Evidence Summary
Research Supports are Effective in
Increasing Confidence with Research Skills in Early Career Academic Librarians
A Review of:
Ackerman, E., Hunter, J. & Wilkinson, Z. T. (2018). The availability
and effectiveness of research supports for early career academic librarians. The
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(5), 553-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.06.001
Reviewed by:
Jessica A. Koos
Senior Assistant Librarian/Health
Sciences Librarian
Stony Brook University
Libraries
Stony Brook, New York,
United States of America
Email: jessica.koos@stonybrook.edu
Received: 18 Feb. 2020 Accepted: 1 Apr. 2020
2020 Koos.
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/eblip29739
Abstract
Objective – To
identify the type and efficacy of research supports currently available to
early career academic librarians.
Design – Survey.
Setting – The United
States.
Subjects – 213
academic librarians who were not yet promoted or have received tenure, or those
up to three years post-tenure or promotion.
Methods – The researchers
created a survey containing 39 closed and open-ended questions using the
software Qualtrics. The question types included multiple choice, Likert scale,
and free text. The survey was distributed through direct emails and various
professional electronic mailing lists.
Main Results – The
majority of respondents listed finding time as the most significant barrier to
conducting research. Respondents listed informal mentoring as the most commonly
used and most widely available form of research support. Statistical analyses
revealed that for every type of research support a librarian engaged in, on
average confidence increased by 0.10.
Conclusion – Engagement
in formal and informal research supports may influence early career academic
librarians’ confidence levels in regards to conducting research projects.
Academic institutions as well as professional organizations should ensure that
ample opportunities are available.
Commentary
The quality of this study was appraised using “The
CAT: a generic critical appraisal tool” created by Perryman and Rathbun-Grubb
(2014). Overall, the study was found to be of relatively high quality based on
this assessment. The first author, Ackerman, is a social sciences librarian,
and the two co-authors are librarians as well. The research questions and methods
were, for the most part, clearly explained. There was significant attention
given to previous relevant literature throughout the article.
However, the authors did not discuss the limitations
of the study. Some of the limitations included sample size and the methods by
which the survey was distributed, yet these were not acknowledged in the
article. There was also no mention of how many surveys were distributed, which
prevents the calculation of the response rate, which is used to determine the
generalizability of the findings. There was the potential for a self-selection
bias, as the participants who chose to take the survey may have had a greater
interest in research than those that did not take the survey. Additionally, the
sample consisted of librarians that “have not yet earned tenure or promotion or
to have been tenured or promoted within the last three years.” This definition
seems to be fairly broad and does not necessarily match with the concept of
“early career.” Most of the respondents reported having “six to nine years of
professional experience,” which means these librarians had been in the field
for some time. An explanation of why this range of experience levels was
included would have been helpful.
Regardless of these limitations, the article provides
some very important insights into this area. It is unique to the literature in
that it explores which types of research supports are most effective for early
career academic librarians. One of the major implications of this research is
that it is important for organizations that support these librarians to provide
some mechanisms to help foster their development as researchers.
This research also provides evidence that time is the
largest obstacle to librarians in accomplishing their research goals.
Interestingly, “designated research time” or “requestable research time”
were the most popular formal supports provided by institutions, although they
were found in less than half. Employers should take the time factor into
serious consideration when evaluating the workloads of their employees and also
consider the inclusion of similar mechanisms to increase time available for
research, especially when it is critical to promotion or tenure.
Informal mentoring seems to be the most highly used
form of research support, and the respondents indicated that it was
significantly more helpful than formal mentoring. While there are a few brief
explanations from the respondents as to some of the reasons as to why informal
mentoring is preferred, this is an area that warrants additional study; a more
complete understanding can help to inform institutional practices.
Additionally, participation in collaborative research
projects was the most prevalent theme when respondents were asked to provide
written answers as to what factors contribute to scholarly success. Increasing
opportunities for networking with colleagues and facilitating collaborative
research are important considerations.
Finally, this study yields statistical evidence that
early career librarians gain confidence incrementally with each research
support that they access. Thus, increasing the number and type of supports
available can have a positive impact on research output. Librarians, institutions,
professional organizations, and even library science educators should take this
under consideration when determining how to improve research confidence and
skills.
References
Perryman, C. & Rathbun-Grubb, S. (2014). The CAT: a generic critical
appraisal tool. In Jotform – Formbuilder. Retrieved
from http://www.jotform.us/cp1757/TheCat