Research Article
Assessment of the Institute for
Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL): Impact on the Research Productivity
and Careers of Academic Librarians
Frans Albarillo
Reference and Instruction
Librarian
Brooklyn College, City
University of New York
Brooklyn, New York, United
States of America
Email: falbarillo@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Marie R. Kennedy
Serials & Electronic
Resources Librarian
Loyola Marymount University
Los Angeles, California,
United States of America
Email: marie.kennedy@lmu.edu
Kristine R. Brancolini
Dean of the Library
Loyola Marymount University
Los Angeles, California,
United States of America
Email: kristine.brancolini@lmu.edu
Received: 21 Jan. 2022 Accepted: 31 Aug. 2022
2022 Albarillo, Kennedy, and Brancolini. This is an Open
Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30094
Abstract
Objective – This article
reports the findings of a survey that is the initial phase of a mixed methods
study to assess the first six years of a continuing education program designed
for academic and research librarians, the Institute for Research Design in
Librarianship (IRDL). The study is designed to assess the effectiveness of IRDL
in meeting short-term and long-term programmatic objectives related to the
research productivity, job performance, and professional identities of the
participants in the program.
Methods – In this first
part of a two-phase study, the authors surveyed all 124 librarians who
completed the in-person Summer Research Workshop and year-long online follow-up
program. The authors then analyzed the participant CVs and created research
productivity scores as part of the evaluation of research productivity. The
results of the second phase of the study, using focus groups and in-depth
interviews, will be reported in a subsequent article.
Results – Eighty-nine
participants responded to the survey, for a 72% response rate. As it relates to
research productivity, there is a statistically significant correlation between
the participants who began their IRDL projects and then continued to do
research, with higher research productivity. Participants chose to publish more
in book chapters and share research findings in fewer conference presentations
after their participation in IRDL. Regarding the impact IRDL may have had on
any job-related factors, over 70% of respondents believed that IRDL contributed
to them extending their personal learning networks. A significant proportion of
participants also noted a change in their self-identification as a
librarian-researcher, before and after participating in the program. This
article is unique as one of the first to operationalize the variables that look
at librarians as practitioner-researchers and their research persistence, while
building on the work of the past literature on research productivity.
Conclusion – Two notable
findings are that IRDL Scholars persist in their research by continuing to
pursue research projects beyond their IRDL project, and that the program had an
impact on their self-identification as librarian-researchers. These findings
are unique in the evolving literature on librarians and research productivity.
In examining a variety of factors, we believe that IRDL is meeting its
programmatic objectives as they relate to research productivity, job
performance, and professional identities of the academic and research
librarians participating in the program.
Introduction
Most academic
librarians are practitioners and researchers, but they usually enter the
profession unprepared for their research role. As a result, many lack knowledge
and confidence in their ability to conduct research. The Institute for Research
Design in Librarianship (IRDL) was created to provide focused research
training, coupled with a support network, to guide novice librarian-researchers
through conducting a research project of their own design. The program was
supported by two grants from the Institute of Museum and Library Services from
2013 to 2019. Until IRDL, there was no formal U.S.-based professional
development program designed to support novice librarian-researchers in
becoming confident and successful researchers.
Using an
explanatory sequential mixed methods approach, we investigate two research
questions in this study: What are the short-term (RQ1) and long-term impacts
(RQ2) of the IRDL professional development program on the research
productivity, job performance, and professional identities of IRDL
participants? Our two-phase mixed methods study includes a survey, focus
groups, and in-depth interviews to assess the effectiveness of IRDL over those
six years in meeting the short-term and long-term objectives of the program.
The short-term objectives address teaching social science research methods,
increasing research confidence, and helping each IRDL Scholar (hereafter
“Scholar”) complete their research project. The long-term objectives include
continuing to pursue research opportunities after the IRDL program, job
performance gains attributed to IRDL, like promotions and raises, and
associating Scholars’ professional identity as a researcher. This article
reports only on the survey results. Due to the size of the dataset, the results
from the focus groups and in-depth interviews will be reported in a forthcoming
article.
We selected a
mixed methods design to derive “new insights that go beyond separate
quantitative and qualitative results ... to gain new knowledge that is more
than just the sum of the two parts” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018, p. 13).
The purpose was to explore both the quantitative measures of research success
and productivity and the qualitative impact of the program on the research
development of IRDL Scholars. The complete picture could not be gleaned from a
survey alone; the quantitative data gathered from the survey and responses to
open-ended questions and comments informed the qualitative phase of the
project. From the annual assessments and follow-up with Scholars during their
year-long IRDL experience, the co-directors realized that each Scholar’s
journey is different. With this study, the research team wanted to delve more
deeply into these experiences and the research success factors associated with
IRDL.
IRDL brought
together committed cohorts of about 20 librarians each year who met in-person
at a summer research training workshop and then continued to communicate
throughout the next year as they worked on their research projects. IRDL
connected librarians to a growing community of like-minded researchers and
collaborators through the development of personal learning networks (Kennedy et
al., 2017). During their IRDL year, participants mentored and encouraged one
another; these relationships often persisted long after the formal experience
of IRDL. In the second phase of IRDL from 2016-2019, we added a formal
mentoring component to the program, with the mentors tasked to further support
and provide advice and assistance when the inevitable obstacles arise in
completing a research project.
Our results
suggest that research training for motivated participants affords many benefits
to librarians. Brancolini & Kennedy's (2017) past research on self-efficacy
shows that the program increases researcher confidence. In this paper, our
survey results show that participants perceive that IRDL also helped them
achieve positive gains in research productivity, earn tenure and promotion,
expand their learning communities and research collaborators, and affirm their
identity as researcher-practitioners. Our analysis of the survey data shows no
statistically significant barriers to finishing their IRDL project. Regarding
research productivity success and IRDL project completion, we found that
completing the IRDL project did not correlate to higher research productivity.
Instead, we found that the better indicator of research productivity is that
Scholars persevered and continued to do research regardless of the outcome of
their IRDL project.
Literature Review
Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers
Librarians who
conduct research have been described as practitioner-researchers
(Watson-Boone, 2000), or librarian-researchers. Practitioner-researchers
exist in many disciplines, including social work, medicine, nursing, and
teaching. This designation comes from the work of educator Peter Jarvis. In The
Practitioner-Researcher: Developing Theory from Practice, Jarvis (1999)
documented the emergence of researchers in the workplace, new researchers who
use established research methods to solve practical problems. Jarvis (1999)
regards practitioner research as an outgrowth of rapid technological change and
the need for continuous learning in professional life (p. xi). Jarvis (1999)
states that “practitioner-researchers are able to report aspects of practice at
a depth that traditional forms of research might well not capture, precisely
because they are practitioners” (p. 24). In his book, Jarvis identified five
types of research most frequently employed by practitioner-researchers: case
studies, action research, collaborative research, using documents, and
small-scale surveys.
Inspired by
Jarvis’s book, Watson-Boone (2000) analyzed 24 articles authored by academic
librarians published in The Journal of Academic Librarianship
between 1985 and 1995. She found that this group of practitioner-researchers
who are academic librarians employed similar research methods: case study,
evaluation, experimental, secondary data analysis, and survey research.
Watson-Boone elaborates upon the importance of librarians conducting research and
sharing their results. Like Jarvis, she observes that professional practice
requires continuous learning and that employing research methods to
problem-solving improves practice. The authors whose articles she analyzed
first problematized and studied issues related to everyday academic library
practice, then shared what they found through publications, advancing knowledge
of librarianship. Virginia Wilson (2013) draws a parallel between practitioner
research in healthcare and librarianship. Patient-oriented clinician
researchers facilitate the development of clinically relevant research and the
dissemination of evidence based treatments in clinical practice (Yanos &
Ziedonis, 2006). A librarian-researcher plays a similar role in library and
information science (LIS), bridging the LIS faculty research community and the
practitioner research community.
Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL)
IRDL is designed
to meet the needs of the novice academic librarian-researcher. The rationale
for IRDL is rooted in the observation that most academic librarians enter the
profession without realizing that librarians conduct and share the results of
their research (Matusiak & Bright, 2020). For librarians on the tenure
track, scholarship is usually required for tenure and promotion, but even at
research libraries where librarians are not eligible for tenure, they are
usually expected to conduct research (Sassen & Wahl, 2014). Librarians
author the majority of articles in LIS journals (Chang, 2016), including our
profession's most highly-regarded journals (Galbraith et al., 2014), such as The
Journal of Academic Librarianship (Luo & McKinney, 2015). In a recent
study of single- and co-authorship in selected LIS research journals, Chang
(2021) found no statistically significant differences in the citation rates of
librarian-researchers compared with LIS academics. However, numerous studies
have revealed the barriers many librarians face in conducting research, often
starting with inadequate research training during graduate school (Luo, 2011;
Vilz & Poremski, 2015). Over nearly 20 years, studies have found a declining belief among academic librarians that their
LIS master’s programs have prepared them to conduct research, from 30% to 17%
(Kennedy & Brancolini, 2018, p. 834; Powell et al., 2002, p. 70). A recent
study of research methods curricula in master’s level LIS programs found that
the courses focus on teaching students to understand and evaluate research
literature, rather than preparing them to conduct their own studies (Matusiak
& Bright, 2020).
IRDL was
developed from the results of a national survey of librarians working in an
academic setting conducted in late 2010, designed to
gather evidence on librarian attitudes, involvement, and capabilities for
engaging in research activities (Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012). Two of
the most significant findings directly influenced the form and design of IRDL.
First, the researchers found that most academic librarians do not believe that
their MLIS programs prepared them to conduct research. The second significant
finding was that most librarians lack confidence in their research abilities.
This is important because the 2012 survey also found that research confidence
may be a predictor of research success. The co-directors designed IRDL to
maximize two of the four main sources that influence self-efficacy, as
described by the psychologist Albert Bandura (1993): mastery experiences and
social persuasion. This theoretical foundation influenced the decision to focus
on a hands-on workshop format to teach social science research methods (gaining
mastery of a process through practice) within a supportive community
environment (receiving positive verbal feedback throughout the steps in the
research process) and the objective of completing a research study within a
year. IRDL includes research support mechanisms such as monthly communication
with the cohort and co-directors through online check-in sessions, a closed
Facebook group that includes Scholars from all cohorts, and during the last
three years of the program, formal mentoring by an experienced LIS researcher.
The centerpiece of IRDL is the Summer Research Workshop; it lays the foundation
for the rest of the year-long research support. The nine-day workshop focuses
on social science research design and methods training through expert
instruction, small-group hands-on activities, and one-on-one proposal
consultations with the workshop faculty and other researchers. The curriculum
steps through the process of conducting a social science research study, with a
focus on the three most commonly used data collection methods: survey, in-depth
interviews, and focus groups. See Appendix A for the course learning
objectives.
Assessing Learning and Research Self-Efficacy in IRDL
The
effectiveness of the workshop curriculum is assessed through two measures: a
pre- and post-workshop research self-efficacy scale and a rubric-based
evaluation conducted by academic librarians to measure improvements in the
research proposals. Upon completion of the research workshop, librarians’
confidence increased in all the areas covered in the curriculum: turning a
topic into a research question, designing a project to address their question,
performing a literature review, gathering quantitative and qualitative data,
analyzing data, reporting the results, and identifying appropriate places to
share the results (e.g., publications and conferences; Brancolini &
Kennedy, 2017). The results of these assessments resulted in revisions to the
workshop for the first three years of the program.
To ensure that
IRDL continues to address the research concerns of the academic library
community, the 2010 survey, with slight modifications, was re-administered in
2015 (Kennedy & Brancolini, 2018), and the data used to make updates to the
program. The most significant change to IRDL-2 (2016–2019) was the addition of
formal research mentoring, which paired each scholar with an experienced
researcher (Jason et al., 2021).
Research Success Factors and Productivity
The development
of IRDL has been influenced by two studies by Canadian researchers who have
looked at research success factors among academic librarians (Hoffmann et al.,
2014; Hoffmann et al., 2017). In the first article of its kind, Hoffmann et al.
(2014) conducted a comprehensive literature review of empirical studies focused
on research success factors, both in librarianship and in other applied fields.
They found that research success requires a number of interrelated conditions.
They grouped 16 factors into three categories: “individual attributes, peers
and community, and institutional structures and supports” (Hoffmann et al.,
2014, p. 19), with many factors occurring in more than one category. Individual
attributes included research confidence (self-efficacy), which had already been
incorporated into IRDL and the assessments of its effectiveness. Within the
category of peers and community, mentoring was the only factor identified as
showing a positive effect on research productivity. However, none of the 12
papers that measured the effect of mentoring was focused on librarians. This
finding provided the impetus for the co-directors to create a formal mentoring
program for IRDL-2 (Jason et al., 2021). Hoffmann et al. (2017) conducted a
follow-up study to measure the relationship between the research success
categories and individual factors they found in the literature and the research
productivity of Canadian academic librarians. They surveyed 1,653 librarians
and received 453 complete responses. Respondents were asked to provide data on
their research output over the previous five years in eight categories. The
research productivity scores were then correlated with answers to “Yes/No”
statements that were mapped to the 11 success factors within the three
categories. The authors found that all categories have an impact on research
productivity, including the scores across all types of research output and for
peer-reviewed articles, which were analyzed separately. No single category was
dominant, suggesting that research productivity is affected by a constellation
of factors.
The completion
of six years of IRDL provided this research team with a unique opportunity to
study the 124 academic and research librarians who participated in IRDL (2013–2016)
and IRDL-2 (2016–2019), examining both the short-term effects of the program on
all participants and the longer-term effects on the first cohorts of Scholars.
Hoffmann et al. (2017) noted that the follow-up to their quantitative study
would include qualitative data. Their work and earlier studies conducted by the
IRDL co-directors (Brancolini & Kennedy, 2017; Kennedy & Brancolini,
2012; Kennedy & Brancolini, 2018; Kennedy et al., 2017; Kennedy et al.,
2020) influenced the decision to conduct a mixed methods study, starting with a
survey and following up with focus groups and in-depth interviews.
Methods
In fall 2019 and
summer 2020, we conducted a mixed methods assessment of the short-term and
long-term impacts of the IRDL continuing education program. We used survey,
focus group, and semi-structured interview instruments to gather data to
measure the impact of IRDL on three primary areas of concern: research
productivity, job performance, and identity as a researcher. We employed an explanatory sequential mixed
methods approach; survey data was collected first, and the interview data was
collected after the survey. “The overall intent of this design is to have the
qualitative data help explain in more detail the initial quantitative results; thus,
it is important to tie together or to connect the quantitative results to the
qualitative data collection” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 13). In this
section, we describe the process of developing, administering, and analyzing
the data collected from the survey, the first part of the assessment. The
findings from the focus groups and in-depth interviews from the second part of
the study will be reported in a separate article.
Study Population
We included 124
Scholars in the study. Of those, 10 were employed at four-year colleges, 9 at
two-year community colleges, 3 at research institutions (non-academic), and 102
at universities. The Scholars are employed in a variety of functional areas
within their libraries and archives and represent a range of levels of academic
rank. About thirty-five percent of the Scholar population identifies as
Hispanic and/or non-white.
Recruitment and Survey Dissemination
After receiving
approval of the survey protocol from the Institutional Review Boards from our
two institutions, two Scholars pilot tested it. After incorporating their
feedback, we sent an email to the population of Scholars from Cohorts 1-5 in
September 2019, informing them about the project and asking them to look for a
forthcoming email with the invitation from Albarillo to participate in the
assessment. Albarillo contacted the group with the survey invitation in October
2019, with one follow-up email sent. Albarillo contacted Scholars from Cohort 6
in July 2020, after they had completed their full IRDL program. We offered a
$50 USD gift card to each Scholar who completed the survey and supplied their
CV.
Survey Design and Measures
We designed the
survey around three areas of interest related to the short-term and long-term
objectives of IRDL on the professional lives of the Scholars:
- research productivity, as it relates to both progress on completion
of their IRDL research project and additional research completed and
shared in some format;
- job performance, including how they believe participating in IRDL
may have impacted their professional trajectories; and
- identity as a researcher, including how IRDL may have impacted how
they think of themselves as researchers.
Sections of the Survey
Research Productivity
We posed several
questions to capture data about the progress of the Scholar’s IRDL research
project and projects completed since, such as: How much of your IRDL project
were you able to complete? Choose the step that best describes the current
state of your IRDL project; How did you disseminate or attempt to disseminate
your IRDL project findings? Have you conducted other research projects since
IRDL? and How did you disseminate or attempt to disseminate your post-IRDL
project(s) findings? We included a question for the Scholar to identify any
barriers encountered during their IRDL research project, as well as supports
promised and available from their library and institution in completing their
project. We collected and analyzed Scholars’ CVs to create research
productivity scores to use as continuous variables.
Job Performance
In this section
of the survey, we included questions about job performance indicators, such as
status (whether employed in a tenure-track, continuing appointment, or
promotion-eligible position), academic rank, and research support options
provided by the library and institution. We included a question that asked if
the Scholar believed that IRDL contributed to any of a list of job-related
factors.
Professional Identity
In this section,
we asked five questions, including two to identify if the Scholar was pursuing
or had achieved an additional degree. We had heard from Scholars over the years
that their participation in IRDL had prompted them to pursue continuing
education and wanted to better understand how many had pursued it. We included
three questions to explore the concept of what it means to be a
“librarian-researcher.” In the last question of the survey, we requested
that respondents tell us anything about the impact (both short-term and long-term)
of their experience as Scholar on their research productivity, job performance,
or identity as a researcher that we had not asked, but that they thought was
important for us to know. At the close of the survey, the Scholar could choose
to enter their email address to be contacted for participation in a focus group
or interview.
The survey and
recruitment email are included as Appendices B and C.
Results
The survey did
not collect cohort and demographic data since the lead author already had access
to those data, collected previously as part of participation in the IRDL
program. All three authors made an earlier commitment to our study population
that any analysis presented would be at the aggregate level; presenting results
by cohort and demographic levels could compromise the anonymity of
participants. This section presents the results of the survey in the same order
as they appear in the survey, except for the analysis of the CVs (Survey
Question 13), which will appear last. We have included inferential analysis in
the results to complement the descriptive statistics where the survey design
contained variables at the appropriate level of measurement and the survey data
met the assumptions of the chosen statistical test with a p < .05.
We present here
the results of the survey, followed by a brief analysis of the CVs and the
measures of research productivity. The statistical analysis was performed using
IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) statistical software,
Version 27. We calculated descriptive statistics (counts and percentages for
categorical/nominal responses, means and standard deviations for continuous
measures) for survey items.
A total of 89
Scholars (of 124 recruited) completed the survey and provided their CVs, for a
72% survey response rate, with an equal distribution of respondents across the
six cohorts. To check for possible cohort bias in the response rate, we
conducted a Cochran-Armitage Test of Trend (Laerd Statistics, 2016) to see if
response rates to the survey were uneven across the six cohort populations. The
responses by cohort are Cohort 1 (n= 15), Cohort 2 (n = 9), Cohort 3 (n = 15),
Cohort 4 (n= 13), Cohort 5 (n = 18), and Cohort 6 (n = 19). The test did not
show a statistically significant linear trend between survey responses in the
proportion of respondents from each cohort, p = .05.
Research Productivity
As part of the curriculum, the Scholars hone the
design of their research project at the Summer Research Workshop and execute it
in the following year. In answer to Question 1 of the survey, “What research
method(s) did you use in your IRDL project,” 42 Scholars reported that they
chose a qualitative research design (47.2% of the projects), 22 chose a
quantitative design (24.7%), 20 used a mixed methods design (22.5%), and 5 did
not report their research design. In responding to Question 2 of the survey,
“How much of your IRDL research project were you able to complete?” we see that
47.2% reported or published the results (as shown in Table 1); for our purposes
we are classifying these 42 projects as complete at the time the survey was
administered.
Table 1
Stages of IRDL
Project Completion
|
N |
Percent |
|
|
I
completed the revised written proposal |
6 |
6.7 |
|
I received IRB approval |
3 |
3.4 |
|
I
started data collection |
5 |
5.6 |
|
I completed data collection |
4 |
4.5 |
|
I
started organizing the data I collected for analysis |
11 |
12.4 |
|
I completed a preliminary analysis of the data I collected |
11 |
12.4 |
|
I
completed a full analysis of the data I collected |
7 |
7.9 |
|
I reported the results of the data I collected |
16 |
18.0 |
|
I
published the results of the data I collected |
26 |
29.2 |
|
Total |
89 |
100 |
Knowing that
some Scholars were likely continuing work on their IRDL projects, we asked a
follow-up question. Of the projects that had not yet reached the stage of
completion at the time the survey was administered, we wanted to know how
likely they were to be completed. Of the 18 Scholars who reached the stage of
completing a preliminary or full analysis of the data they collected, 14 noted
that they were extremely likely to disseminate the results of their IRDL
project through presentation or publication.
Question 7
prompted those Scholars who reached the step of data analysis or completion to
report how they shared or attempted to share their IRDL project findings.
Submitting a proposal to present results as a presentation, paper, or panel at
a regional, national, or an international conference was the most frequently
mentioned, with 36 attempts noted. Presenting results at their own library or
institution was the second most frequently noted mechanism, with 35
presentations.
With Question 8
we were interested in learning what barriers the Scholars may have encountered
while conducting their IRDL research project. In Table 2, we report the number
of responses received for each barrier listed and how the Scholars rated them
in severity, using a four-point Likert scale: Not a barrier (1); Somewhat of a
barrier (2); Moderate barrier (3); Extreme barrier (4). Overall, the Scholars
responded to the list of possible barriers as “not a barrier” or “somewhat of a
barrier.” It is notable that two barriers related to job performance, “Given
new job responsibilities in the same position” and “Changed jobs,” received the
largest number of reports of being an extreme barrier in completing their
project.
We were
interested in determining if any of the self-reported IRDL project barriers
listed in Table 2 had a linear, statistically significant correlation with the
Scholars' ability to complete their IRDL project. Using data from the second
survey question, we created a dependent dichotomous variable, the IRDL Project
Completed variable, hereafter IRDLPROJCOMP. The variable was constructed by
collapsing the last two survey response options, "I reported the results
of the data I collected" and "I published the results of the data I
collected," into a new value called "completed"; the other
response options were collapsed into a value called “not completed.” The values
for this dichotomous variable show 42 Scholars (47.2%) did complete their IRDL
project, and 47 Scholars (52.8%) did not complete their project. We conducted a
binomial logistic regression, as outlined in Laerd Statistics (2017). With
IRDLPROJCOMP as the dependent variable and Table 2 barriers as dummy variables,
we found no statistically significant relationship between any of the Table 2
barriers and IRDL project completion.
Table 2
Barriers to
Completing the IRDL Project, Measured on a 4-Point Likert Scale: Not a Barrier
(1); Somewhat of a Barrier (2); Moderate Barrier (3); Extreme Barrier (4)
|
Question 8: Of the barriers listed below, please
indicate how intense that barrier was in completing your IRDL project |
N |
Not a barrier |
Somewhat of a barrier |
Moderate barrier |
Extreme barrier |
|
Lack of experience using specific research methods |
89 |
26 |
45 |
17 |
1 |
|
Given new job responsibilities in the same position |
89 |
51 |
12 |
13 |
13 |
|
Changed jobs |
89 |
64 |
2 |
7 |
16 |
|
Lack of access to needed research-based literature |
89 |
79 |
10 |
- |
- |
|
Receiving Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval |
88 |
70 |
11 |
7 |
- |
|
Access to the study population |
89 |
54 |
20 |
9 |
6 |
|
Access to online survey software |
88 |
82 |
5 |
1 |
- |
|
Knowing how to use online survey software |
88 |
75 |
8 |
4 |
1 |
|
Organizing and preparing quantitative data for analysis |
84 |
49 |
19 |
14 |
2 |
|
Analyzing quantitative data |
84 |
45 |
18 |
15 |
6 |
|
Organizing and preparing qualitative data for analysis |
87 |
41 |
33 |
11 |
2 |
|
Analyzing qualitative data |
87 |
37 |
33 |
12 |
5 |
|
Low response rates from study participants |
86 |
56 |
14 |
6 |
10 |
|
I collected unusable data |
87 |
65 |
15 |
4 |
3 |
|
Reporting results in a written format |
88 |
53 |
27 |
4 |
4 |
|
Reporting results in a webinar format |
86 |
80 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
Reporting results as a poster presentation, presentation, or panel in
a meeting, conference, or workshop format |
86 |
77 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
We were also
interested to learn from the Scholars which research supports had been made
available to them, as promised in a letter of support from the Dean or Director
that was required during the application process. Of the five options noted in
Question 9, moral support from a supervisor was the most frequently received
support, with 76% of the respondents reporting that it had been made available
to them. Sixty-four percent received at least half a day per week release from
work duties to conduct their IRDL projects. Using the IRDLPROJCOMP variable
again, and now testing with supports as dummy variables, we found no statistically
significant relationship between any of the supports and IRDL project
completion.
Almost
three-fourths of the respondents (n = 65, 73%) reported in Question 10
that they continued to do research after their IRDL project, either currently
conducting a project or having conducted one or more other projects.
Twenty-three reported having neither attempted nor completed another research
project since their IRDL project. Of those 47 who reported sharing or
attempting to share the results of new research projects since IRDL, the most
often reported mechanism was submitting a proposal to present results as a
presentation, paper, or panel at a regional, national, or an international
conference (with Scholars having reported 30 proposals submitted).
Given the significant
number of Scholars continuing to do research after their IRDL project, we
wanted to explore whether continuing to do research may be a better indicator
of program effectiveness than completing the IRDL project. As library
practitioners, we understand that research makes up only a small percentage of
our professional responsibilities, with those research projects overlapping to
some extent with job responsibilities. We also maintain that research is
subject to the ebb and flow of the work year priorities familiar to Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice readers. Therefore, using data
from Question 10, we created a dichotomous variable on Scholars who continued
to do research, hereafter called RESCONT. It collapses four response options that
indicate the Scholar continued to do research into one value, “continuing,” and
the other response option into another value, “not continuing.” A
crosstabulation revealed that there were 34 Scholars (38.2%) who didn’t finish
their IRDL project but continued to do research.
We then created
another variable, called AVGSUM. It is a continuous research productivity score
that represents the sum total number of weighted research outputs from
2010–2020, as indicated on the Scholar CVs, divided by the number of years they
have been actively disseminating research. Using the AVGSUM as the dependent
variable and RESCONT and IRDLPROJCOMP as independent variables, we conducted a
multiple linear regression, as outlined in Cohen et al. (2003, pp. 64–99), to
test if continuing to conduct research or completing the IRDL project were
correlated with higher research productivity.
RESCONT and
IRDLPROJCOMP statistically predicted research AVGSUM with F(2,85) = 5.031, p
<.001. The R2 for the model was 10.6 %, with an adjusted R2
of 8.5%, a small effect size. Examining the coefficients of our dichotomous
dependent variables shows that the RESCONT variable is statistically
significant (n = 65, p = .002) with a B slope coefficient =
7.430, while the IRDLPROJCOMP was not statistically significant (n = 42, p =
.747). We interpret the results of this test as evidence that looking at
whether or not a Scholar continues to do research after their IRDL project, as
shown by RESCONT Scholars (n = 65, 73%), is a better measure of IRDL's
long-term impact on research productivity than completion of the IRDL project,
since the variable is positively correlated to higher research productivity
scores. On the other hand, IRDLPROJCOMP scores show no positive and
statistically significant correlation with research productivity.
Job Performance
In this section of the survey, we explored job
performance indicators and the current research environments of the Scholars.
In responding to Question 14 about which research support options are provided
at the Scholar’s institution or library, 48 respondents (53%) noted that travel
funds with full reimbursement are available to them. Workshops or other forms
of continuing education were also prevalent, with 39 Scholars noting this type
of support. The least available support offered by their institutions or
library was formal research mentors, with only seven Scholars noting it as an
option.
To understand promotion and tenure pressures, Question
15 asked the job status of each Scholar during their IRDL year. About half of
the Scholars (n = 49) were in positions on the tenure track, with the
possibility of promotion. Using the variables created previously (IRDLPROJCOMP,
RESCONT, and AVGSUM), we used a binomial logistic regression (Laerd, 2017) to
examine whether completing the IRDL project, continuing to do research after
the IRDL project, or the average research output was correlated with Scholars
on the tenure track, and found that the resulting model was not statistically
significant, χ2(3) = 5.04, p < .17. Being on the tenure
track did not significantly correlate with higher research productivity, IRDL
project completion, or the scholar continuing to pursue research projects. We
asked if the Scholars attained a continuing appointment, tenure, or promotion
at the institution where they were employed during their IRDL year, and 13
noted that they attained a continuing appointment, but not promotion. Five
noted that they achieved tenure during their IRDL year. The current academic
rank attained by the Scholars is dispersed among the options presented in the
survey, with Assistant Professor (n = 22) being the most reported rank.
In order to consider the impact IRDL may have had on any
job-related factors as perceived by the Scholars, we asked them to choose
applicable factors from a list (as shown in Table 3). The most frequently
selected factor in Question 18 was extending their personal learning networks,
with 70.8% of the Scholars choosing it. Fifty-five Scholars (61.8%) chose that
they believe IRDL contributed to them advising other librarians on their
research projects. Forty-three (48.3%) said that due to IRDL they gained
research collaborators.
Table 3
Factors Contributing to Job Performance
|
Question
18: Do you believe IRDL contributed to any of the following job-related
factors? Choose all that apply. |
N |
Percent |
|
I earned a promotion in rank |
17 |
19.10 |
|
I received a
promotion to a higher-level position at my institution |
7 |
7.90 |
|
I achieved tenure |
9 |
10.10 |
|
I received a
certificate of continuous employment or a similar guarantee of job
security |
6 |
6.70 |
|
I received a new job title at my institution |
7 |
7.90 |
|
I received a one-time
monetary salary award (e.g., a merit increase) |
5 |
5.60 |
|
I received a permanent raise in my base
salary |
11 |
12.40 |
|
I acquired new
job responsibilities related to my skills as a social science researcher at
my institution (e.g., assessment) |
14 |
15.70 |
|
My research skills helped me secure a job at a new
institution |
12 |
13.50 |
|
I started a
local writing or research group |
4 |
4.50 |
|
I have advised other librarians about their research
projects |
55 |
61.80 |
|
I made
presentation(s) based on the skills I gained during the IRDL
workshop |
32 |
36.00 |
|
I have given workshops based on the skills I gained
during the IRDL workshop |
16 |
18.00 |
|
I extended my
personal learning network |
63 |
70.80 |
|
I gained research collaborators |
43 |
48.30 |
Professional Identity
The third section of the survey covered professional
identity. The first set of questions asked about additional formal education
and the second set asked about identity as a researcher.
Questions 19 and 20 asked about pursuing additional
formal education. We found five were working on a PhD/EdD/JD and five were
working on a non-thesis-based master’s degree at the time they responded to the
survey. Eight noted that they had completed additional degrees since their IRDL
year.
We were interested to learn how participating in IRDL
may have affected their perception of librarians as researchers and of
themselves as librarian-researchers. Question 21 asked them to describe what it
means to be a "librarian-researcher." Although we did not formally
code the responses to this question, the 86 responses reflect many aspects of
research conducted by practitioners. The open-text question elicited a wide
range of responses, with two major themes emerging: Librarian-researchers 1)
conduct research to improve the quality of their work, including the
effectiveness of library programs and services, such as support for the
academic researchers at their institutions; and 2) contribute to advancing
knowledge in library and information science. Although most responses were
positive about the relationship between librarianship and research, some noted
the difficulty of juggling job responsibilities and the many activities
associated with conducting and sharing the results of research. These are four
representative examples:
A librarian-researcher
wears two symbiotic hats -- one is the librarian who implements services and
practices that contribute towards access to information, and the other conducts
research that informs the most effective ways to do so. Each should facilitate
the other.
Being a
librarian-researcher means that I have first-hand experience conducting my own
research and employing various research methods. This gives me the opportunity
to better relate to the community of researchers I serve, while allowing me to
advance the body of knowledge in my profession.
I identify as a
"librarian-researcher" and for me that means that my work as a
practitioner is as valuable as my work as a researcher, particularly because my
practice is influenced by my research and my research is inspired by my
practice.
A
librarian-researcher has the dual task of conducting research and performing
their daily work as a librarian. Librarian researchers take the initiative to
start new research projects, advise on others' research projects (e.g., other
librarians doing library-related research, users that need methodological
help), and see the potential for collaborations across their institutions as
well as new ideas for research to be involved in.
Twenty-eight of the respondents (31.5%) noted that
they identified as a librarian-researcher before their IRDL year (Question 22)
and seventy (78.7%) reported that they currently identify as a
librarian-researcher (Question 23). We used McNemar's test procedures as
outlined in Laerd (2015a) and found that there was a statistically significant
difference (p = .001) in the proportion of Scholars who self-identified
as librarian-researchers pre-IRDL (.19) and post-IRDL (.29).
The last question of the survey (Question 24) was an
open-text prompt to tell us anything “about the impact (both short-term and
long-term) of your experience as a Scholar on your research productivity, job
performance, or identity as a researcher that we have not asked but you think
is important for us to know.” Fifty-five respondents offered their comments.
Responses to this question included multiple comments about an increase of
confidence leading participants to stretch their professional goals, and many
comments about the satisfaction of finding connections to other like-minded
librarians in building a community. The most common word in these comments was
“confidence” or “confident,” noted by 20 respondents. This representative
example addresses multiple objectives of IRDL; other responses are included in
the discussion section.
IRDL has
instilled in me a greater sense of confidence. I feel more comfortable asking
my colleagues for help and reaching out to others to seek collaborative
research opportunities. I have participated in conversations with non-library
faculty in which I have felt part of the discussion (regarding data analysis)
because I have conducted original research (via my IRDL project). I now feel
more creatively inspired and can generate ideas for potential research projects
more readily since attending IRDL, and I feel that I have gained enough
experience from IRDL to attempt such projects. My IRDL experience – as well as
projects that develop post-IRDL – can serve as talking points with non-library
faculty, with librarians, and with future potential employers. IRDL has opened
the door to a professional pathway that did not feel attainable to me prior to
my participation. I am grateful for the opportunity.
The Scholars could opt in to participating further, in
a focus group or one-on-one interview, by inserting their email address to
acknowledge interest.
Analysis of CVs and Research Productivity Scores
We used the CV of each Scholar as evidence of research
productivity. Albarillo reviewed each CV to count the type of output produced.
Since our focus is to examine research output, we did not include in our count
the following written outputs, which may be scholarly in nature but not
necessarily a result of original research: blog posts, conference reports,
newsletters, book reviews, blurbs, editorials, zines, and articles in trade
journals (examples of which include College & Research Libraries News,
Library Journal, American Libraries, and Magazines for
Libraries). We also did not include in our count oral presentations that
are work-related and part of job responsibilities (such as database
demonstrations and career presentations to LIS classes) or presentations that
are very brief in nature (lightning talks, for example). In Table 4, we show a
summary of the Scholars’ research output
over the past ten years (2010–2020), the type of output mechanism used, and the
number of each. Overall, the most popular mechanism for sharing the results of
their IRDL projects is presentations (61.3%), then peer review articles
(18.3%), followed by book chapters (6.6%).
We examined the research output of the Scholars from
before their participation in IRDL and then compared their output to after
their IRDL year. We found that there appears to be a mean increase for some
outputs: books, edited volumes, peer-reviewed papers, and book chapters. We
also found a mean decrease for other outputs, as shown in Table 5. To help us
understand this shift in the choice of output mechanisms, we consulted the
weighted research output scheme developed by Hoffmann et al. (2017, p. 107). In
that scheme, the four most heavily weighted outputs are book chapters, edited
books, peer-reviewed articles, and authored books. This article builds on the
use of Hoffmann’s research output scheme, which was also applied in Kennedy et
al. (2020), as a way to quantify research productivity of accomplished
librarian-researchers. From that scheme we see that following their IRDL
participation, Scholars began disseminating their research through more
sophisticated and prized outputs.
Table 4
Scholars’ Research Output Over the Past Ten Years
(2010–2020, n = 89)
|
Output type |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Median |
SD |
Total number reported |
% of output reported |
|
Poster |
0 |
14 |
0.89 |
0.00 |
1.91 |
80 |
5.68 |
|
Presentation |
0 |
141 |
9.79 |
6.00 |
15.74 |
864 |
61.32 |
|
Conference proceeding |
0 |
15 |
0.57 |
0.00 |
1.82 |
51 |
3.62 |
|
Non-peer-reviewed article |
0 |
5 |
0.51 |
0.00 |
1.04 |
46 |
3.26 |
|
Book chapter |
0 |
6 |
1.05 |
1.00 |
1.29 |
94 |
6.67 |
|
Edited book |
0 |
5 |
0.12 |
0.00 |
0.59 |
11 |
0.78 |
|
Peer-reviewed article |
0 |
19 |
2.89 |
2.00 |
3.40 |
258 |
18.31 |
|
Authored book |
0 |
2 |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.27 |
5 |
0.35 |
|
Totals |
|
|
|
|
|
1,409 |
100 |
Table 5
Research Productivity Formats: Measures of Central
Tendency, Pre and Post IRDL (n = 89)
|
Output types, before and after IRDL |
Total number reported |
Min |
Max |
Mean |
Median |
SD |
Variance |
Range |
|
Poster (pre) |
49 |
0 |
6 |
0.55 |
0 |
1.138 |
1.296 |
6 |
|
Poster (post) |
31 |
0 |
14 |
0.35 |
0 |
1.538 |
2.366 |
14 |
|
Presentation (pre) |
458 |
0 |
75 |
5.15 |
2 |
8.725 |
76.126 |
75 |
|
Presentation (post) |
406 |
0 |
66 |
4.56 |
2 |
8.316 |
69.158 |
66 |
|
Conference proceeding (pre) |
31 |
0 |
5 |
0.35 |
0 |
0.943 |
0.889 |
5 |
|
Conference proceeding (post) |
20 |
0 |
10 |
0.22 |
0 |
1.136 |
1.29 |
10 |
|
Non-peer-reviewed article (pre) |
27 |
0 |
3 |
0.3 |
0 |
0.775 |
0.6 |
3 |
|
Non-peer-reviewed article (post) |
19 |
0 |
3 |
0.21 |
0 |
0.593 |
0.352 |
3 |
|
Book chapter (pre) |
29 |
0 |
5 |
0.33 |
0 |
0.75 |
0.563 |
5 |
|
Book chapter (post) |
65 |
0 |
4 |
0.73 |
0 |
1.053 |
1.108 |
4 |
|
Edited book (pre)
|
4 |
0 |
2 |
0.04 |
0 |
0.257 |
0.066 |
2 |
|
Edited book (post) |
7 |
0 |
3 |
0.08 |
0 |
0.405 |
0.164 |
3 |
|
Peer-reviewed article (pre) |
103 |
0 |
9 |
1.16 |
0 |
1.876 |
3.52 |
9 |
|
Peer-reviewed article (post) |
155 |
0 |
13 |
1.74 |
1 |
2.259 |
5.103 |
13 |
|
Authored book (pre) |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0.02 |
0 |
0.149 |
0.022 |
1 |
|
Authored book (post) |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0.03 |
0 |
0.181 |
0.033 |
1 |
Table 5 shows an increase in scholarly output by IRDL
participants in the form of book chapters and peer-reviewed articles. We wanted
to run an inferential statistical test to see if this increase in publications
after IRDL was statistically significant. Initially our original plan was to
run a Paired-Sample t-Test, comparing the research productivity scores of IRDL
participants before and after IRDL.
As part of our calculations, we realized that the
research productivity scores alone as represented in Table 5 did not account
for the variation in years that Scholars have been active researchers. For
example, some Scholars have been very productive researchers from right after
library school. Other CVs showed that there were many Scholars who have worked and
steadily published and presented in the library profession for a longer period,
and of course there were many new Scholars who were just beginning their
research and publication journey. We developed a formula to account for the
variation in Scholar publishing years before participation in IRDL:
Let a =
represent the number of publications multiplied by the publication weight
assigned in Hoffmann et al. (2017, p. 107).
Let b =
represent the year the Scholar participated in IRDL.
Let c =
represent the date of the first scholarly output indicated in the CV as
determined by the lead author. Scholarly output in the form of posters,
presentations, and publications before 2010 is not counted.
NB, the
"+1" accounts for the year the Scholar participated in IRDL
We created the following formula to calculate the
research productivity score after IRDL, which we call POST AVG:
Let d =
represent the year and the last date scholarly output indicated in the CV as
determined by the lead author. Publications after 2020 are not counted.
Let e =
represent the year after the Scholar participated in IRDL.
NB, if the
Scholar attended the Summer Research Workshop in 2018, then only research
output in the beginning of 2019 to the end of 2020 was counted.
By dividing Scholars' research output scores, as
represented by the variable “a”, by the number of active research years,
represented by scholarly output in their CVs, we were able to
test the hypothesis: Is there a statistically
significant difference in research productivity before and after IRDL?
Unfortunately, our PRE AVG and POST AVG scores were
not normally distributed, an assumption our data needed to meet to be able to
conduct a Paired Samples t-Test according to Laerd (2015b); the Shapiro-Wilk
statistic (0.77, p = 0) and (0.82, p = 0) for the PRE AVG and
POST AVG respectively. We decided to employ the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test, a nonparametric
test equivalent to the Paired Samples t-Test. We examined the procedure and
criteria for running the test (Pett, 2016, pp. 113–114) and found that the PRE
AVG and POST AVG research productivity scores met all three criteria.
In addition to the total productivity scores, we ran
the test to look for paired differences between the main research output
formats like peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and professional
conferences. Table 6 shows the results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. The first
result shows that there were no statistically significant differences in
research productivity scores for Scholars before and after IRDL. The second
result showed that there were no statistically significant differences before
and after IRDL for the format peer-reviewed papers. There were small,
statistically significant increases in the median scores for book chapters, and
a small and statistically significant decrease in conference presentations at p
< .05. We believe that these scores, while statistically significant,
represent too small a value to be meaningful.
Table 6
Results of the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
|
Wilcoxon
Signed-Rank Test |
||||
|
Md |
Null
Hypothesis |
Test |
Sig |
Decision |
|
0.602 |
The
median of differences between the PRE AVG and the POST AVG Total Research
Productivity Scores equals 0. |
Related
Samples Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test |
.167 |
Retain
the Null |
|
0.711 |
The
median of differences between the PRE AVG Peer Review Papers and the POST AVG
Peer Review Papers equals 0. |
Related
Samples Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test |
0.072 |
Retain
the Null |
|
0.4621 |
The
median of differences between the PRE AVG Book Chapters and the POST AVG Book
Chapter equals 0. |
Related
Samples Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test |
0.004 |
Reject
the Null |
|
-0.4713 |
The
median of differences between the PRE AVG Conferences and the POST AVG
Conferences equals 0. |
Related
Samples Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test |
0.004 |
Reject
the Null |
Discussion
The present
study focuses on the short-term and long-term impacts
of IRDL on the research productivity, job performance, and professional
identity of the librarians who participated in the program. The first part
of the study was a survey, intended to measure the impact of various personal
and environmental factors on the ability of the Scholar to complete their IRDL
research study and to go on to new research endeavors.
Short-Term and Long-Term Research Productivity
The first
objective for each Scholar is to complete their proposed research project,
defined as reaching the stage of disseminating research results, either through
presentation or publication. The results of the survey indicate that 42
respondents (47%) were successful. Of the 18 who had completed preliminary or
final data analysis, 14 reported that they were extremely likely to complete
their project. The longer-term goal of IRDL is to set participants on a path of
research success. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported that they had
completed another research project, either instead of or in addition to their
IRDL project, indicating a disposition toward conducting and disseminating
research in the future. We believe that our survey data demonstrates a new
concept we call “research persistence.” This variable, based on the RESCONT
(research continuer) data, is an important finding related to the outcome of
attending IRDL. We looked at many factors, and we believe that this data shows
that despite past failures or successes — for example, the 34 Scholars (38.2%)
who didn’t finish their IRDL project but continued to do research — many IRDL Scholars
have chosen to persist and seek community and opportunities to improve their
ability to conduct research. More research needs to be done to better
understand this concept of “research persistence.”
The analysis of
CVs to determine the number and types of research output for each respondent
revealed that the effects on research productivity have persisted following the
single IRDL year. Although the average productivity of Scholars increased
slightly post-IRDL, the important finding is that dissemination patterns
changed. The number of books, edited volumes, peer-reviewed articles, and book
chapters increased, while the number of posters, presentations, conference
proceedings, and articles in non-peer-reviewed publications decreased. This is
unsurprising but also encouraging, as many Scholars expressed a desire to
disseminate their research in peer-reviewed journals, books, and other
high-impact research formats. We did not find any meaningful, statistically
significant increases or decreases in the inferential and non-parametric tests
that we conducted related to research productivity. This was very surprising
because the descriptive data in Table 5 showed positive increases for
particular formats. In our efforts to understand tenure pressure, we found it
unusual that there was no significant correlation between being on the tenure
track, higher research productivity, IRDL project completion, or the Scholar
continuing to pursue research projects. We believe that this is due to the
variability of tenure requirements across institutions. The cross-institutional
variability of tenure requirements would make an interesting future study and
contribute to our understanding of librarians and tenure status.
Research Barriers
The second
objective of IRDL is to remove or reduce barriers to completing their IRDL
research project. The results support the effectiveness of IRDL in this regard.
Asked about barriers to completing their study that may have been encountered
during their IRDL year, the most frequent response was “not a barrier.” The
most prevalent research barrier was lack of experience using specific research
methods, with 45 reporting it as “somewhat of a barrier,” 17 as a “moderate
barrier,” and 1 as an “extreme barrier” (NB: 26 report it as “not a problem”).
All participants are novice researchers, so the IRDL curriculum includes an
introduction to three of the most prevalent quantitative and qualitative
research methods: surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups (See Appendix
A for course learning objectives). However, IRDL encourages participants to try
new and more innovative research methods. For example, two Scholars used
vignettes in their studies (Benedetti et al., 2018), which participants were
not taught to use in the workshop; they discovered this method during their
literature reviews and wanted to try it. Despite 63 Scholars reporting that
lack of familiarity with specific research methods was a barrier, the barrier
did not stop them from conducting their studies. Sixty-five conducted their
studies, 16 presented their results, and 26 published their results.
Twenty-nine Scholars, however, responded that two work-related factors were
extreme barriers: being given new responsibilities on the job and changing
jobs. As fully summarized in the Results section, we did not find any
meaningful, statistically significant correlations between the barriers and the
completion of the IRDL project. Barriers and strategies to overcome them were
explored more fully in the qualitative phase of the research project.
Research Supports
The third
objective of IRDL is to ensure that Scholars are provided with appropriate
research support by their library or institution while conducting their IRDL
project. In addition to removing barriers, IRDL provides a number of supports
designed to foster research success. The most important support is time to
focus on research, without work or family pressures, during the Summer Research
Workshop. However, it is also important to ensure that Scholars have ample
research support during the coming project year, including a half-day per week
to devote to research activity. As part of the application process, librarians
supplied a letter from their library dean or director outlining the availability
of a variety of research supports. The survey found that these supports were
provided as promised in the vast majority of cases. Sixty-four percent received
at least a half-day per week for research. Respondents also reported on the
availability of additional research supports. The least prevalent research
support was formal mentoring, available to only seven of the respondents.
However, this finding affirms the addition of formal research mentoring during
the last three years of IRDL. As similarly reported above, we did not find that
any research supports were statistically related to completing the IRDL
project.
Professional Identity
Following their IRDL experience, a number of
librarians have pursued additional education related to research proficiency,
including five who at the time of the survey were currently working on a PhD
and three others who were applying to a PhD program or considering doing so.
One commented that “IRDL was critical” in giving them the confidence to pursue
a PhD. Another commented, “Had I not attended IRDL, I would not have pursed a
PhD.”
Eighty-six participants responded to Question 21,
which asked for a definition of what it means to be a “librarian-researcher.”
These responses reflect deep thinking about the relationship between their
roles as academic and research librarians and their scholarship. Before
participating in IRDL, 31.5% identified as a librarian-researcher, but 78.7%
stated that they currently identify as a librarian-researcher, an increase of
more than 47%. As noted in the Results section, this change in professional
identity is statistically significant and is especially meaningful since other
research suggests that identifying as a researcher may be related to
productivity (Brew et al., 2016).
IRDL provides an opportunity for librarians to form
relationships and become part of a research community. We believe that the
cohort model and the cross-cohort collaborations contribute greatly to the
sense of identity and community. While we found no statistically significant
correlations related to research productivity, these descriptive statistics
suggest that building a research community is a complex phenomenon that merits
more research. Participation in IRDL had positive social consequences for many
librarians. About 71% of the Scholars noted that they extended their personal
learning networks (see Table 3 for a summary of Question 18). Fifty-five Scholars (61.8%) reported that they believed
IRDL contributed to them advising other librarians about their research
projects. Forty-three (48.3%) said that they gained research collaborators
thanks to IRDL. The development of a research community, through cohorts, is an
important aspect of the IRDL experience. There is evidence that some Scholars
are also part of a cross-cohort research community. The survey did not explore
this phenomenon, but we believe that the qualitative interviews may give us a
clearer picture of IRDL-based research relationships. In response to Question
24, a number of Scholars commented about research community, as illustrated in
the following four quotes:
I have found
other like-minded librarians through IRDL. A couple of them have become close
research partners.
I think I
would have found a way to educate myself about research methods, but finding
like-minded people was one of the most valuable aspects of attending IRDL. I
found that I wasn’t alone and that there were other research nerds like me,
which gave me the confidence to continue my work.
I’ve
established networks of researchers who are amazing collaborators and we will
be exploring more projects together.
The
connections to other librarians who do research has [sic] been invaluable –
even more so than the mentor relationship (though that was valuable too). This
has been particularly important for me since I have no such connections at my
own institution or even in my region.
Limitations
We acknowledge
some limitations to this research, the main one being the special population
studied. The population of Scholars is a selected group of
librarian-researchers. They were chosen for the program based upon a number of
factors, including their desire to learn and their enthusiasm for research.
Therefore, Scholars do not represent the range of attitudes toward research
among academic librarians. Exner (2019) found in her qualitative study of
novice researchers that even in libraries with supportive research
environments, some librarian researchers are fearful and uncertain about
conducting research, characterized as “extreme dislike” (pp. 64–65). The
Scholars do, however, represent the range of work environments and types of
jobs in the higher education arena. Cohorts are built from librarians and
archivists working in traditional academic library settings as well as special
libraries; their job functions demonstrate the full range of library and
archive activities.
We also
acknowledge a time bias built into the research design, using a cross-sectional
design (data gathered at one point in time) of the six cohorts. This design
naturally favors the responses that the Scholars from the earlier cohorts are
able to give, for example, to the question about their progress in their IRDL
research project. Participants from the earlier cohorts should be further along
in their projects than the later cohorts. We waited to survey the sixth cohort
until they had completed their full IRDL year, and that delay pushed their
survey to during COVID lockdown, which may have impacted some of the responses
from that group.
The last
limitation to note is based on our review of the CVs submitted by the Scholars.
The CVs were not standardized in any way prior to submission; they varied in
formatting and categories. So that we were internally consistent in
categorizing the types of research output, we often turned to locating the
original article, presentation, or program and verifying the nature of the
research output in Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory (ProQuest) and The
Serials Directory (EBSCO).
Our survey
produced significant findings, many of which are aligned with the findings of
Hoffmann et. al (2017), that research productivity is affected by overlapping
and reinforcing factors. We have attempted to operationalize these factors and
acknowledge their limits. We also believe that limits are good occasions to
suggest directions, where appropriate, for future research into this complex
topic of librarians as research-practitioners. A survey alone cannot describe
the full impact a program like IRDL may have on its participants. The findings
here are presented in aggregate, which likely masked differences in the
individual experiences of Scholars. In the next phase of the study, we examine
the impact on the personal level, as it relates to research productivity, job
performance, and researcher identity. We look forward to presenting the results
of the following phase of this mixed methods study, based upon the individual
in-depth interviews and focus groups with the participants.
Conclusion
This phase of
our study, designed to assess the effectiveness of the IRDL program, provides
compelling evidence that a continuing education program designed like IRDL can
have an impact on the research productivity, job performance, and professional
identity of its participants. Significant findings from this study demonstrate
research persistence: an ongoing commitment to conducting and sharing the
results of research beyond the program. We found that Scholars chose more
sophisticated and desirable research output formats after IRDL, enjoyed an
expanded peer and community group related to research activities, and
demonstrated a meaningful increase in their professional identity as a
librarian-researcher.
Author Contributions
Frans
Albarillo: Investigation, Formal analysis (lead), Data curation,
Methodology (lead), Writing – review & editing Marie R. Kennedy: Conceptualization,
Formal analysis (supporting), Funding acquisition (lead), Investigation,
Methodology (supporting), Project administration, Supervision, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing Kristine R. Brancolini: Conceptualization,
Funding acquisition (supporting), Methodology (supporting), Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing
Acknowledgment
This research was made possible in part by the
Institute of Museum and Library Services Laura Bush 21st Century
Librarian Program grant RE-40-16-0120-16. We would also like to thank our
reviewers for their thorough critique of the manuscript, which improved the
manuscript in significant ways. We also want to say thank you to the IRDL
community who made this research possible.
References
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Benedetti, A., Jackson, J., & Luo, L. (2018). Vignettes:
Implications for LIS research. College & Research Libraries, 79(2),
222–236. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.2.222
Brancolini, K. R., & Kennedy, M. R. (2017). The development and use
of a research self-efficacy scale to assess the effectiveness of a research
training program for academic librarians. Library and Information Research,
41(124), 44–84. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg760
Brew, A., Boud, D., Namgung, S. U., Lucas, L., & Crawford, K.
(2016). Research productivity and academics’ conceptions of research. Higher
Education, 71, 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9930-6
Chang, Y.-W. (2016). Characteristics of articles co-authored by
researchers and practitioners in library and information science journals. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 42(5), 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.06.021
Chang, Y.-W. (2021). Academic impact of articles by practitioners in the
field of library and information science. College & Research Libraries,
82(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.82.1.59
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied
multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd
ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203774441
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design:
Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and
conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
Exner, N. (2019). Development of research competencies among academic
librarians [Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina]. UNC
Chapel Hill University Libraries Carolina Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.17615/p159-ya91
Galbraith, Q., Smart, E., Smith, S. D., & Reed, M. (2014). Who
publishes in top-tier library science journals? An analysis by faculty status
and tenure. College & Research Libraries, 75(5), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.5.724
Hoffmann, K., Berg, S. A., & Koufogiannakis, D. (2014). Examining success: Identifying factors that contribute to research
productivity across librarianship and other disciplines. Library and
Information Research, 38(119), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.29173/lirg639
Hoffmann, K., Berg, S., & Koufogiannakis, D. (2017). Understanding
factors that encourage research productivity for academic librarians. Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 12(4), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8G66F
Jarvis, P. (1999). The practitioner-researcher: Developing theory
from practice. Jossey-Bass.
Jason, D. P., III, Kennedy, M. R., & Brancolini, K. R. (2021).
Mentoring academic librarians for research success. In L. J. Rod-Welch & B.
E. Weeg (Eds.), Academic library mentoring: Fostering growth and renewal (pp.
241–262). Association of College and Research Libraries.
Kennedy, M. R., & Brancolini, K. R. (2012). Academic librarian
research: A survey of attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities. College
& Research Libraries, 73(5), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-276
Kennedy, M. R., & Brancolini, K. R. (2018). Academic librarian
research: An update to a survey of attitudes, involvement, and perceived
capabilities. College & Research Libraries, 79(6), 822–851. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.822
Kennedy, M. R., Brancolini, K. R., & Kennedy, D. P. (2020). An
exploratory study of accomplished librarian-researchers. Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 15(1), 179–217. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29655
Kennedy, M. R., Kennedy, D. P., & Brancolini, K. R. (2017). The
evolution of the personal networks of novice librarian researchers. portal:
Libraries & the Academy, 17(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0005
Laerd Statistics. (2015a). McNemar's Test using SPSS Statistics.
Statistical tutorials and software guides. https://statistics.laerd.com/
Laerd Statistics. (2015b). Paired-Samples t-Test using SPSS
Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides. https://statistics.laerd.com/
Laerd Statistics. (2016). Cochran-Armitage Test of
Trend. Statistical tutorials and software guides. https://statistics.laerd.com/
Laerd Statistics. (2017). Binomial logistic regression using SPSS
Statistics. Statistical tutorials and software guides. https://statistics.laerd.com/
Luo, L. (2011). Fusing research into practice: The role of research methods
education. Library and Information Science Research, 33(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.12.001
Luo, L., & McKinney, M. (2015). JAL in the past decade: A
comprehensive analysis of academic library research. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 41(2), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.01.003
Matusiak, K. K., & Bright, K. (2020). Teaching research methods in
master’s level LIS programs: The United States perspective. Journal of
Education for Library and Information Science, 61(3), 357–382. http://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.61.3.2020-0001
Pett, M. A. (2016). Nonparametric statistics for health care research
(2nd ed.). Sage. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/nonparametric-statistics-for-health-care-research/book240591
Powell, R. R., Baker, L. M., & Mika, J. J. (2002). Library and
information science practitioners and research. Library & Information
Science Research, 24(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-8188(01)00104-9
Sassen, C., & Wahl, D. (2014). Fostering research and publication in
academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 75(4),
458–491. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.4.458
Vilz, A. J., & Poremski, M. D. (2015). Perceptions of support systems
for tenure-track librarians. College & Undergraduate Libraries, 22(2),
149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.924845
Watson-Boone, R. (2000). Academic librarians as
practitioner-researchers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(2),
85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00144-5
Wilson, V. (2013). Formalized curiosity: Reflecting on the librarian
practitioner-researcher. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice,
8(1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8ZK6K
Yanos,
P. T., & Ziedonis, D. M. (2006). The
patient-oriented clinical researcher: Advantages and challenges of being a
double-agent. Psychiatric Services, 57(2), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.57.2.249
Appendix A:
Learning Objectives for IRDL Summer Research Workshop
Course Objectives
At the end of this 10-day workshop, you will be able
to:
- Write effective research questions and hypotheses
- Choose an appropriate research design for a library science study
- Explain the conceptual logic behind various data collection
approaches and describe the rationale for selection of specific methods
- Identify appropriate sampling strategies for research projects
- Use and apply commonly used qualitative data collection methods –
focus groups and in-depth interviews
- Assess and apply different qualitative data analysis options
- Design and implement a survey
- Understand survey data management
- Explain various analytic options for surveys
Appendix B: Survey
Instrument
There are three thematic sections: research
productivity, job performance, and professional identity. The survey should
take around 30 - 40 minutes. You can return to the survey at any time by
clicking on the invitation link to your email. Please note that the survey will
save the last answer you submit by clicking "ok" if it appears and
advancing to the next question.
Section 1: Research Productivity
1.
What research method(s) did you use in your IRDL
project?
[Text Box
Response] skip to 2
2.
How much of your IRDL project were you able to
complete? Choose the step that best describes the current state of your IRDL
project. [Multiple Choice]
o
I completed the revised written proposal (skip to 3)
o
I submitted an IRB application (skip to 3)
o
I received IRB approval (skip to 4)
o
I started data collection (skip to 4)
o
I completed data collection (skip to 5)
o
I started organizing the data I collected for analysis
(skip to 5)
o
I completed a preliminary analysis of the data I collected
(skip to 6)
o
I completed a full analysis of the data I collected (skip to 6)
o
I reported the results of the data I collected (skip to 7)
o
I published the results of the data I collected (skip to 7)
3.
How likely are you to receive IRB approval for your project?
[Dropdown]
–
Extremely unlikely (skip to 8)
–
Unlikely (skip
to 8)
–
Likely (skip to
4)
–
Extremely likely (skip
to 4)
4.
How likely are you to complete the data collection for
your project? [Dropdown]
–
Extremely unlikely (skip to 8)
–
Unlikely (skip
to 8)
–
Likely (skip to
5)
–
Extremely likely (skip
to 5)
5.
How likely are you to complete the data analysis for
your project? [Dropdown]
–
Extremely unlikely (skip to 8)
–
Unlikely (skip
to 8)
–
Likely (skip to
6)
–
Extremely likely (skip
to 6)
6.
How likely are you to disseminate the results of your
IRDL project through presentation or publication? [Dropdown]
–
Extremely unlikely (skip to 8)
–
Unlikely (skip
to 8)
–
Likely (skip to
7)
–
Extremely likely (skip
to 7)
7.
How did you disseminate or attempt to disseminate your
IRDL project findings? Please use the adjacent column to indicate the number of
times you disseminated your results for that particular format. (skip to 8)
|
|
How
many times? |
|
I
presented my results at my library or institution |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published results at my library or local institution (for example in a
library meeting, newsletter, report, or another kind of local publication) |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a proposal to present results in a webinar (Adobe Connect, Webex,
etc.) |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
presented results in a webinar (Adobe Connect, Webex, etc.) |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a proposal to present results as a poster at a regional, national,
or an international conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
presented results as a poster at a regional, national, or an international
conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a proposal to present results as a presentation, paper, or panel at
a regional, national, or an international conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
presented results as a presentation, paper, or panel at a regional, national,
or in an international conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted an article to a non-peer reviewed journal or non-peer reviewed
professional publication |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published an article in a non-peer reviewed journal or a non-peer reviewed
professional publication |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted an article to a peer-reviewed journal |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published an article in a peer-reviewed journal |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a chapter for inclusion in an edited volume |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published a book chapter |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted an edited volume proposal to a publisher |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published an edited volume |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a book or monograph proposal to a publisher |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published a book or monograph |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
8.
Of the barriers listed below, please indicate how
intense that barrier was in completing your IRDL project. (skip to 9)
|
|
Not
a barrier |
Somewhat
of a barrier |
Moderate
barrier |
Extreme
barrier |
|
Lack
of experience using specific research methods |
|
|
|
|
|
Given
new job responsibilities in the same position |
|
|
|
|
|
Changed
jobs |
|
|
|
|
|
Lack
of access to needed research-based literature |
|
|
|
|
|
Receiving
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval |
|
|
|
|
|
Access
to the study population |
|
|
|
|
|
Access
to online survey software |
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing
how to use online survey software |
|
|
|
|
|
Organizing
and preparing quantitative data for analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
Analyzing
quantitative data |
|
|
|
|
|
Organizing
and preparing qualitative data for analysis |
|
|
|
|
|
Analyzing
qualitative data |
|
|
|
|
|
Low
response rates from study participants |
|
|
|
|
|
I
collected unusable data |
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting
results in a written format |
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting
results in a webinar format |
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting
results as a poster presentation, presentation, or panel in a meeting,
conference, or workshop format |
|
|
|
|
9.
In relation to the letter of support written by your
Dean or Director, did you receive any of the following supports from your
library or institution while conducting your IRDL project? (skip to 10)
|
|
[Dropdown] |
|
At
least half a day a week release from work duties to conduct your IRDL project |
Yes/No |
|
Financial
support |
Yes/No |
|
Moral
support from my supervisor |
Yes/No |
|
Mentorship
from my supervisor |
Yes/No |
|
Mentorship
from someone other than my supervisor |
Yes/No |
10.
Have you conducted other research projects since IRDL?
[Multiple Choice]
o
Yes, I am currently conducting one other research
project (skip to 11)
o
Yes, I conducted one other research project (skip to 11)
o
Yes, I am currently conducting more than one other
research project (skip to 11)
o
Yes, I conducted more than one other research project
(skip to 11)
o
No (skip to 13)
11.
Have you disseminated or attempted to disseminate the
results of your non-IRDL research? [Dropdown]
o
Yes (skip to 12)
o
No (skip to 13)
12.
How did you disseminate or attempt to disseminate your
non-IRDL project(s) findings? Please use the adjacent column to indicate
the number of times you disseminated your results for that particular format.
|
|
How
many times? |
|
I
presented my results at my library or institution |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published results at my library or local institution (for example in a
library meeting, newsletter, report, or another kind of local publication) |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a proposal to present results in a webinar (Adobe Connect, Webex,
etc.) |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
presented results in a webinar (Adobe Connect, Webex, etc.) |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a proposal to present results as a poster at a regional, national,
or an international conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
presented results as a poster at a regional, national, or an international
conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a proposal to present results as a presentation, paper, or panel at
a regional, national, or an international conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
presented results as a presentation, paper, or panel at a regional, national,
or in an international conference |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted an article to a non-peer reviewed journal or non-peer reviewed
professional publication |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published an article in a non-peer reviewed journal or a non-peer reviewed
professional publication |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted an article to a peer-reviewed journal |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I published
an article in a peer-reviewed journal |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a chapter for inclusion in an edited volume |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published a book chapter |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted an edited volume proposal to a publisher |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published an edited volume |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
submitted a book or monograph proposal to a publisher |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
|
I
published a book or monograph |
[Dropdown]
0-10; more than 10 |
13.
Please upload your current CV.
Section 2 Job Performance
14.
Please select all that apply from the following
research support options that your current institution or library provides for
librarians. [Checkboxes] (skip to 15)
Release time during the work week
Short-term or pre-tenure research leave
Sabbaticals
Travel funds (full reimbursement)
Travel funds (partial reimbursement)
Research design consultant or statistical consultant
Research grants
Research assistants (e.g., student workers or short-term
project hires)
Formal research mentors
Workshops or other forms of continuing education
No research support
Other (Please Specify)
15.
During your IRDL year, were you employed in a
tenure-track, continuing appointment, or promotion-eligible position? [Multiple
Choice]
o
Tenure track with the possibility of promotion (skip to 16)
o
Continuing appointment with the possibility promotion
(skip to 16)
o
Continuing appointment without the possibility of
promotion (skip to 16)
o
Promotion only (skip
to 16)
o
Neither continuing appointment, tenure, or promotion (skip to 17)
o
Other, please let us know about your institution’s
appointments and promotion status during your IRDL project year. (skip to 17)
16.
Did you attain a continuing appointment, tenure, or
promotion at the institution where you were employed during your IRDL year?
[Multiple Choice]
o
Yes, tenure, but not promotion (skip to 17)
o
Yes, tenure and promotion (skip to 17)
o
Yes. a continuing appointment, but not promotion (skip to 17)
o
Yes. a continuing appointment and promotion (skip to 17)
o
Yes, promotion (skip
to 17)
o
No (skip to 17)
17.
What is your current academic rank? (skip to 18)
–
Librarian 1
–
Librarian 2
–
Librarian 3
–
Librarian 4
–
Librarian 5
–
Instructor
–
Lecturer
–
Assistant Professor
–
Associate Professor
–
Professor
–
Assistant Librarian
–
Associate Librarian
–
Librarian
–
Senior Librarian
–
Adjunct or Visiting Instructor
–
Adjunct or Visiting Lecturer
–
Adjunct or Visiting Assistant Professor
–
Adjunct or Visiting Associate Professor
–
Adjunct or Visiting Professor
–
Visiting Assistant Librarian
–
Visiting Librarian
–
Visiting Associate Librarian
–
Visiting Senior Librarian
–
Other
18.
Do you believe IRDL contributed to any of these
following job-related factors? Choose all that apply. (skip to 19)
I earned a promotion in rank
I received a promotion to a higher-level position at
my institution
I achieved tenure
I received a certificate of continuous employment or a
similar guarantee of job security
I received new job title at my institution
I got a one-time monetary salary award (e.g., a merit
increase)
I got a permanent raise in my base salary
I acquired new job responsibilities related to my
skills as a social science researcher at my institution (e.g., assessment
projects, or projects that measure the impact of services)
My research skills helped me secure a job at a new
institution
I started a local writing or research group
I became a member of the IRB
I have advised other librarians about their research
projects
I made presentation(s) based on the skills I gained
during the IRDL workshop
I have given workshops based on the skills I gained
during the IRDL workshop
I extended my personal learning network
I gained research collaborators
Other (Please Specify)
Section: 3 Professional Identity
19.
Are you currently working towards a certificate or an
additional degree? Check all that apply. [Checkboxes]
Yes, a certificate
Yes, a thesis-based Masters
Yes, a non-thesis-based Masters
Yes, a PhD, EdD, or JD
No, I am not working towards an additional certificate
or degree
20.
Have you completed an additional certificate or degree
since your IRDL year? Check all that apply. [Checkboxes]
Yes, a certificate
Yes, a thesis-based Masters
Yes, a non-thesis-based Masters
Yes, a PhD, EdD, or JD
No, I am not working towards an additional certificate
or degree
21.
In your own words, please describe what it means to be
a “librarian-researcher.”
[Textbox]
22.
Before your IRDL year did you identify as a librarian-researcher?
[Multiple Choice]
o
Yes
o
No
23.
Do you currently identify as a librarian-researcher?”
[Multiple Choice]
o
Yes
o
No
24.
Is there anything about the impact (both short-term
and long-term) of your experience as an IRDL Scholar on your research productivity,
job performance, or identity as a researcher that we have not asked but you
think is important for us to know?
[Textbox]
25.
Are you interested in participating in a focus group
or an interview for a further monetary incentive? The focus group and in-depth
interview incentive is a $100 Amazon gift card. Focus groups and in-depth
interviews will take place between January 6 to May 3, 2020. [Multiple Choice]
o
Yes
o
No
26.
Please provide an email where [name deleted] may
contact you to schedule your participation in a focus group or interview. These
will take place from January 6 to May 3, 2020.
[Textbox]
End of Survey
Appendix C: Recruitment Email
Dear IRDL Scholar:
I am inviting you to participate in a survey of past
participants of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship.
The purpose of this survey is to measure the impact of
IRDL on your research productivity, job performance, and professional identity.
I designed this survey in collaboration with IRDL co-directors Kristine Brancolini
and Marie Kennedy. We plan to publish and present the results of this study.
Only Frans Albarillo, the Lead Principal Investigator,
will have access to the raw data, which he will anonymize. All data in reports,
publication, and presentation of the data will be anonymous and analyzed in
aggregate.
What will happen during the study
We will ask you to take two actions:
1. Upload or send your current CV to Frans Albarillo
at Falbarillo@brooklyn.cuny.edu, so that we may examine your scholarly productivity
since IRDL.
2. Complete a web-based survey. In the survey we will
ask you to click through a series of questions with options for response. The
survey is expected to take 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
Your privacy is important
We will make every effort to protect your privacy. No
sensitive information will be gathered as part of this survey. Any information
you provide will remain confidential. Only Frans Albarillo will view the
results of the survey in their raw form.
Your rights
Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary and no risks are anticipated for you as a result of participating.
If you decide to be in the study, you will have the
right to stop participating at any time.
Incentive
When [name deleted] has confirmed that your CV has
been received and the survey completed, you will be sent a $50 Amazon
electronic gift card.
Institutional Review Board approval
This is an IRB-approved study, HRPP file number
2019-0747. Brooklyn College, City University of New York is the IRB of record.
The IRB coordinator is Twyla Tate, Research Compliance Manager, and can be
reached by email at twyla.tate@brooklyn.cuny.edu or by telephone at 718.951.500
ext. 3829. Please don’t hesitate to contact me or the IRB if you have any
questions or concerns about the survey.
If you agree with all of the above statements, provide
your consent to participate by clicking on the survey link below.
Sincerely,
Frans Albarillo
2014 IRDL Scholar
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Associate Professor
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Email: Falbarillo@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Phone: (718)758-8213