASSESS (Association of Research Libraries As-
sessment group); ATLANTIS (Theological Librarians); AUTOCAT (Library Cataloging 
and Authorities Discussion Group); CALIBACA-L (California Academic & Research 
Libraries Association); COLL-ASSESS (Collection Assessment); COLLIB-L (College Li-
brarians List); DIG-PRES (Digital preservation); ILI-L (Information Literacy Instruction 
Discussion List); LIBREF-L (Discussion of Library Reference Issues); Metadatalibrarians; 
PRTalk (Public relations in libraries); ULS-L; West Arch (Western Archivists Listserv); 
VRA (Visual Resources Association); VRT-L (Video Round Table).

Subject line: 2015 Librarian Research survey call for participation 

E-mail body: Help us learn about your research experience, capabilities, and attitudes! 
If you are an academic librarian, working in any library setting, we invite you to par-
ticipate in a brief survey about your research skills and your institution’s support for 
research. The survey is open through January 15, 2016.

The purpose of this survey is to update our 2010 study on the research activity of 
academic librarians. In this Web-based survey we will ask questions about:

• Your research practice,
• Your research training,
• How you would assess your own skills in completing discrete research tasks, 

and
• Institutional support for research. 

The survey is expected to take about 10 minutes to complete. There will be no follow-
up contact with you. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and no 
risks are anticipated for you as a result of participating. This study has been reviewed 
by the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects at Loyola Marymount University. 
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant in this study, 
please contact David Hardy, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, 1 LMU Drive, 
Suite 3000, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles CA 90045-2659 (310) 258-5465, 
david.hardy@lmu.edu.

You may begin the study by going to this link: <URL removed>
<Author signature>

mailto:david.hardy@lmu.edu


Academic Librarian Research  847

Appendix C. Q6. 
List the titles of two journals in which you regularly read research-based articles.

College & Research Libraries 232

The Journal of Academic Librarianship 112

portal: Libraries and the Academy 44

Communications in Information Literacy 24

College & Research Libraries News 21

Journal of the Medical Library Association 21

American Archivist 20

Journal of Library Administration 19

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 16

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 14

Reference & User Services Quarterly 13

Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 11

Library Resources & Technical Services 11

Code4Lib Journal 9

Library and Information Research 9



848  College & Research Libraries September 2018

Appendix D. The Confidence Levels of Some of the 
Research Tasks, Charted in a Line Graph



Academic Librarian Research  849

Notes

 1. Ronald R. Powell, Lynda M. Baker, and Joseph J. Mika, “Library and Information Science 
Practitioners and Research,” Library & Information Science Research 24, no. 1 (2002): 49–72.

 2. Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville, “Research, Publication, and Service Patterns of 
Florida Academic Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 30, no. 6 (2004): 435–51.

 3. Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: A Survey of 
Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities,” College & Research Libraries 73, no. 5 (2012): 
431–48.

 4. Powell, Baker, and Mika, “Practitioners and Research.”
 5. Ibid., 54.
 6. Joseph Fennewald, “Research Productivity among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publica-

tions at Penn State,” College & Research Libraries 69 (2008): 104–16; Christopher V. Hollister, “An 
Exploratory Study on Post-Tenure Research Productivity among Academic Librarians,” Journal 
of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 4 (2016): 368–81; Gay Helen Perkins and Amy J.W. Slowik, “The 
Value of Research in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 74, no. 2 (2013): 143–58.

 7. Virginia Wilson, “Formalized Curiosity: Reflecting on the Librarian Practitioner-Research-
er,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 8, no. 1 (2013): 111–17.

 8. Rebecca Watson-Boone, “Academic Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers,” Journal of 
Academic Librarianship 26, no. 2 (2000): 85–93.

 9. Peter Jarvis, The Practitioner-Researcher: Developing Theory from Practice (San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass, 1999).

10. Watson-Boone, “Academic Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers,” 91.
11. Yu-Wei Chang, “Librarians’ Contribution to Open Access Journal Publishing in Library 

and Information Science from the Perspective of Authorship,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 
41, no. 5 (2015): 660–68.

12. Yu-Wei Chang, “Characteristics of Articles Co-Authored by Researchers and Practitioners 
in Library and Information Science Journals,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 5 (2016): 
535–41.

13. Quinn Galbraith, Elizabeth Smart, Sara D. Smith, and Megan Reed, “Who Publishes in 
Top-Tier Library Science Journals? An Analysis by Faculty Status and Tenure,” College & Research 
Libraries 75, no. 5 (2014): 724–35; Lili Luo and Margaret McKinney, “JAL in the Past Decade: A 
Comprehensive Analysis of Academic Library Research,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 41, no. 
2 (2015): 123–29.

14. Galbraith et al., “Who Publishes in Top-Tier Library Science Journals?”
15. Ibid., 734.
16. Denise Koufogiannakis and Ellen Crumley, “Research in Librarianship: Issues to Consider,” 

Library Hi Tech 24, no. 3 (2006): 324–40; Jeannie P. Miller and Candace R. Benefiel, “Academic 



850  College & Research Libraries September 2018

Librarians and the Pursuit of Tenure: The Support Group as a Strategy for Success,” College & 
Research Libraries 59, no. 3 (1998): 260–65; Powell, Baker, and Mika, “Library and Information Sci-
ence Practitioners and Research”; Zara Wilkinson, “Rock around the (Tenure) Clock: Research 
Strategies for New Academic Librarians,” New Library World 114, no. 1/2 (2013): 54–66.

17. Lili Luo, “Fusing Research into Practice: The Role of Research Methods Education,” Library 
& Information Science Research 33, no. 3 (2011): 191–201.

18. Powell, Baker, and Mika, “Library and Information Science Practitioners and Research.”
19. Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research.”
20. Selinda Adelle Berg, Heidi L.M. Jacobs, and Dayna Cornwall, “Academic Librarians and 

Research: A Study of Canadian Library Administrator Perspectives,” College & Research Libraries 
74, no. 6 (2013): 560–72; Kristin Hoffmann, Selinda Adelle Berg, and Denise Koufogiannakis, 
“Understanding Factors That Encourage Research Productivity for Academic Librarians,” Evidence 
Based Library and Information Practice (in press); Gay Helen Perkins and Amy J.W. Slowik, “The 
Value of Research in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 74, no. 2 (2013): 143–58; Ken 
N. Meadows, Selinda Adelle Berg, Kristin Hoffmann, Nazi Torabi, and Margaret Martin Gardiner, 
“A Needs-Driven and Responsive Approach to Supporting the Research Endeavors of Academic 
Librarians,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 8, no. 2 
(2013): 1–32; Catherine Sassen and Diane Wahl, “Fostering Research and Publication in Academic 
Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 75, no. 4 (2014): 458–91; Elizabeth M. Smigielski, Melissa 
A. Laning, and Caroline M. Daniels, “Funding, Time and Mentoring: A Study of Research and 
Publication Support Practices of ARL Member Libraries,” Journal of Library Administration 54, no. 
4 (2014): 261–76.

21. Kristin Hoffmann, Selinda Adelle Berg, and Denise Koufogiannakis, “Examining Success: 
Identifying Factors That Contribute to Research Productivity across Librarianship and Other 
Disciplines,” Library & Information Research 38, no. 119 (2014): 13–28.

22. Ibid., 19.
23. Christopher V. Hollister, “An Exploratory Study on Post-Tenure Research Productivity 

among Academic Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 4 (2016): 368–81.
24. Ibid., 374.
25. Kathleen J. Bieschke, Rosean M. Bishop, and Victoria L. Garcia, “The Utility of the Research 

Self-Efficacy Scale,” Journal of Career Assessment 4, no. 1 (1996): 59–75; Jeffrey H. Kahn, “Predicting 
the Scholarly Activity of Counseling Psychology Students: A Refinement and Extension,” Journal 
of Counseling Psychology 48, no. 3 (2001): 344–54; Jeffrey H. Kahn and Norman A. Scott, “Predic-
tors of Research Productivity and Science-Related Career Goals among Counseling Psychology 
Doctoral Students,” Counseling Psychologist 25, no. 1 (1997): 38–67; Julia C. Phillips and Richard K. 
Russell, “Research Self-Efficacy, the Research Training Environment, and Research Productivity 
among Graduate Students in Counseling Psychology,” Counseling Psychologist 22, no. 4 (1994): 
628–41.

26. Charles J. Gelso, Ellen C. Baumann, Harold T. Chui, and Alexandra E. Savela, “The Making 
of a Scientist–Psychotherapist: The Research Training Environment and the Psychotherapist,” 
Psychotherapy 50, no. 2 (2013): 139–49.

27. Lori L. Bakken, Angela Byars-Winston, and Min-fen Wang, “Viewing Clinical Research 
Career Development through the Lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory,” Advances in Health 
Sciences Education Theory and Practice 11, no. 1 (2006): 91–110.

28. Bieschke, Bishop, and Garcia, “The Utility of the Research Self-Efficacy Scale”; Michelle 
Forester, Jeffrey H. Kahn, and Matthew S. Hesson-McInnis, “Factor Structures of Three Measures 
of Research Self-Efficacy,” Journal of Career Assessment 12, no. 1 (2004): 3–16.

29. Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research.”
30. Gary Holden, Kathleen Barker, Thomas Meenaghan, and Gary Rosenberg, “Research 

Self-Efficacy: A New Possibility for Educational Outcomes Assessment,” Journal of Social Work 
Education 35, no. 3 (1999): 463–76.

31. Ibid., 466.
32. Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research.”
33. Sassen and Wahl, “Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries,” 458.
34. Gelso et al., “The Making of a Scientist–Psychotherapist,” 142.
35. Charles J. Gelso, “On the Making of a Scientist-Practitioner: A Theory of Research Training 

in Professional Psychology,” Training and Education in Professional Psychology S, no. 1 (2006): 3–16; 
Gelso et al., “The Making of a Scientist–Psychotherapist.”

36. Kristine R. Brancolini and Marie R. Kennedy, “The Development and Use of a Research 
Self-efficacy Scale to Assess the Effectiveness of a Research Training Program for Academic Li-
brarians,” Library and Information Research 41, no. 124 (2017). 

37. Hoffmann, Berg, and Koufogiannakis, “Examining Success.”
38. Ronald T. Brown, Brian P. Daly, and Frederick T.L. Leong, “Mentoring in Research: A 



Academic Librarian Research  851

Developmental Approach,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 40, no. 3 (2009): 306–13.
39. Wendy Levinson, Karen Kaufman, Clark Brinton, and Susan W. Tolle, “Mentors and Role 

Models for Women in Academic Medicine,” Western Journal of Medicine 154, no. 4 (1991): 423–26; 
Anita Palepu, Robert H. Freidman, Rosalinda C. Barnett, Phyllis L. Carr, Arlene S. Ash, Laura 
Szalacha, and Mark A. Moskowitz, “Junior Faculty Members’ Mentoring Relationships and Their 
Professional Development in U.S. Medical Schools,” Academic Medicine 73, no. 3 (1998): 318–23.

40. Palepu et al., “Junior Faculty Members’ Mentoring Relationships.”
41. Ibid., 321.
42. Ibid., 322.
43. Levinson et al., “Mentors and Role Models for Women in Academic Medicine,” 425.
44. Palepu et al., “Junior Faculty Members’ Mentoring Relationships.” 
45. Sassen and Wahl, “Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries”; Smigielski, 

Laning, and Daniels, “Funding, Time and Mentoring.”
46. Sassen and Wahl, “Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries.”
47. Smigielski, Laning, and Daniels, “Funding, Time and Mentoring.”
48. Ibid.
49. Allison Level and Michelle Mach, “Peer Mentoring: One Institution’s Approach to Mentor-

ing Academic Librarians,” Library Management 26, no. 6/7 (2005): 301–10.
50. Kevin M. Ross, “Purposeful Mentoring in Academic Libraries,” Journal of Library Admin-

istration 53, no. 7/8 (2013): 412–28.
51. Sha Li Zhang, Nancy Deyoe, and Susan J. Matveyeva, “From Scratch: Developing an Ef-

fective Mentoring Program,” Chinese Librarianship: An International Electronic Journal 29 (2007): 
1–16.

52. Fennewald, “Research Productivity among Librarians,” 112.
53. Powell, Baker, and Mika, “Library and Information Science Practitioners and Research.”
54. Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research.”
55. Henry and Neville, “Research, Publication, and Service Patterns of Florida Academic 

Librarians.”
56. Brancolini and Kennedy, “The Development and Use of a Research Self-Efficacy Scale.” 
57. Ibid.
58. Powell, Baker, and Mika, “Library and Information Science Practitioners and Research,” 

65.
59. Ibid.
60. Hoffmann, Berg, and Koufogiannakis, “Understanding Factors That Encourage Research 

Productivity.”
61. Palepu et al., “Junior Faculty Members’ Mentoring Relationships.”


	_GoBack
	bbb0015