brewer.indd 528 Post-Master’s Residency Programs: Enhancing the Development of New Professionals and Minority Recruitment in Academic and Research Libraries Julie Brewer Julie Brewer is Associate Librarian at the University of Delaware Library; e-mail: jbrewer@udel.edu. The author expresses deep gratitude to former Associate Professor Barry Morstain, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, for his encouragement, critical review of research design and analysis, and lifelong commitment to enhancing employment opportunities for all. Two of the greatest human resource concerns in academic and research libraries are the preparation of new library professionals and the recruit- ment of underrepresented minorities. The lack of practical experience and the changing competencies required of new graduates are discussed frequently at professional meetings and in the library literature. Diversity initiatives on college and university campuses and within the ALA also have raised awareness of the underrepresentation of minority librarians. Post-master’s residency programs are one approach that academic and research libraries have used to address these continuing human resource concerns. This article examines post-master’s residency programs from the perspective of former residents. The survey findings present impor- tant information for libraries that currently host residency programs or are considering implementing new residency programs in the future, as well as for library educators. cademic and research librar- ies began experimenting with post-master ’s work experi- ence programs in the 1940s in an effort to be�er prepare new library pro- fessionals. Two of the longest continuing post-master’s programs are those hosted by the Library of Congress and the Na- tional Library of Medicine. The purpose of post-master’s residency programs is to recruit highly talented graduates from li- brary education programs and to prepare them for accelerated careers in academic and research libraries. Some residency programs provide advanced education and training for specialized careers in areas such as medical librarianship or conservation administration. Because professional positions in academic and research libraries o�en are highly special- ized, most new librarians are unprepared to assume the level and depth of these responsibilities immediately following graduation. Many large academic and research libraries do not hire entry-level librarians. This practice restricts access to library careers in these areas and limits the pool of qualified candidates available for upper-level positions. Approximately twenty years ago, a group of library educators and practitio- ners met to establish cooperative efforts in placing new library school graduates.1 The outcome of those meetings was a proposal to expand the availability of post-master’s work experience programs. The joint subcommi�ee of the Association of American Library Schools (AALS), predecessor of the current Association for Library and Information Science Educa- tion (ALISE), and the ACRL Personnel Administrators and Staff Development Officers Discussion Group proposed that each major research library create at least one permanent entry-level intern position. Although the proposal was not widely implemented, more than two dozen academic and research libraries have been identified as currently hosting a post-master’s field experience program or as having hosted one in the past.2 In addition to preparing new pro- fessionals for careers in academic and research libraries, a number of residency programs started in the past ten to fi�een years also focus on the recruitment of minority librarians. Seventeen libraries currently host residency programs tar- geted to recent graduates from underrep- resented racial and ethnic backgrounds or have hosted such a program in the past.3 Minority residency programs are key affirmative action initiatives at many academic and research institutions. The ACRL Strategic Plan acknowl- edges the need to “support recruitment efforts to bring into the profession those individuals who will enrich the diversity of the profession.”4 Academic libraries are concerned about creating a welcoming environment and providing appropri- ate services to the increasing number of minority students on their college and university campuses. Yet, addressing these concerns is difficult with so few minority librarians. The ALA Office for Library Personnel Resources (OLPR) 1991 data indicate a to- tal of 2,850 minority librarians in academic and public libraries. The OLPR data are presented in table 1 as a distribution of librarians by racial, ethnic, and gender groups in academic and public librar- ies.5 These data show that librarianship in general, and academic librarianship in particular, continues to be a predomi- nately white, female profession. Although the need for a�racting more minorities to academic and research li- braries is widely understood, the practice of targeting residency programs to minor- ity graduates has raised some concerns. The ACRL Task Force on Recruitment of Underrepresented Minorities identified a number of potential stumbling blocks associated with minority residency programs in its 1990 final report.6 A pri- mary concern is that minority graduates selected for these programs will be stig- matized as underprepared, lacking skills, or otherwise unqualified for permanent entry-level professional positions. Library educators have shown con- tinued interest in residency programs by working to establish general guidelines for the design, operation, and evaluation of post-master ’s work experience pro- grams. The guidelines adopted by ALISE in 1992 outline programmatic standards.7 The definition of terms referring to gradu- ate and postgraduate work experience programs is an important contribution of the ALISE guidelines. The guidelines define internships as structured preprofes- sional work experiences that take place either during or a�er graduate course Post-Master’s Residency Programs 529 work but preceding the degree, usually for a short amount of time. Residencies are defined as postdegree work experiences designed as entry-level programs for professionals who have recently received an MLS. Fellowships are midcareer experi- ences designed to assist librarians who already have some professional experi- ence to develop a specialty or to improve management skills. This article uses the term residency as defined by the ALISE guidelines. Rationale for Research Although most post-master’s residency programs have existed for many years, very li�le information is available about them. Although the library literature provides some descriptive information about individual programs, no objective data on their quality and value exist.8 Little is known about how residency programs affect career development, how targeted programs contribute to minority recruitment, or what the value is of residency programs in academic and research libraries. The general lack of information about residency programs is a problem from many perspectives. Without adequate information, library educators have dif- ficulty advising students, and new gradu- ates have difficulty making informed career choices. The lack of information and misconceptions about residency programs among staff in host libraries can affect the 530 College & Research Libraries November 1997 quality of the residency experience. More- over, residents may feel isolated without a broader understanding of similar pro- grams and contacts in other libraries. A number of efforts to gather informa- tion and facilitate communication about residency programs have been made in the past few years. OLPR hosted two discussion group meetings at the 1991 Annual Conference in Atlanta and at the 1995 Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia. In 1992, the Association for Research Libraries (ARL) published a survey of member libraries in SPEC Kit #188, Intern- ship, Residency, and Fellowship Programs in ARL Libraries, which includes descriptive information about six residency pro- grams.9 ARL also hosted two seminars in 1996 on implementing post-master’s residency programs. Research Focus and Methodology To expand on these efforts, OLPR designed a study with three primary objectives: to collect qualitative data about residency programs from the perspective of former program participants; to track the career development of former post-master ’s residents; and to understand differences in perspectives, if any, between residents who participated in programs targeted to minorities and those who participated in open recruitment programs. In May 1994, a sixty-question survey instrument was mailed to 230 former post-master’s residents. The instrument was designed to gather information about residency experiences from the perspec- tive of former program participants. It did not ask respondents to identify the institutions that had hosted their resi- dency programs. Rather, it focused on general issues of recruitment, program design, professional development, and a�itudes. The survey asked respondents to recommend ways to improve residency programs and to offer advice for those considering this type of career develop- ment opportunity. Identifying the potential survey popu- lation was a challenge because no central information about residency programs ex- ists, nor do many of the institutions have extensive records on former residents and their current locations. Although a few program coordinators provided lists, most people who volunteered to participate noticed the announcement of the study on listservs such as LIBPER, LIBADMIN, and JESSE, and in various professional newsle�ers. Nearly all the volunteers responded via e-mail, and many suggested the names of colleagues who had worked in their programs. Based on this solicitation for volunteers, 230 former residents were identified and sent survey instruments. Post-Master’s Residency Programs 531 One hundred and nine former resi- dents, or 47 percent of the survey popula- tion, completed and returned the survey instruments. The respondents were predominately white women between twenty-one and thirty years of age at the beginning of their residency program. Most respondents had two years or less of preprofessional library experience prior to their residency (see table 2). Respondents reported that their resi- dency programs varied in length and structure, and by type of library. Most programs were one year or less in length. Typically, they were structured as a rota- tion through several areas of the library followed by a specific project or assign- ment. Most programs hosted more than one resident at a time. The programs were approximately split between academic and government libraries (see table 3). Readers should be aware that these program characteristics and other survey findings may be skewed in overrepresent- ing the older, larger residency programs in government libraries, such as the Na- tional Library of Medicine and the Library of Congress. The survey population had a high percentage of former residents from these larger programs which host many residents at one time and have been oper- ating for several decades. Most residency programs started in the past ten to fi�een years generally host one to three residents at a time. The survey population naturally had a lower number of former residents from these programs. Findings and Implications Libraries use a variety of recruitment methods to a�ract new professionals to residency programs, including traditional employment tools such as position an- nouncements in professional publica- tions, as well as brochures distributed to graduate library education programs. Most former residents learned of the residency opportunity from a faculty or staff person in their graduate library education program. Residents tended to apply to specific programs rather than seek residency experiences in general. The majority of respondents applied to only one residency program. The key factors in choosing a residency position were the reputation or prestige of the library, the institution, or the people involved; and the opportunity to gain a breadth of professional library experiences. Survey respondents generally were very pleased with the management of their residency programs. Orientation to the residency program and library and overall training were rated as good or very good by 83 percent of respon- dents. Most (93%) felt their assignments matched their interests and abilities reasonably well or very well. Most (72%) also felt the expectations for their respon- sibilities were reasonably well defined or very well defined. 532 College & Research Libraries November 1997 Most former residents rated their rela- tionship with the program coordinator as good or excellent. They reported regular meetings with program coordinators sev- eral times a year, although many met more frequently. Exceptional program coordi- nators were noted for providing a broad perspective of the organization, providing moral support, creating learning opportu- nities, and providing feedback. More than half of the respondents had two or more supervisors during their residency. Having multiple supervisors was viewed as no problem or an advan- tage in most instances. Former residents identified mentoring skills and ability to provide constructive feedback as the two most important a�ributes for supervisors. Although respondents gave their super- visors the highest ratings for familiarity with library staff and organization and support for the residency program, which are important elements of mentoring, they rated their supervisors’ overall mentoring skills relatively low. This is an important finding for program coordinators. Men- toring skills may need to be emphasized for all library employees who work with residents (see table 4). Former residents rated in-house seminars, interaction with other resi- dents, and travel funding to regional and national meetings as the three most important development opportunities. Responses to open-ended questions on peer interaction with other residents were particularly enthusiastic. Respon- dents reported that peer residents pro- vided social camaraderie, moral support, opportunities for group projects, shared professional knowledge and expertise, motivation, quicker learning, different perspectives, and “career-long” profes- sional relationships. One respondent observed, however, that an optimal number of four to five residents was more manageable than situations where there were seven or more residents. Most respondents (85%) felt they were treated as professional librarians most of the time. Examples of work felt to be less than professional included: filing in the card catalog, shelf reading, manual tasks prior to personal computers, physically moving books during building move, se- rial check-in, rearranging supply cabinet, copy cataloging, working the information desk, inventorying the reference collection, routine file maintenance of online catalog, photocopying, checking in mail, searching interlibrary loan requests, and processing and shelving books. However, former resi- dents were more disturbed by patronizing a�itudes than by work assignments they felt to be less than professional. A number of respondents felt talked-down-to dur- ing seminars and felt they were treated as students. Some were made to feel that their opinions were of no value or that they were powerless because of the temporary nature of their position. Post-Master’s Residency Programs 533 Most respondents (90%) felt involved as a contributing member of the orga- nization. Examples of involvement in- cluded working on critical projects that contributed to the library mission, being included as members of a team, conduct- ing training sessions for staff, presenting results of professional work to peers, and having opinions and feedback solicited. A number of respondents said they would have liked to have been included on commi�ees. The survey data were inconclusive in measuring the career development of for- mer residents. Respondents were asked to name their first position or title following the residency program, as well as their current position or title. Because there is li�le uniformity in titles in academic libraries, be�er measures are needed to track career development. However, sur- vey respondents regard their residency experiences as significant elements in their career development. Although ap- proximately half (51%) felt they would have had li�le difficulty finding another entry-level position (rather than the residency position), most (88%) said the residency experience contributed to some extent, or to a great extent, to subsequent jobs. Eighty-three percent said their career path would have been different without the residency experience. The survey results indicate that host libraries have differing views of their role in retaining residents and helping residents to find subsequent professional positions. Although some programs aim to recruit and prepare new librarians for careers in academic and research libraries, or specifically in medical libraries, other programs may be using residency pro- grams to screen future employees for that individual institution. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents (64%) were offered professional positions in their host library following their residency. Fi�y-one percent accepted the offer; 13 percent declined. A wide array of titles are assigned to residents in different programs (see table 5). Although most respondents were unconcerned about the titles, some former residents who worked in medical libraries felt the term intern was confus- ing because it also is used to designate medical students preparing to become physicians. Others expressed discomfort with the term intern for its less-than-pro- fessional connotation. A few respondents commented on being treated as a continu- ing student rather than a professional librarian. Minority residents also expressed some discomfort with their titles. Some of the titles used in programs targeted to graduates from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups include minor- ity intern, affirmative action intern, and minority resident. Some respondents felt discomfort when their minority status was overemphasized. The emphasis on minority status unnecessarily focused on differences or led to perceptions that these residents were substandard. The term affirmative action in the title was very awkward for one respondent, who felt the confusion and stigma associated with the public debate about affirmative action. Nineteen respondents reported work- ing in residency programs targeted to racial and ethnic minorities. The survey asked residents from these programs to comment on their treatment. Seventy-five 534 College & Research Libraries November 1997 percent felt their racial or ethnic back- ground had a positive role or no role in their residency program. A few comment- ed that their racial or ethnic background had both a positive and a negative role. And one respondent felt that racial or ethnic background had a negative role. Minority respondents felt that their racial and ethnic background was impor- tant in adding diversity to predominantly white library staffs. It provided an op- portunity for students and staff to work with minorities. Most o�en, the residents were accepted as professionals who hap- pened to be minorities. Racial and ethnic background also determined some as- signments directed to minority residents. This was a positive experience when the assignment related to the resident’s area of interest. In other situations, minority residents were looked to as “experts” on questions dealing with ethnic issues. Residency programs seem to be ef- fective recruitment tools for a�racting minorities and other individuals for short-term, temporary assignments who would not consider moving to a specific geographic location for more permanent positions. Survey responses indicated the residency programs succeed in re- cruiting individuals to academic and research libraries who otherwise were not considering careers in these areas. One minority respondent wrote: “The program was the single most important factor in my choosing employment in an academic library.” Overall, the response to the sur- vey was overwhelmingly positive. An overwhelming amount of support and enthusiasm for residency programs was expressed in the survey responses. Nearly all respondents (97%) said they enjoyed their residency experience very much or most of the time. Given the opportunity to apply for the same or similar residency program, 93 percent said they would do it again. Typical words used to describe the residency experience include: “valuable,” “great,” “fantastic,” and “excellent.” The most frequent remarks suggest that resi- dency programs provide unique learning opportunities and are important founda- tions for beginning careers. Residents found the mentoring and networking in- valuable. The programs exposed residents to a breadth of professional experiences typically unavailable in other entry-level positions or traditional career paths. Those who were uncommi�ed to specific career plans valued the opportunity to explore and test their interest in academic and research libraries, particularly in light of the rigorous promotion and tenure system at most institutions. A certain sense of delight and renewed appreciation for their residency experi- ences came through in wri�en comments. Respondents frequently commented that at the beginning of their programs they had no idea of the value they would later a�ach to the experience. Reflection and hindsight seemed to be very satisfying for most respondents, although two had negative experiences to relate: limited opportunities and exposure, and poor relations with supervisors. Overall, respondents continue to enjoy the ca- reers they have built on their residency experiences. Ninety-three percent report enjoying their current work very much or most of the time. Another measure of the high regard former residents have for these programs is the volume of wri�en responses. More than 80 percent of the respondents offer advice to supervisors and program co- ordinators. Examples of advice include: “emphasize big picture”; “provide broad exposure”; “appreciate different back- ground and interests of residents and try to design parts of their program to match those areas”; “provide more op- Post-Master’s Residency Programs 535 portunities for projects that will benefit the library and challenge the residents”; “encourage mentoring relationships”; “clearly define goals of the program”; “be accessible”; “be flexible.” Numerous responses emphasized the need to make programs two years long, with at least one peer resident. An even larger number of written responses (84%) were directed to new master’s graduates considering residency programs. Nearly all respondents said, “Do it!” They emphasized the network- ing and learning opportunities, and sug- gested that residents need to be willing to explore all aspects of librarianship. One respondent suggested that, “You may find your niche is not what you expected.” Other advice included: “be respectful and diplomatic”; “be flexible and open- minded”; “be prepared to be very self- motivated”; “be aware of organizational politics”; “make a site visit”; “talk to residents who have been in the program to assess support for the program and placement assistance.” Conclusions The survey findings indicate that post- master’s residency programs are valuable recruitment tools that provide positive career development opportunities for new library professionals. Most former residents are extremely pleased with their experiences and encourage others to take advantage of these unique career development opportunities. Post-master’s residency programs provide opportuni- ties for new graduates to gain substantial professional experience and accelerated training at the beginning of their careers which generally are not available in tra- ditional entry-level positions. Although the study was inconclusive on how resi- dency programs affect individual career pa�erns, most former residents feel their experiences were invaluable. Academic and research libraries ben- efit from residency programs by having a continuous pool of talented, well- prepared, new professionals. Given the highly specialized nature of positions in academic and research libraries, access to, and recruitment for, careers in these areas will always be difficult. Residency programs address both of these concerns, as well as a�ract minority librarians to careers in academic and research libraries. However, recruiting minority students to graduate library education programs needs to be a continuing priority for the library profession. And finally, residency programs may offer a new flexibility to large academic and research libraries. The availability of temporary, new professionals allows large organizations the opportunity to respond to quickly shifting priorities. Some libraries use residency assignments as opportunities to experiment with the design of new positions and services. In addition to being effective strategies for preparing new library professionals and recruiting underrepresented minorities, post-master ’s residency programs ad- dress emerging human resource needs for flexibility in rapidly changing orga- nizations. The author expresses deep gratitude to former Associate Professor Barry Morstain, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware, for his encourage- ment, critical review of research design and analysis, and lifelong commitment to enhanc- ing employment opportunities for all Notes 1. Margo C. Trumpeter and Paul Gherman, “A Post-Master’s Degree Internship Program,” Library Journal 105 (June 1980): 1366–69. 2. These included Auburn University, Cleveland State University, Cornell University, Iowa 536 College & Research Libraries November 1997 State University, Library of Congress, Miami University (Ohio), National Library of Medicine, Ohio State University, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Stanford University, SUNY-Buffalo, University of California, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Colorado-Denver, University of Delaware, University of Illinois at Chicago, Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri-Columbia, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Wright State University, Yale University, and various Conservation Administration programs supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. 3. These include Auburn University, Cleveland State University, Cornell University, Iowa State University, Miami University (Ohio), Ohio State University, Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Standford University, State University of New York-Buffalo, University of California, University of California-Berkeley, University of California-Santa Barbara, University of Delaware, University of Iowa, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri-St. Louis, Wright State University, and Yale University. 4. “ACRL Charts New Direction,” College and Research Libraries News 56 (Sept. 1995): 571. 5. “Academic and Public Librarians: data by Race, Ethnicity & sex, 1991” (Chicago: ALA, 1991, photocopy) 3. 6. Janice Beaudin et al., “Recruiting the Under-represented to Academic Libraries, “College & Research Libraries News 51 (Dec. 1990): 1024. 7. “Guidelines for Practices and Principles in the Design, Operation, and Evaluation of Post- Master’s Residency Programs” (Association for Library and Information Science Education, 1992, photocopy). 8. For example, see Jon E. Cawthorne and Teri B. Weil, “Internships/Residenceis: Exploring the Possibilities for the Future,” in In Our Own Voices: The Changing Face of Librarianship, ed. Teresa Y. Neely and Khafre K. Abif (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Pr., 1996):45–71; Jose Diaz and Kristina Starkus, “Increasing Minority Representation in Academic Libraries: The Minority Librarian Intern Program at the Ohio State University,” C&RL 55 (Jan. 1994): 41–46; Deborah Hollis, “On the Ambiguous Side: Experiences in a Predominantly White and Female Profession,” in In Our Own Voices: The Changing Face of Librarianship, ed. Teresa Y. Neely and Khafre K. Abig (Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Pr., 1996): 139–54; Joseph A. Boissé and Connie V. Dowell, “Increasing Minority Librarians in Academic Research Libraries,” Library Journal 112 (Apr. 1987): 52–54; Sheila D. Creth, “The Underlying Rationale,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 121–24; Richard M. Dougherty, “The Underlying Rationale,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 118–20; Be�y Glass, “A Time of Transition,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 127–28; Sarah Shoemaker, “A Unique Experience,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 125–26; Molly Mahony, “Preparation for the Future,” Library Journal 111 (Feb. 1986): 129–30; Richard M. Dougherty and Wendy P. Lougee, “Research Library Residencies: A New Model of Professional Development,” Library Journal 108 (July 1983): 1322–24. 9. “Internship, Residency, and Fellowship Programs in ARL Libraries,” SPEC Kit #188 (Wash- ington, D.C.: ARL, 1992). Post-Master’s Residency Programs 537