Research Article
Assessment of the Institute for
Research Design in Librarianship, Phase 2: Impact on the Research Productivity
and Careers of Academic Librarians
Frans Albarillo
Reference Librarian &
OER Coordinator
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: 7 Nov. 2023 Accepted: 10 Jan. 2024
2024 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/eblip30461
Abstract
Objective – This article
reports on the qualitative phase of a two-phase sequential mixed-methods study
to assess the first six years of the Institute for Research Design in
Librarianship (IRDL), a continuing education program for academic and research
librarians. 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 second
part of a two-phase study, the authors conducted focus group and individual
interviews with 37 IRDL participants (hereafter called Scholars) and coded the
resulting transcripts. The first phase of the study surveyed all 124 program
participants; the results were reported in an earlier article in this journal.
The second-phase interviews were conducted and then coded using a deductive
process. The researchers identified transcript excerpts that explored the
concepts of research productivity, job performance, and identity as a
researcher. Each of these concepts was further sub-coded to explore the four
sources of self-efficacy, as described in Albert Bandura’s theory: mastery
experiences; verbal or social persuasion; vicarious experiences; and
physiological and affective states.
Results – The majority
of the conversations in both the in-depth individual interviews and the focus
group interviews centered around research productivity; approximately 70% of
the transcript excerpts from focus groups and 55% of the individual interviews
addressed issues related to productivity. Participants also discussed the
impact of IRDL on their job performance and their identify as researchers.
Gaining research confidence had a notable positive impact on job performance
related to classroom teaching and supporting researchers. Within these areas of
conversation, all sources of self-efficacy were evident, but the most
frequently noted were influences related to mastery learning and social
persuasion, through mentorship and becoming part of a peer research community.
Conclusion – The findings
from the focus groups and in-depth interviews deepen the meaning of the results
from the quantitative phase of our IRDL assessment research. The participants
in the study reported both frustration and satisfaction with conducting their
research. A supportive environment focused on helping librarians gain needed
research skills, practice those skills, and become part of a research community
contributes to research confidence and productivity, improved job performance,
and identity as a researcher. The findings of this study have implications for
developing librarians as researchers, including the importance of a supportive
work environment, research mentoring, and the positive influence of becoming
part of a research community.
Introduction
This article
reports on the qualitative phase of a two-phase sequential mixed-methods study
to assess the effectiveness of the IRDL, a continuing education program for
academic and research librarians. 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 annual program,
which was founded in 2014 and operated with funding from the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (IMLS), began with a nine-day, in-person summer
research design workshop, taught by a library and information science faculty
member and a health researcher. After the in-person workshop, the cohorts
continued to work on their research remotely for a year, supported by the
co-directors, the peer cohort, and formal research mentors. The quantitative
assessment study of the first six years of the program surveyed online all 124
participants; the results were reported in a previous article (Albarillo et
al., 2022). In the second phase of the assessment reported here, the
researchers used semi-structured focus group and individual interviews with 37
IRDL Scholars who responded to the survey to explore more fully the
quantitative findings. This qualitative phase allowed the researchers to hear
directly from IRDL participants about the short-term and long-term impact that
their year-long experiences may have had on their research productivity, their
job performance, and their identity as a researcher.
Literature Review
Research Success Factors and Productivity
The goal of IRDL
was, within the programmatic year of participation, to lessen barriers to
research success for novice academic librarian researchers and maximize the
availability of research supports. The development of the IRDL program and the
assessment of its effectiveness have been influenced by work of a team of
Canadian researchers (Hoffmann et al., 2014, 2017) who shifted the focus of
attention from research barriers to research success factors. In their 2014
study, the authors conducted a content analysis of empirical studies on
research productivity among librarians and other practitioner researchers and
identified 16 success factors that could be grouped into three broad
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. In a subsequent study to test the validity of these
factors in a quantitative study of Canadian research librarians, the
researchers gathered research productivity data and correlated the data with
yes/no statements that map to 11 research success factors from the three broad
categories (Hoffmann et al., 2017, p. 110). They found all three categories had
a positive impact on research productivity. In the conclusion of the article,
the authors note the need for a follow-up qualitative study. A recent study of
research librarians in the United States found that all three broad categories
were statistically significant when looking at weighted output and number of
peer-reviewed articles (Hoffmann et al., 2023, p. 406). However, the Peers and
Community category, which is a strong focus in the design and assessment of
IRDL, was the only category that was statistically correlated with all forms of
research output (Hoffmann et al., 2023, p. 408). This article also called for
qualitative follow-up studies.
Research Self-efficacy
In the 1970s,
psychologist Albert Bandura developed the theory of self-efficacy, which
predicts how individuals will behave in threatening or challenging situations
(Bandura, 1977). He defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce certain
attainments” (1997, p. 3). Positive beliefs in one’s ability to produce
positive outcomes are more likely to produce those outcomes than negative
expectations; positive expectations serve as incentives and negative
expectations as disincentives (Bandura, 1997, pp. 20-21). In order to achieve positive outcomes, it is necessary to
increase positive expectations, that is, to increase perceived self-efficacy.
However, self-efficacy is not general, but specific; we do not have equal
confidence in our ability to produce outcomes across domains. Research
self-efficacy (hereafter RSE) has been defined as “an individual’s belief or
confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform tasks associated with
conducting research” (Forester et al., 2004, p. 4). This definition includes
the ability to complete various research tasks, including conceptualization,
analysis, and writing (Bieschke et al., 1996).
A recent
meta-analysis of RSE confirmed that RSE is both an outcome of activities
such as research training; and an antecedent predictor of variables such
as research productivity (Livinƫi et al., 2021). Notably for the present study, which is focused on
practitioner-researchers, the predictive association between research
self-efficacy and research productivity has been studied in applied
disciplines, such as counseling psychology (Kahn & Scott, 1997; Phillips
& Russell, 1994) and medicine (Bakken et al., 2006). Low research
self-efficacy has been associated with research avoidance (Betz, 1986). Other
researchers have studied the impact of research training (Brown et al., 1996;
Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002) and research mentoring (Hollingsworth
& Fassinger, 2002) on RSE. Consequently, prior to the development of IRDL,
the co-directors became interested in the potential for RSE to both predict and
influence research success among academic and research librarians. In the
survey they conducted to inform the design of IRDL, they included a 10-item
research self-efficacy scale, based on the steps in planning, conducting, and
disseminating research (Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012). They found that
research self-efficacy is a statistically significant predictor of research
success among academic librarians. The co-directors considered ways to improve
the research self-efficacy of librarian researchers by focusing on the factors
that contribute to self-efficacy, through training and support. They later
expanded the scale to 38 items and incorporated its use into the assessment of
IRDL (Brancolini & Kennedy, 2017).
Sources of Self-efficacy
Bandura (1977)
proposed four sources of self-efficacy: mastery experiences; verbal or social
persuasion; vicarious experiences; and physiological and affective
states. These four sources of RSE became the foundation of IRDL. The research
workshop and the following year were designed to provide opportunities for
research-related personal mastery experiences, what Bandura calls “performance
accomplishments” (p. 195). A short-term goal of IRDL is for the Scholars to
complete a project in one year, a significant mastery experience. The Scholars
are placed in an environment with accomplished librarian researchers who model
research success, both during the summer workshop and during the one-on-one
research mentoring, providing vicarious experiences. Bandura notes that
vicarious experiences “can generate expectations in observers that they too
will improve if they intensify and persist in their efforts” (p. 197). When we
see others succeed who share similarities with us, we are more likely to be
inspired by their accomplishments. Although Bandura asserts that the third
source, verbal persuasion, is less effective than mastery experiences, the
“impact of verbal persuasion on self-efficacy may vary substantially depending
on the perceived credibility of the persuaders... The more believable the
source of the information, the more likely are efficacy expectations to change”
(p. 202). Verbal persuasion is also more effective when the persuader focuses
on achieving an attainable goal, rather than deficit reduction. Thus, the
instructors and the mentors were chosen for their expertise and experience. The
instructors emphasize the importance of developing a manageable project and the
mentors focus on supporting the Scholars’ goal of finishing their research
project during the IRDL year. The fourth source, emotional arousal, interacts
with the other three sources. Positive emotions associated with an activity
increase self-efficacy and negative emotions decrease it. IRDL was designed to increase positive feelings associated
with research by providing opportunities for mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, and verbal encouragement, with the intention of arousing positive
emotions and decreasing anxiety.
Methods
To assess the
short-term and long-term impacts that IRDL may have had on its participants,
the researchers conducted a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed-methods
study of all 124 participants of the program in its first six years
(2014-2019). The first phase employed a quantitative approach using a web-based
survey, which was administered in October 2019 and July 2020. The survey
findings were published as a separate article (Albarillo et al., 2022). The
second phase of the study, which is the subject of this article, used a
qualitative approach employing semi-structured individual and group interviews.
Brooklyn College, City University of New York was the IRB of record for this
study. The facilitator conducted the in-depth interviews first, followed by the
focus group interviews, all in the summer of 2020. Oral consent was obtained at
the beginning of each recorded interview.
The lead author
conducted the interviews remotely using the cloud-based video conferencing
service Zoom, at the height of the COVID-19 lockdown. Readers should be aware
that at this time during the pandemic in the United States there was great
social unrest, beginning with the fear and death caused by the COVID-19
pandemic, which had claimed 354,981 lives (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2023) by the end of 2020. During the summer of 2020, when these
interviews were conducted, there followed more social unrest with the murder of
George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter protests, the rise in Asian-American
hate crimes, the breakdown of major supply chains, and the closure of many
colleges, businesses, and schools as these institutions transitioned to remote
models. Despite these factors and with the consent of our study population, we
decided to continue with the interviews and not to modify any of the research
instruments to stay consistent with the original research design.
Study Population Group Design and Recruitment
If a respondent
indicated during the survey phase of the study that they would be interested in
participating in further research, they were recruited into this phase of the
study; 56 Scholars volunteered to participate. From this pool, 37 were selected
for the individual or group interviews. Five Scholars participated in in-depth
interviews; 32 Scholars were divided into five focus groups. Using the survey
data, we created six categories of interview participants:
- In-depth Interviews (n = 5) were conducted individually with
Scholars who did not complete their IRDL project at the time of the survey
and indicated that they are not continuing to do research.[1]
- Focus Group 1 (n = 6) was comprised of Scholars who completed their
IRDL project and are continuing to do research.
- Focus Group 2 (n = 6) was comprised of Scholars who did not
complete their IRDL project but are continuing to do research.
- Focus Group 3 (n = 7) was comprised of Scholars who are continuing
to do research and who were/are tenure track.
- Focus Group 4 (n = 6) was comprised of Scholars who are continuing
to do research and who are on continuing reappointment.
- Focus Group 5 (n = 7) was comprised of Scholars who indicated that
they received a certificate of continuous appointment or achieved tenure
because of IRDL.
The text of the
recruitment email is included as Appendix A. As an incentive we gave
participants a $100 gift card from giftcards.com. The
IMLS grant was the source of the participant incentives.
Interview Protocol Design
The interview protocols were developed from our survey questions and
were designed to expand our understanding of the survey data. The relationship
between the survey findings and interview findings will be presented in the
discussion section of this article. To reduce any potential
response bias, the two program co-directors, who are also co-authors on this
research, did not participate in the interviews or focus groups. The lead
author of this study, also an IRDL Scholar familiar with the program, conducted
in-depth interviews and focus groups. The interview protocols are included as Appendices B
(focus group protocol) and C (in-depth interview protocol).
Analysis Plan
The process used
for the analysis of the transcript data was collaborative (Guest et al., 2007)
and used a deductive, content analysis approach (Weber, 1990). We chose this
process to be able to identify the major areas of concern while allowing for
discussion and iteration of the codebook, the definitions of codes, and when
and when not to apply the codes.
The interviews
were transcribed by Transcribeme, a human transcription service. Participants
were given the opportunity to redact any comments in their transcripts. Any
redactions or corrections were noted by the lead researcher. The transcripts
were then de-identified by the lead author and uploaded into Dedoose
(SocioCultural Research Consultants, 2023), an online qualitative analysis
program that allows for collaborative coding. Two co-authors moved through each
transcript independently to apply codes and then met to discuss discrepancies,
adjusting the codebook to add clarifications and exemplar quotes. This process
was repeated twice in what we call first pass and second pass coding. The first
pass line-by-line reading of all the transcripts focused on understanding the
possible programmatic impact on the participants’ professional lives as we
worked to identify following three codes: research productivity, defined for
this purpose 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 professional identity, which may
have resulted in pursuing additional formal degrees, as well as how IRDL may
have impacted how they think of themselves as researchers. Upon completion of
this initial coding, the excerpts were exported from Dedoose into Microsoft
Excel format for further analysis.
In the second
pass line-by-line reading of the transcripts, we applied sub-codes for the four
sources of self-efficacy (mastery experiences; verbal or social persuasion;
vicarious experiences; and physiological and affective states) to the excerpts
coded with the three main topics, expanding the codebook to include definitions
and rules for application of those additional 12 codes. Two co-authors then
moved through the excerpts independently to apply the additional codes, and
then met to discuss discrepancies and adjust the codebook. Some passages were
double coded. We calculated code frequencies for the three main codes, to
assess the prevalence of discussion among all focus groups and in-depth
interviews (Bernard & Ryan, 1998, pp. 595-646). These code frequencies are
a rough measure of how salient these codes were in this corpus of the interview
data. The codebook developed for this analysis is included as Appendix D.
Results
The purpose of
this qualitative portion of our assessment study is to explore the lived
experiences of IRDL Scholars during the first six years of the program. We were
interested to learn the impact of the program on the short-term and long-term
research success of participants. The focus of our exploration of short-term
success focused on the research project that each scholar proposed during their
application to IRDL and that they worked on during their IRDL year. We wanted
to learn about the factors that contributed to their completion of the project.
However, for our exploration of the impact of IRDL on long-term research
success, we considered participants’ research experiences after that year. We
examined three outcomes: research productivity, job performance, and researcher
identify. Building upon an earlier study that confirmed the positive impact of
the IRDL summer research workshop on self-efficacy (Brancolini & Kennedy,
2017), we also examined the influence of research self-efficacy on these outcomes.
We present here
the results of the analysis of the transcripts from both the individual and
focus group interviews, with representative and illustrative excerpts for the
three main codes: research productivity, job
performance, and researcher identity; and the subcodes related to the sources of self-efficacy:
mastery experiences; verbal or social persuasion; vicarious experiences; and
physiological and affective states (coded “emotions” for brevity). These
excerpts were carefully chosen after the authors performed two coding passes,
each time reconciling coding disagreements per our analysis plan. We also
report on common participant experiences around research barriers and supports.
The quoted
excerpts are parenthetically annotated with the interview format and the
participant code. For example (FG, P88) can be read as focus group participant
88; and similarly (IDI, P58) indicates the excerpt is from the individual
in-depth interview with participant 58. The participant codes are artifacts of
the original survey study. The full codebook is provided as Appendix D.
Research Productivity
Most of the
conversations in both the individual interviews and the focus groups centered
around research productivity, with around 70% of the transcript excerpts from
focus groups discussing productivity issues, and around 55% of the individual
interviews discussing the same. Because IRDL Scholars were not expected to
publish the results of their research project in less than one year, for this
assessment we have defined Research Productivity to be the action of
conducting a research project. This definition includes data collection through
the step of analyzing their results; while Scholars’ Research Productivity may
— but does not have to — or may not include sharing their results externally,
either through presentation or publication. Of the Scholars who participated in
our two-phase assessment, 47% presented at a conference or published the
results of their IRDL research (Albarillo et al., 2022, p. 11). Excerpts were
coded with Research Productivity when the participants described
variables both inside and outside the workplace that impacted their
productivity as it relates to conducting their IRDL research project. Because
it is a multidimensional topic, research productivity was evident in comments
about available and desirable institutional research supports, the culture of
research within the library workplace, the encouragement or discouragement of
peers on conducting research, and research communities and networks.
Participants expressed self-efficacy, often used interchangeably with
confidence (e.g., Weinberg et al., 1979), in numerous comments. One participant
synthesized this multidimensionality with the following comment:
One thing I'd just like to add-- I really appreciate IRDL for giving me,
I guess, more confidence in my ability to do this. Having people who weren't
necessarily librarians, but who did research [research workshop instructors]
saying, “You can do this. This is possible,” and then empowering us to do this,
I think it was life-changing. I am now an academic librarian publishing
research papers, and I did not think that's where I would end up. So that's
fabulous. (FG, P88)
Within the
context of research productivity, some participants discussed the impact of
completing a step in the research process, their entire IRDL research project,
or a subsequent research project. Those transcript excerpts were coded as Research
Productivity: Mastery Experiences (hereafter RPME). RPME is
illustrated with the following excerpt:
Something that's helped me -- and I think they said this in IRDL too,
but -- just this idea that each project is an opportunity to learn something
new and try something new. And I think that's something I've really tried to
[laughter] embrace with this past project, is like [laughter] as I'm writing up
those results, like, "God, I would have done this so differently
[laughter] if I had a chance to do it again. Why did I design it with this
small cohort? It was way too small." And just thinking it's not like,
"Oh, I'd just throw the whole thing out. It's in my paper. Really embrace
that limitation section. Just write it all out there. Next time, I would
probably do it differently. And I've just really tried to be honest about that
kind of thing and think about it as a learning opportunity. And now I know the next paper won't have those same mistakes and
will probably have fun new mistakes, but I think that's something that I've
really tried to keep in mind and has been a helpful mindset for me. And so,
each of these things is just an opportunity to learn and try something new.
(FG, P38)
The participants
also commented on the impact of encouragement from their supervisors, librarian
colleagues, IRDL program mentor, other IRDL Scholars, or research colleagues at
work; and those excerpts were coded as Research Productivity: Social
Persuasion (hereafter RPSP). Using Bandura (1977, 1997) we arrived at a
definition of RPSP for this analysis: evaluative information that one
receives from others; verbal praise that communicates a trust in one's
capabilities; and/or encouragement from trusted sources. Using that definition
of RPSP, we see how encouragement from both individuals and professional
communities can affect RP.
I would say moral support from my supervisor is really critically
important because that then helps with really being able to have that as part
of my workweek and part of my doing that on the clock and knowing that if I
need help in some way, they will try to help me and they can help guide me to
people to talk to or services on campus if I'm having trouble with something.
(FG, P31)
Just having other people on campus who have aligned research goals [who]
I can talk to -- it’s really important. I found the confidence through IRDL to
reach out and join a research cluster. And that has pushed my scholarship in a
totally new direction. That's super exciting. And that was financially
supported through our university to create these types of clusters. (FG, P35)
In the above
example we see that through the IRDL experience, P35 gained a sense of
empowerment to join a group of supportive researchers on campus. Confidence
gained from participation in the IRDL network can grow to include other
networks with positive professional research outcomes, as another participant
noted:
I just built my own research network outside of my library with other
librarians. And I found that by publishing with those people, it helped me gain
credibility and helped me sort of ease into those faculty research groups. (FG,
P88)
Participants
also noted the impact of seeing the research successes or failures of other
librarians and discussed the influence of the research of other librarians on
their own motivation or productivity in their IRDL research projects; those
transcripts were coded as Research Productivity: Vicarious Experiences
(hereafter RPVE).
One participant
commented:
So, I've actually kept up with my mentor a lot and she's been super,
super useful. We touch base like once a month and just chat about things we're
working on. And she’s also getting [an advanced degree] right now, so I think
it's been really great for me to connect with her and have that -- I always
find it really energizing to talk with someone who’s busier than I am
[laughter] and doing more work. And then I feel like, “Yeah. I can do a piece
of that.” (FG, P44)
The participants
shared some emotional responses (described by Bandura as “physiological and
affective states”) to conducting their IRDL research project, both positive and
negative, and those excerpts were coded as Research Productivity: Emotions
(hereafter RPE). We define RPE for this analysis as emotional or
physiological reactions to tasks. People interpret these reactions as clues to
whether they can perform a given action. Positive emotions/reactions can
increase self-efficacy; negative emotions/reactions can decrease it. Emotions
associated with the participants’ research productivity are exemplified by the
two following excerpts:
I felt really positive about the response that I got from my faculty. …
I think I had 12 interviews which felt really nice. And I was happy that I had
a good relationship with my departments and that they were willing to talk to
me about it because beyond just doing this project, it helps me to know what's
going on in their lives with their data. Negatively, I think kind of similar to
[other focus group participant], just how long it's taking me to finish and to
write this paper and to get it submitted and to be able to actually say I’ve
wrapped up this project, that I have done this paper, and then to kind of maybe
move on to something else that is also interesting. (FG, P31)
And I think often when I finish one part, I feel really proud of having
accomplished something. And then I immediately feel like I really need to get
working on the next thing, and I’m not doing enough, or I’m not doing it fast
enough. So, I think when I finally did my second round of coding and had my
defined codebook with my major codes and sub-codes, that felt really good
having something so definitive. But I finished that in September, and I only
just finished writing up the analysis. And so that long intervening period has
just felt like I’m not doing enough. I'm not making enough progress. (FG, P21)
Okay, I'll go first. When I felt most positively? I think the first time
I felt positive about it was actually when I did the first interviews with my
faculty, with the teaching faculty. So, I think I felt for the first time when
I actually did the first interview with assigned faculty and he was talking and
talking and went over time and he just wanted to stay and talk. So, I think
that was the first time I felt it could work. I wasn't convinced anything was
going to work until I had that first interview. And so, it kind of gave me
momentum and made me feel validated. It made sense and somebody who was not a
librarian was really interested in teaching students how to learn information.
So that was good. And, of course, the next positive was when the first paper
was published, I think that was my positive. (FG, P36)
Job Performance
Participants
discussed the perceived effects of the research knowledge and experience gained
through the IRDL program on their job performance. The dimensions of job
performance include: the impact on the quality of the performance of the
participants’ current job; opportunities for new roles within the same library;
meeting tenure and/or promotion requirements and receiving merit increases
based in part upon research productivity. Excerpts were coded with Job
Performance when the participants mentioned applying research skills gained
through participation in IRDL to their job duties or to new roles; noted
specific ways that they perceived that research skills gained at IRDL enhanced
their performance; or mentioned an increase in confidence in assisting faculty
and students with their research. In the focus groups job performance accounted
for only about 10% of the total transcript excerpts, but in the individual
interviews the topic accounted for about 23% of the conversation. Consequently,
many fewer Bandura self-efficacy codes were applied to segments that had been
coded Job Performance than for Research Productivity. One
participant’s comment illustrates the interaction between their research skills
and their job performance:
Another time within the past year that's been really a high point for me
is teaching more classes on data or open science and being able to speak to
more of my own experiences as a researcher, and having gone into this project
with the specific mindset of, “I'm going to publish a preprint. I'm going to
make my data open. I'm going to publish in an open-access journal,” really
trying to walk the walk. And being able to speak to that now in a class when
someone's like, “Well how much time did it take you to prep your stuff?” I can
be very honest and say, “It actually took [laughter] a really long time,” and
know some of the pitfalls that folks might encounter, and then be able to just
address some of their, maybe, fears or just have very realistic, grounded answers
and be able to cite that in the classes that I teach. (FG, P38)
Participants
discussed how they felt when they perceived that research skills gained through
the IRDL program had impacted the way they did their job, or were recognized by
their supervisor or colleagues; these excerpts were coded with Job
Performance: Mastery Experiences (hereafter JPME). One participant noted:
[My] current library just went through the process of strategic
planning. I was a member of the strategic planning committee. And I actually
joined midstride because they appointed me to that committee after I was hired.
So, some of the work had already happened including they had the idea,
“Wouldn't it be great for our strategic planning purposes if we listen to our
users.” And so, they conducted interviews. And so, they’d already planned to do
a whole bunch of in-depth interviews with faculty, undergraduate students, and
graduate students. And I came in and helped with developing the instrument and
doing some of the coding and analysis and identifying themes that emerge from
the interviews and then presenting them to library staff. And it all underwent
IRBs so that we could not just use it for kind of applied professional work. We
could publish about it. And so that is a very direct, a very like one-to-one
relationship between things that I learned at IRDL, and how it’s been entwined
in my practice as a library worker. (IDI, P81)
Discussion of
the impact that research encouragement or criticism had on their job
performance was coded as Job Performance: Social Persuasion (hereafter JPSP).
Only one excerpt from a focus group was coded with this code; no excerpts from
individual interviews were coded as such. One participant recounted a
conversation with a colleague after a job change presented a time challenge in
conducting research:
This was something I really struggled with when I moved from being in
just a liaison position into kind of this now hybrid position. I was like, “I
just can't do the research that I'm doing. I don't have time to do 12
interviews in two weeks at the end of the semester like I used to.” Not to
mention all the logistics of trying to schedule all that. And I had a really
long conversation with my supervisor at the time. And she's just like, “Yeah,
your research is going to look different. It's going to have to look
different.” (FG, P85)
The researchers
looked for but found no comments about the impact of seeing someone else’s
research success on the performance of their job. Any such comments would have
been coded Job Performance: Vicarious Experiences, (hereafter JPVE). More
specifically, we defined JPVE for this analysis as observing the
actions of others and making inferences about themselves and what they can do.
Models also provide observers with more effective ways of doing things;
watching others overcome adversity.
The code of Job
Performance: Emotions (hereafter JPE) was used when participants
described positive affective dimensions, such as feelings of confidence,
curiosity fulfillment, and professional empowerment in the workplace, or
negative affective dimensions, such as feelings of isolation, frustration, or
anxiety around the impact of conducting their IRDL project on their job
performance. Only two excerpts from focus groups were coded with JPE; no
excerpts from individual interviews were coded as such. An illustrative excerpt
follows:
I think what you were just saying at the end there is kind of, I mean,
similar at my library where it’s kind of like if you – so we are also not
required to present or do anything like that, but I also find it fulfilling and
it’s important to me, and I also feel like maybe it’s not required at my
current institution, but if I want to have other opportunities in the future,
it’s something that I think is important to do, so I love it, and it’s one of
my more favorite parts of the job. (FG, P01)
Researcher Identity
Approximately
20% of the conversation in both individual interviews and focus groups was
about the participants’ dual identities as both librarians and researchers. For
this analysis we define Researcher Identity (hereafter RI) as:
the manifestations of the participant’s dual identity as a librarian and a
researcher. RI was present in three dimensions when librarians discussed
their role as producers of library and information science research:
- Community, seeking other librarians or researchers to explore
mutual interests or form collaboration; this dimension may include seeking
service opportunities, such as working on a research committee;
- Professional development, seeking opportunities to improve their
skills and abilities around research methodologies; and
- Impact, expressing a desire to contribute their skills and
knowledge as a researcher to goals in the profession or organization.
Most of the
participants in this study commented on the importance of having a research
community. While we did not code for research community specifically, many
participants spoke about becoming part of a research community created by the
participants in the IRDL program. Participants mentioned community in the
context of research supports that can be found within their immediate work
environment. They also noted that community also exists outside of their work
environment, which emerged when participants discussed how IRDL introduced them
to a larger community of practice.
Participants spoke of the ways a community of practice
can facilitate research relationships. For example, this participant formed
multiple research partners in their cohort: “When I was at IRDL, I met a number
of people that have become research partners for me now” (FG, P19). The transcripts
revealed that IRDL led to the formation of research partnerships and increased
their research networks.
And then I also met a bunch of really cool, interesting smart people who
were doing cool, interesting smart things. And it was nice to be able to talk
to them and learn about what they were doing. And then I also got a lot out of
talking to all of the instructors and people -- the people who were coming in
to teach us and being able to talk to them and hear about -- to get their
expertise and to get their feedback on what I was doing was also really
helpful. So. And I think that even now, with the [private] IRDL Facebook [group
page], when people will write in that they're doing some work or they just got
an article published or some-- maybe their library is hiring or something, I
think that the network that it creates is also invaluable (IDI, P18).
The participants
noted that not only does IRDL create networks around library research, it
provides a shared experience that includes a common vocabulary around library
research. One participant commented:
I mean, just having a conversation right now like we are now and you
suggesting that if we ever wanted to share ideas or meet up or something, it's
like, “Hey, you did IRDL? I did IRDL. Let's talk.” So, I do think that there
are definitely connections that can be taken advantage of. (IDI, 98)
Another
participant commented on the interrelatedness of career and research networks,
a connection that creates more opportunities for IRDL participants who may not
have considered the kinds of career opportunities brought about by the
intersection between research networks and career networks:
And so, the aftereffects of IRDL, when I would get requests from IRDL to
map out my research network and map out my network caused me to start thinking
about, “What are my career networks overall?” And to kind of be very deliberate
in thinking about who might know other things to help me. (FG, P70)
The same
participant also emphasizes the positive professional outcomes in combining
research and career networks:
So, I can say that what you were just saying, [other focus group
participant], about people contacting you or seeing that someone else has cited
your work really does make me feel good and it makes me feel like, “Yeah. All
that time and energy that I spent during that time was worth it, and it did
help the community overall.” (FG, P70)
Participants
also commented throughout the interviews on finding a research community within
the library profession. One discussed having the confidence to seek out their
own community of researchers:
I definitely echo the sentiments of kind of a cohort of people to talk
about it with and keep accountable. I feel like I'm much more motivated to do
research. If I'm talking about other things, then research doesn't really cross
my mind and I put it off. So, it's inspiring to talk to other people about
their work, it makes me think about things differently. So certainly, to keep
the motivation there, I need to be in a community that's valuing it and
thinking about it. (FG, P12)
Participants
often discussed the importance of the research community in conjunction with
other institutional supports, such as the availability of travel funds:
Travel funds -- I don't know if anyone mentioned this -- were useful.
You get to schmooze with people at conferences, develop relationships. If
nothing else, I've sent off papers to colleagues that I've met at conferences
or been introduced to and they've given critical feedback. And that's been
really useful to me. Finding people with complementary skill sets. (FG, P45)
Participants
connected their professional identity to their success in completing their IRDL
research project or subsequent research; those excerpts were coded with Researcher
Identity: Mastery Experiences (hereafter RIME). Commenting about this, two
participants noted:
But I think the highlight for me was submitting from this big project;
I've had [more than one] paper, and one was just sort of like a mini analysis
of the first round of transcripts that I had. And just the process of writing
it up and submitting it, it felt so much better than papers I’ve written in the
past where I didn’t approach it with such a rigorous project in mind. Where,
I’d written papers in the past and I got them published, but it was sort of
like [laughter], “What was the method that I used?” I’m trying to think about--
as I’m writing it up. And so, this one, it just felt so much clearer. And the
response from reviewers was really good, and then the response, when it was
published, was really positive too. And somebody that I really follow on
Twitter was like, “Oh. This is like one of the clearest-written articles I've
ever [read] [laughter].” (FG, P38)
The most valuable part [of IRDL] was just doing a project that I
wouldn't have done before. It's given me more confidence with the research
process more generally. And it just felt like kind of a nice step up. And so,
the next project that I do I think I'll be more confident, and so kind of like
working my way up. (IDI, 58)
When the
participants related the encouragement or support of their library colleagues,
IRDL cohort members, or mentor to their new or enhanced identity as a
researcher, those excerpts were coded with Researcher Identity: Social
Persuasion (hereafter RISP). One participant commented:
“I’ve got all these skills; I'm going to go find new like-minded
people.” And I did. And now we produce papers together, we do research
together, and I just keep finding people who are interested in the same sort of
stuff, and then I just kind of drag them along with me. (FG, P88)
The researchers
coded comments about the impact of observing the research success of colleagues
or mentors as a factor in the participant’s new or enhanced professional
identity as Researcher Identity: Vicarious Experiences (hereafter RIVE).
One participant noted:
I’ve actually seen her [my IRDL mentor] at a couple of conferences. And
so, she was at [redacted name of conference] also and so we were able to go out
to dinner. And then we were able to meet up at [redacted name of conference]
and got a bite to eat too. And so that’s been—I’ve really liked being able to
kind of connect with somebody who’s further along in their career. And have
kind of a mentorship and friendship at the same time, so I really appreciated
that. (IDI, P58)
Participants related both positive and negative
feelings about their IRDL research project as contributing to their
professional identity; those excerpts were coded with Researcher Identity:
Emotion (hereafter RIE). Two examples illustrate emotions associated with
research, one from a focus group that represents comments about the
satisfaction of contributing their research to the academic library profession;
and the other from an in-depth interview that represents the emotional impact
the time it takes to complete a research project.
The thing that
really is very rewarding to me is when I can see that there's been some impact
to my work like somebody has cited an article of mine, or -- Somebody emailed
me today and was like, "I really liked the survey instrument that you
developed for this study. Would you be fine with me reusing that?" So
having those sort of outside reminders, that there's actually -- there's a
reason I'm doing this and people are benefitting from it -- is really nice.
(FG, P44)
Currently, I am
anxious to get it done. I feel like it’s been-- I am putting pressure on
myself. I’m not getting pressure from anybody else although I know my partner
who is helping me with this is also anxious to get it done. And so, I am
slightly annoyed that it’s taken us this long. But I also when I have these
kinds of brief glimpses of excitement that we’re getting close and that we’re
sometimes we’ll be talking and we’ll both be excited about this stuff. And that
it’s kind of this conflict between excitement about what we’re doing and
getting close, and then kind of frustration and annoyance having to write it
down and boil it down into something that's readable. (IDI, P58)
Barriers and Supports
In the first phase of this study (Albarillo et al.,
2022, pp. 29-31), we presented the survey participants with a list of possible
research supports and barriers they may experience at work. In this second
phase, we used those lists to prompt participants to elaborate on what they
believed were the most important supports and the most significant barriers to
conducting research in their workplaces. We also expected that the discussions
would elicit additional barriers and supports that were not listed in the
survey. However, no additional supports or barriers were mentioned in the
interviews. Surprisingly, the barrier that scored the highest in the survey,
“Lack of experience using specific research methods,” was not mentioned.
Instead, we found instead rich discussions around tenure pressure, isolation,
research climate, and mentorship.
The topic of tenure and promotion arose repeatedly,
summarized well by this comment in a focus group:
But I feel like
if you're in a place where research is not a requirement, that can be a
barrier, but then if you're in a place where tenure is a requirement and
there's so much pressure, it's a barrier too. (FG, P56)
The difficulty of finding like-minded researchers
within the library where the participant works was also noted:
I think a
barrier for me -- and I kind of hinted at this earlier -- is I feel so lonely.
The kind of things that I like to do, nobody else in the library likes to do.
And I know obviously we're in the 21st century. We can collaborate online and
things like that, but I like face-to-face interaction. I want to be able to sit
down with somebody and have a cup of coffee and talk about something. And I
just don't have people to talk to. I don't have people to talk to at all. (FG,
P57)
Another participant from a different focus group
commented:
Where I find a
huge struggle is my colleagues. No one is interested in research. When I've
tried to, “Oh, I'm going to give this talk. Can I do a practice run for
everybody?” I have one person show up and it's because they like me. They don't
really want to hear it, but they're like, “Oh, I feel sorry for you. No one is
going to come [laughter].” (FG, P07)
Other participants have been successful in finding
supportive individuals within their library and this has proven essential for
many of the study participants. A focus group participant noted:
Fortunately, my
boss and the rest of the library [are] very supportive of research and making
sure that we have time to do that and, of course, balancing it with everything
else that they require us to do. And I feel really lucky because the research
climate is really collaborative. So there have been a couple of papers that
have been published where I've been able to be a part of it through working
with other people. So yeah, I really appreciate that. (FG, P31)
Another commented:
I think that
mentorship and support of all kinds have been really helpful. I think both the
moral support and mentorship from my supervisor around research has been really
critical. She's one of the people who has invited me to participate in a couple
of her own research projects. And just working with somebody who's more
experienced to conduct qualitative studies and qualitative analysis definitely
helped me reflect on my own research. (FG, P21)
Discussion
Conducting focus
group and individual interviews with IRDL participants who responded to our
survey instrument in the first phase of our assessment project enriched our
understanding of the impact of the program on individual participants. The
interview data highlighted their perceptions related to research productivity,
job performance, and researcher identity. Their comments gave us insights into
the ways the IRDL experience addresses the four sources of self-efficacy,
specifically research self-efficacy. In this section we discuss how IRDL
increased research self-efficacy, which has been shown to contribute to
research productivity (Livinƫi et al., 2021).
Research Productivity and the Concept of Research Persistence
The qualitative
phase of our assessment project piqued our interest in a possible factor for
librarians becoming long-term researchers: research persistence. In the first
phase of this study, Albarillo et al. found that continuing to do research
after their IRDL project (a concept we are calling research persistence) may be
a better measure of long-term impact on research productivity of the
participants (2022, p. 11), rather than simply completing the IRDL project. In
our analysis of the transcripts, we see some evidence that is supportive of the
concept.
We believe that
the concept warrants separate study, as it is clearly multidimensional and may
be associated with the sources of self-efficacy. We highlight here just a few
examples of our observations from the transcript analysis to illustrate the
facets of this concept. Research persistence may be associated with both with
the mastery experience and emotions. One participant noted that, “And I think
often when I finish one part, I feel really proud of having accomplished
something” (FG, P21). This participant emphasized the emotional importance of
“feeling proud” of identifying and finishing steps in a research project, a
skill taught at IRDL.
Once an
individual learns research skills and begins to apply these skills from one
project to another, they begin to understand that only through the practiced
application of research skills will they improve. One participant commented
that, “…each project is an opportunity to learn something new and try something
new…” (FG, P38). This participant recognized that research projects are
learning opportunities and occasions for mastery. They also reinforce the
concept of research persistence in their comment that, “…I know the next paper
won't have those same mistakes and will probably have fun new mistakes, but I
think that's something that I've really tried to keep in mind and has been a
helpful mindset for me.” Persistence, despite mistakes, anxiety, and frustration
can lead to mastery of skills, internalization of small successes, and research
productivity.
In our
interviews, we observed that research persistence may be influenced by positive
emotions produced by encouragement, small wins, and finding a community of
practice. These findings suggest that librarians who conduct research should
have the metacognition that completing a research project is not an
overwhelming, singular task; rather it is process is comprised of discrete and
often iterative steps that improve over time: proposal writing, research
design, data collection, analysis, synthesis, writing, and presenting.
Mentors and Community
As demonstrated
by participant excerpts about people in their local work environments acting as
a research support, mentors and research communities play a strong role in
motivating and encouraging the participants in this study to become comfortable
with and successful in research. These qualitative findings are consistent with
recent quantitative results on the impact of peers and community on academic
librarian research productivity (Hoffmann et al., 2023). The majority of
comments related to mentorship and community were found in excerpts coded SP.
RPSP codes identify examples of the supportive role that mentors,
colleagues, and other members of a research community play as a source of
research advice and encouragement. For example, P31 focused on how a supportive
supervisor provided important advice and institutional knowledge on how to
navigate who to speak with on campus “…they will try to help me and they can
help guide me to people to talk to or services on campus if I'm having trouble
with something [related to my research].” The intentional process of developing
one’s personal learning networks (Rajagopal et al., 2012) that is taught and
modeled in the IRDL curriculum showed P35 how community can influence a
researcher: “I found the confidence through IRDL to reach out and join a
research cluster. And that has pushed my scholarship in a totally new
direction.” Similarly, from their IRDL experience P88 gained the confidence to
join faculty research groups. P85’s comment coded JPSP illustrates how
new work responsibilities can come into conflict with existing research
commitments, and how important it is for a supervisor to acknowledge the
transition in a supportive way:
“And I had a really long conversation with my supervisor at the time.
And she's just like, ‘Yeah, your research is going to look different. It's
going to have to look different.’”
The transcript
excerpts coded as RISP show us that the participants believe that
communities can increase their individual agency, which in turn can create more
research opportunities and collaboration. Once a relationship is established
mentors can become friends and senior colleagues, so mentoring and supervising
can turn into stronger professional friendships. Conversely, the lack of a
research mentor or community can lead to feelings of isolation and anxiety.
Researcher Identity
In reporting the findings of the survey data from the
first phase of this research, we noted that before participating in IRDL, 32%
of the survey respondents identified as a librarian‐researcher, but 79% stated
that they currently identify as a librarian‐researcher, an increase of more
than 47% (Albarillo et al., 2022, p. 15). 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 research
productivity (Brew et al., 2016). While we did not prompt discussion on the
topic during the interviews, it emerged naturally. As noted in the results, 20%
of the codes mentioned identity as librarians and researchers. Most
importantly, in the transcript excerpts coded as RI, participants
connected their research skills to research communities as P88 did: “I got all these skills; I'm going to go find new like-minded people.”
The excerpts coded as RISP show that research is a social process, with
an audience, shared practices and practitioners.
The IRDL curriculum was intentional about increasing
participants’ awareness of their networks, as P70 recalled, “…I would get
requests from IRDL to map out my research network and map out my network caused
me to start thinking about, ‘What are my career networks overall,’ and to kind
of be very deliberate in thinking about who might know other things to help
me.” What we learn from the excerpts coded as RIME, about mastery
experiences, is that IRDL creates an opportunity for a guided research
experience. As P58 noted, “The most valuable part of IRDL was just doing a
project that I wouldn't have done before. It's given me more confidence with
the research process more generally.” Identifying as a librarian researcher and
having shared research experiences empowered the participants to find or create
their own community of practice.
Implications for Research
Support
The IRDL is a unique and specialized continuing education
program for novice librarian researchers. However, many findings of this
program assessment have practical implications for librarian researchers, their
supervisors, and the administrators of the libraries where they work. The IRDL
participants themselves offer insights and guidance for individuals and
institutions seeking to improve research support for librarians. We believe
that maximizing the sources of self-efficacy, especially mastery learning and
verbal encouragement, contribute to increased self-efficacy and to research
success. The interviews revealed the complex interaction of personalities,
individual circumstances, and research environments in which librarians become
researchers.
Library leaders can increase research self-efficacy by
creating and nurturing a research community that provides a supportive
environment for librarian researchers. It is important for librarian
researchers to find a research community at their own library but also through
consortia, professional associations, and conferences. Members of the community
support one another through verbal encouragement and celebrating one another’s
research success. The community also provides opportunities for finding research
mentors and collaborators.
Research mentoring is a well-established research success
factor in other practitioner-research professions, but it has not been
extensively studied among librarians (Hoffmann et al., 2014). Mentorship is
widespread in academic librarianship and some researchers have focused
specifically on research mentoring (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2018; Smigielski et
al., 2014). Mentorship helps librarians persist and pivot when research
projects and job responsibilities need to be rebalanced. Mentors are often
colleagues in the library, but participants in our study found mentorship and
community among the faculty at their institutions and across the profession.
The IRDL mentoring program offers a model for formal mentoring outside a
librarian’s home institution (Jason et al., 2021).
Verbal encouragement and moral support matter. This
support may come from other librarian researchers, faculty researchers,
or research consultants on campus. Creating a supportive, learning-oriented
environment is critically important for novice researchers, but all researchers
benefit from a library with a strong research culture, one that values
risk-taking and mutual support. In addition to the more common supports –
release time for research, financial support for incentives and statistical
support, and travel funding – the need to find peers and community is strong.
Librarians who are part of a research community feel less isolated and have
more opportunities for learning, mastering, and maintaining their research
skills.
Limitations
and Future Research
This study has
similar limitations as our companion paper (Albarillo et al., 2022), in that
the population was self-selecting and motivated to learn social science
research skills. Another limitation involves the data representing a singular
moment in time. The interviews were conducted at the height of the COVID-19
pandemic, which has consequences beyond the scope of this paper but undoubtedly
affected the participants and their ability to pursue their research agendas.
We had expected
to see evidence of fundamental differences between the participants who had
completed their IRDL projects or were continuing to conduct research (those in
the focus groups) and those who indicated that they had not completed their
IRDL project and were not continuing with research (those in the in-depth
interviews). However, we did not find any thematic distinction (no unique codes
or themes) between the two sub-populations and so determined that further
analysis to describe differences was not warranted. It is possible that
differences may be evident in a post-COVID-19 era, and we have earmarked this
for future research consideration.
We also found
that the participants in the study exhibited high levels of persistence in both
the completion of their IRDL research and subsequent research projects. Many
discussed challenges that they faced and overcame to complete their research.
It would be interesting to learn more about sources of research persistence
among academic librarians. Possible sources include external factors, such as
promotion and tenure; internal factors, such as identity as a researcher and
positive feelings associated with the research process; and community factors,
such as the encouragement of supervisors, colleagues, and research
collaborators.
Conclusion
This second phase of our study, designed to assess the
effectiveness of the IRDL program, gave participants the opportunity to give us
their insights into the specific ways they believe that it contributed to their
research productivity, job performance, and professional identity. Participants
discussed issues surrounding the concept of research persistence,
organizational culture, research community, and identity as a researcher. The
findings from the focus groups and in-depth interviews deepen the meaning of
the results from the quantitative phase of our research. The participants in
the study experienced both frustration and satisfaction with their research.
Regardless of challenges and setbacks, most of the study participants completed
their IRDL project and moved forward with new research projects; they exhibited
persistence and a commitment to research. A supportive environment focused on
helping librarians gain needed research skills, practice those skills, and
become part of a research community contributes to research confidence and
productivity, improved job performance; and identity as a 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, Qualitative
Analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Kristine
R. Brancolini: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition (supporting),
Methodology (supporting), Qualitative Analysis, 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 extend our thanks to the IRDL community who
made this research possible.
References
Ackerman, E., Hunter, J., & Wilkinson, Z. T. (2818). The
availability and effectiveness of research supports for early career academic
librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44(5), 553-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.06.001
Albarillo, F., Kennedy, M.R., & Brancolini, K.R. (2022). Assessment
of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL): Impact on the
research productivity and careers of academic librarians. Evidence Based
Library and Information Practice, 17(4), 3-35. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30094
Bakken, L.L., Byars-Winston, A., & Wang, M. (2006). Viewing clinical
research career development through the lens of Social Cognitive Career Theory.
Advances in Health Sciences Education Theory and Practice, 11(1),
91-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-005-3138-y
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
York: Freeman.
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. (1998). Text analysis: Qualitative and
quantitative methods. In: H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in
cultural anthropology (pp. 595-646). AltaMira Press.
Betz, N. E. (1986). Research training in counseling psychology: Have we
addressed the real issues? The Counseling Psychologist, 14(1), 107-113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000086141007
Bieschke, K. J., Bishop, R. M., & Garcia, V. L. (1996). The utility
of the research self-efficacy scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(1),
59-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279600400104
Brancolini, K. R., & Kennedy, M. R. Kennedy. (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
Brown, S. D., Lent, R.W., Ryan, N. E., &
McPartland, E. B. (1996). Self-efficacy as in intervening mechanism between
research training environments and productivity: A theoretical and
methodological extension. The Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000096243012
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data
Tracker. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2023,
April 09. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker
Forester, M., Kahn, J. H., & Hesson-McInnis, M. S.
(2004). Factor structures of three measures of research self-efficacy. Journal
of Career Assessment, 12(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072703257719
Guest, G., & MacQueen, K. M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook
for team based qualitative research. AltaMira
Press.
Hoffmann, K., Berg., S. A., Brancolini, K. R., &
Kennedy, M. R. (2023). Complex and varied: Factors related to the research
productivity of academic librarians in the United States. College &
Research Libraries, 84(3), 392-427. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.84.3.392
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. A., & Koufogiannakis, D (2017). Understanding
factors that encourage research productivity in academic librarians,” Evidence
Based Library and Information Practice, 12(4), 102–28. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8G66F
Hollingsworth, M. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (2002).
The role of faculty mentors in the research training of counseling psychology
doctoral students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(3), 324-330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.324
Jason, D.P., III, Kennedy, M. R., & Brancolini, K. R. (2021).
Mentoring academic librarians for research success, in L. J. Rod-Welch and B.E.
Weeg (Eds.). Academic Library Mentoring: Fostering Growth and Renewal (pp.
241-262). Chicago, Illinois: Association of College and Research Libraries. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/librarian_pubs/140/
Kahn, J. H., & Scott, N. A. (1997). Predictors of research
productivity and science-related career goals among counseling psychology
doctoral students. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(1), 38-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000097251005
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
Livinƫi, R., Gunnesch-Luca, G., & Iliescu, D. (2021). Research
self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 56(3),
215–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1886103
Phillips, J. C., & Russell, R. K. (1994). Research self-efficacy,
the research training environment, and research productivity among graduate
students in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 22(4),
628-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000094224
Rajagopal, K., Joosten–ten Brinke, D., Van Bruggen, J., & Sloep, P.
(2012). Understanding personal learning networks: their structure, content and
the networking skills needed to optimally use them. First Monday 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i1.3559
Smigielski, E. M., Laning, M. A., & Daniels, C. M. (2014). Funding,
time, and mentoring: A study of research and publication support practices of
ARL member libraries. Journal of Library Administration 54(4), 261-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2014.924309
SocioCultural Research Consultants. (2023). Dedoose Version
9.0.86. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. SAGE Publications.
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and
performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(4), 320-331. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.1.4.320
Appendix A
Recruitment Emails
Focus group
Dear IRDL Scholar,
I hope you are safe and well. My name is (Author’s
Name Removed for Peer Review), and I am the principal investigator for Research
Productivity and Career Impact of the IRDL, an IRB-approved study, HRPP file
number 2019-0747 (Author’s Institution Removed for Peer Review), is the IRB of
record.
I am emailing because you participated in an IRDL
survey last Fall 2019, where you indicated your willingness to participate in
online focus groups. I am convening the focus groups from June 1 - June 13.
Please complete this Doodle Poll by Thursday, May 28,
next week, and I will select the time that works best for the group. I am
asking for your preferred email, where you will receive your gift card.
https://doodle.com/poll/[redacted]
After you complete the survey, I will send you an
email with the oral consent form and the Zoom appointment invitation. Please
note that this online focus group will be recorded, transcribed, and later
analyzed.
As an incentive, you each will receive a $100 gift
card for participating in the one and half hour focus group. You can select
most gift cards from giftcards.com or receive an Amazon gift card.
Unfortunately, we cannot award Visa or Mastercard gift cards.
Thanks again for your interest in this research. I
hope you stay safe and have a wonderful weekend.
Sincerely,
2014 IRDL Scholar
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Associate Professor
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Email: Falbarillo@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Individual interview
Dear IRDL Scholar,
On behalf of IRDL, I would like to thank you again for
participating in our Fall 2019 IRDL Survey of Past Participants.
I am contacting you because you have indicated that
you are interested in participating in a 60-minute online in-depth interview
using the Zoom Video Conferencing system.
In this interview, your oral consent will be obtained,
and you will be asked about your IRDL experience. The interview will be
recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. If you are planning to use a mobile
device, please be sure that the display is large enough to be able to read
PowerPoint text during the interview. I will be sharing a PowerPoint to show
question prompts.
There will be no video during the interview, just
audio. Prior to the analysis, the data from the interview will be anonymized,
and findings from the interviews and focus groups will be published.
As an incentive to participate, you will receive $100
gift card of your choice (from giftcards.com). Unfortunately, we can't give you
a Visa or Mastercard gift card, but you can choose from the many other
companies.
To move forward and schedule an interview, please fill
out the Doodle Poll below. The poll indicates my availability for the next two
weeks. Choose a time that works for you. If you need more availability, please
send me an email. The poll will also ask you for your preferred email, where I
will send the Zoom invite and your gift card.
- https://doodle.com/poll/[redacted]
All best,
Frans Albarillo
2014 IRDL Scholar
Reference and Instruction Librarian
Associate Professor
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Email: Falbarillo@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Appendix B
Protocol for Focus Groups
Introduction
5 minutes
1.
What is it like working where you do today, and trying to fit in research? How
would you describe the research climate in your library?
Sub-questions:
Is it a collaborative
environment?
How are research projects or
special projects generated?
Where does research fit in with
your job?
2.
I’d like you to think about the kind of support you get at work for you to be
successful at doing research, today. I’m going to show you a list that we gave
you in the survey and then I’d like you to take a few minutes and pick your top
5 and think about why these are your top 5. And are there other kinds of
support that are not on this list? If there, please include them in your list.
After you are done with your list just say I’m done so I’ll know who’s ready.
And then when everyone is done, we will share the list, is everyone comfortable
with that? In the survey we mentioned the following [Show slide with list and
simple definition of research]
1.
Moral
support from my supervisor
2.
Mentorship
from my supervisor
3.
Mentorship
from someone other than my supervisor
4.
Release
time during the work week
5.
Short-term
or pre-tenure research leave
6.
Sabbaticals
7.
Travel
funds (full reimbursement)
8.
Travel
funds (partial reimbursement)
9.
Research
design consultant or statistical consultant
10.
Research
grants
11.
Research
assistants (e.g., student workers or short-term project hires)
12.
Formal
research mentors
13.
Workshops
or other forms of continuing education
[After
the group has indicated they are ready.]
Ok,
let’s go one at a time and share which top five supports are the most important
for you and why.
[Facilitator
will wait for each participant to share their responses. After each participant
has shared their response facilitator will ask this question]
Now
that you have shared with each other your top five work related supports, is
there something you would like to add or change, or modify after hearing what
your colleagues have said?
3.
I’d like you to think about the barriers to research success you encounter at
work when you are doing research, today. I’m going to show you a list that we
gave you in the survey and then I’d like you to take a few minutes and pick
your top 5 and think about why these are your top 5. And are there other kinds
of barriers that are not on this list? If there, please include them in your
list.
After
you are done with your list just say I’m done so I’ll know who’s ready. And
then when everyone is done, we will share the list, is everyone comfortable
with that? In the survey we mentioned the following. [Show slide with list and
simple definition of research]
1.
Lack
of experience using specific research methods
2.
Given
new job responsibilities in the same position
3.
Changed
jobs
4.
Lack
of access to needed research-based literature
5.
Receiving
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval
6.
Access
to the study population
7.
Access
to online survey software
8.
Knowing
how to use online survey software
9.
Organizing
and preparing quantitative data for analysis
10.
Analyzing
quantitative data
11.
Organizing
and preparing qualitative data for analysis
12.
Analyzing
qualitative data
13.
Low
response rates from study participants
14.
I
collected unusable data
15.
Reporting
results in a written format
16.
Reporting
results in a webinar format
17.
Reporting
results as a poster presentation, presentation, or panel in a meeting,
conference, or workshop format
[After
the group has indicated they are ready]
Ok,
let’s go one at a time and share which top five supports are the most important
for you and why.
[Facilitator
will wait for each participant to share their responses. After each participant
has shared their response facilitator will ask this question]
Now
that you have shared with each other your top five work related supports, is
there something you would like to add or change, or modify after hearing what
your colleagues have said?
4.
Are there any PERSONAL supports or barriers you’d like to mention?
Sub-questions:
Family or partner support,
commute time, financial concerns, etc.
5.
Over the past year, can you recall a time when you have felt positively about
your research. Can you describe that situation and the emotion you felt? Can
you recall a time when you felt negatively about your research?
Sub-questions:
Emotions can be things that are
positive like something that is exciting or proud or negative like overwhelming
or frustrated around getting a project approved, or seeing your article come
out in a publication
6.
Is there anything about supports or barriers to your research success that we
haven’t talked about yet, but that you think are important to mention?
Appendix C
Protocol for Individual Interviews
Welcome to the
in-depth interview. We are convening this interview because we are interested
in understanding more about your experience as an IRDL Scholar.
1.
How did you find out about IRDL?
2.
What motivated you to apply to IRDL?
3.
Can you talk a little bit about what
kind of expectations you had going into the IRDL program?
4.
Were these expectations met? How? (Or if
not, explain why your expectations were not met).
5.
What are some memories you have about
working with IRDL?
1.
Sub-questions:
2.
What do you remember about designing
your project, meeting IRDL colleagues, IRDL on social media or meeting other
scholars from other cohorts?
6.
What do you consider to be the most
valuable about your participation in the IRDL program?
7.
Can you talk about your IRDL year after
attending the Summer Research Workshop?
3.
Sub-questions:
4.
When did you actually begin working on
your project?
5.
What was the first couple of months back
at your institution like?
6.
Do you remember the kinds of barriers,
supports you encountered?
7.
Can you talk about your IRDL project,
and how it went?
8.
Sub-questions:
9.
Did you attend the monthly check-ins?
Did you reach out to people from your cohort to discuss your project?
10.
Have you conducted other projects
besides your IRDL project? And can you tell me about them?
11.
Sub-questions:
12.
For example, do you do book reviews,
have creative projects?
13.
Are there non-work things that take up
most of your time and mental space?
14.
These could be professional or personal,
things that are important to you.
15.
10. Thinking about what you learned
during IRDL have you applied any of that knowledge to other aspects of your
work?
16.
11. Do you reach out to the network you
gained at IRDL for other aspects, both personal, work or career related?
17.
Sub-questions:
18.
Did you establish a professional or
personal friendship with people in the IRDL network? Are you friendly with IRDL
scholars at conferences?
19.
12. How would you characterize your IRDL
experience?
Appendix D
Codebook
|
Code |
Definition |
Indicators |
When to Use |
|
Researcher Identity |
Manifestations of the IRDL Scholar's dual identity
as a librarian and a researcher. |
Scholar has become a research resource
in their library; become a reviewer for a peer-reviewed journal; contributes
to the culture of research in their library or university; participates in a
community of researchers or a research network; explicitly states that they
identify as a researcher. |
Use this code when Scholars make
statements about personal beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions on the topic of
their role as a researcher. May be a description of research related
activities or a reflective statement about their identity as a researcher or
scholar. |
|
Subcode: RI - Enactive
Experience/Mastery Experience |
The most logical precursor to one's
sense of efficacy is how one has performed in the past. When one reaches a
goal just beyond the last one they have set, belief in one's abilities is
increased. Previous successes typically raise one's self-efficacy. Mastery
experiences provide a powerful boost to self-efficacy. |
Scholar associates their research
success or increased research confidence with the accomplishment of specific
research-related tasks. |
Use this subcode when a Scholar connects
their identity as a researcher to their success in completing the IRDL
research workshop, their IRDL research project, or additional research. |
|
Subcode: RI - Social Persuasion |
Evaluative information that one receives
from others. Verbal praise that communicates a trust in one's capabilities.
Encouragement from trusted sources. |
Scholar notes the positive impact of
verbal encouragement from other researchers or their peers in completing a
research task or a research project. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
relates the encouragement or support of their library (dean/director,
supervisor, colleagues), IRDL colleagues, or mentor either during the
workshop or sometime throughout the year (check-ins, working with mentor) to
their new or enhanced identity as a researcher. |
|
Subcode: RI - Vicarious
Experience/Modeling/Mentoring |
Observing the actions of others and
making inferences about themselves and what they can do. Models also provide
observers with more effective ways of doing things. Watching others overcome
adversity. |
Scholar recognizes the research success
of others and applies it to their own situation. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
connects observing the research success of others on their own identity as a
researcher. The Scholar may mention the research of other Scholars, their
colleagues, or a mentor as a factor in their new or increased identity as a
researcher. |
|
Subcode: RI - Arousal/Emotions |
Emotional or physiological reactions to
tasks. People interpret these reactions as clues to whether or not they can
or cannot perform a given action. Positive emotions and reactions can
increase self-efficacy; negative emotions and reactions can decrease it. |
Scholar notes how they feel or felt
about research tasks or research situations. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
connects their positive or negative feelings about a research task or outcome
to their identity as a researcher. |
|
Job Performance |
Manifestations of the Scholar's
newly-acquired research knowledge and skills on their job performance and job
success. |
The Scholar notes specific ways that
research skills can or are enhancing their job performance; increased
confidence in helping faculty and students with their research or in their
research-related instruction. Scholar notes the requirement to conduct and
publish research to achieve tenure, promotion and/or annual merit increases. |
Use this code when the Scholar describes
a relationship between research success and job performance, including in the
quality of their performance as a librarian or with regard to tenure and
promotion. |
|
Subcode: JP - Enactive
Experience/Mastery Experience |
The most logical precursor to one's
sense of efficacy is how one has performed in the past. When one reaches a
goal just beyond the last one they have set, belief in one's abilities is
increased. Previous successes typically raise one's self-efficacy. Mastery
experiences provide a powerful boost to self-efficacy. |
Scholar associates their research
success or increase in confidence with the accomplishment of specific
research-related tasks. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
describes the relationship between their research skills and the way they
conduct their job, the quality of their job performance, or the recognition
of their supervisor or colleagues. |
|
Subcode: JP - Social Persuasion |
Evaluative information that one receives
from others. Verbal praise that communicates a trust in one's capabilities.
Encouragement from trusted sources. |
Scholar notes the positive impact of
verbal encouragement from other researchers or their peers in completing a
research task or a research project. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
describes the impact of research encouragement from mentors, supervisors, and
colleagues (positive) or research criticism (negative) on the performance of
their job. |
|
Subcode: JP - Vicarious
Experience/Modeling/Mentoring |
Observing the actions of others and
making inferences about themselves and what they can do. Models also provide
observers with more effective ways of doing things. Watching others overcome
adversity. |
Scholar recognizes the research success
of others and applies it to their own situation. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
discusses the impact of seeing other's success in research on the performance
of their job. |
|
Subcode: JP - Arousal/Emotions |
Emotional or physiological reactions to
tasks. People interpret these reactions as clues to whether or not they can
or cannot perform a given action. Positive emotions and reactions can
increase self-efficacy; negative emotions and reactions can decrease it. |
Scholar notes how they feel or felt
about research tasks or research situations. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
connects positive or negative emotions about their research skills or success
to improvements or changes in job performance. |
|
Research Productivity |
Manifestations of factors that impact
the research productivity, defined for this study of IRDL Scholars as:
conducting a research project through the step of analyzing their results;
may or may not include sharing their results externally, either through
presentation or publication. |
Scholar associates participation in IRDL
with research productivity. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
describes elements of the IRDL experience that contributed to their research
productivity. When the Scholar notes that research is an expectation or
condition of employment, also code Job Performance. |
|
Subcode: RP - Enactive
Experience/Mastery Experience |
The most logical precursor to one's
sense of efficacy is how one has performed in the past. When one reaches a
goal just beyond the last one they have set, belief in one's abilities is
increased. Previous successes typically raise one's self-efficacy. Mastery
experiences provide a powerful boost to self-efficacy. |
Scholar associates their research
success or increased research confidence with the accomplishment of specific
research-related tasks. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
describes impact on research productivity of small successes or meeting goals
for completion of their IRDL project or another research project; use when
the Scholar describes the impact of completing their IRDL research on
subsequent research. |
|
Subcode: RP - Social Persuasion |
Evaluative information that one receives
from others. Verbal praise that communicates a trust in one's capabilities.
Encouragement from trusted sources. |
Scholar notes the positive impact of
verbal encouragement from other researchers or their peers in completing a
research task or a research project. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar notes
the impact on research productivity of encouragement or discouragement on the
part of their supervisors, librarian colleagues, IRDL mentor, or IRDL
Scholars. Use when the Scholar describes the impact of their research network
or collaborators on their research productivity. |
|
Subcode: RP - Vicarious
Experience/Modeling/Mentoring |
Observing the actions of others and
making inferences about themselves and what they can do. Models also provide
observers with more effective ways of doing things. Watching others overcome
adversity. |
Scholar recognizes the research success
of others and applies it to their own situation. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar notes
the impact on research productivity of observing the research success or
failures of other librarians; or the influence of the research of other
librarians on their own motivation or productivity, including comments about
their research network, the positive influence of their IRDL mentor, members
of their IRDL cohort, or other IRDL Scholars. |
|
Subcode: RP - Arousal/Emotions |
Emotional or physiological reactions to
tasks. People interpret these reactions as clues to whether or not they can
or cannot perform a given action. Positive emotions/reactions can increase
self-efficacy; negative emotions/reactions can decrease it. |
Scholar notes how they feel or felt
about research tasks or research situations. |
Use this subcode when the Scholar
relates their emotional response to their research on the part of their
supervisor(s) or peers to their completion of their IRDL research or new
research they have undertaken. The emotions could be positive or negative, leading
to increased or decreased productivity. |