- Email: [email protected]
Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program
ACALIB-01572; No. of pages: 5; 4C: The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program Brian Detlor a,⁎, Vivian Lewis b,1 a b
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, DSB-A201, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada McMaster University Library, McMaster University, Mills Library, Room 204, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 June 2014 Accepted 25 November 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Academic libraries Library research Mentorship
a b s t r a c t As a means of fostering academic library research, this paper provides an overview of an inaugural “FacultyMember-In-Residence” program implemented at McMaster University Library, where a non-librarian faculty member from McMaster spent his sabbatical year conducting library research and helping librarians think about research. In addition to providing background on the context of academic library research and the research productivity of academic librarians, the paper describes the objectives, outcomes, and benefits of the program, as well as personal reflections and recommendations on how to move the program forward. Academic libraries are encouraged to launch similar “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” programs at their own institutions. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION Libraries provide fertile ground for research. They have a steep history, dating back to around 2400 BC when papyrus scrolls were first introduced to record events and maintain a list of happenings and events. They are complex organizations that offer a wide variety of information services and resources to meet the burgeoning and ever growing needs of a diverse user population. They offer services and resources ranging from the physical to the electronic, and that span the full spectrum of the information life cycle from creation, collation, storage, retrieval, organization, and access to information. They undergo and respond to continual and profound changes in both the internal and external environment, including technological, fiscal, legal, political and societal challenges, such as an ever-changing technological landscape, shrinking fiscal budgets, and copyright, privacy, and information ethics issues (Evans & Layzell Ward, 2007; Moran, Stueart, & Morner, 2013; Rubin, 2010). In this light, research on libraries is important. Libraries need, and can benefit from, empirical evidence gathered on the services and resources that they provide. According to Powell, Baker, and Mika (2002, p. 49), research on libraries “improves problem solving and decision making in the workplace, to make professional practitioners critical consumers of the research literature, and to better equip librarians to provide optimal information services to researchers in other fields.” In this sense, research on libraries can offer empirically-based insights and ideas on improvements to the way library information services and resources are provided. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 525 9140x23949. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Detlor), [email protected] (V. Lewis). 1 Tel.: +1 905 525 9140x23883.
The problem, however, is how to facilitate research in libraries in general, and in academic libraries specifically. Moreover, how can research led by academic librarians be promoted? Though many academic librarians are successful researchers, academic librarians are confronted with several challenges that can inhibit or restrict their ability to conduct research, such as lack of time, unfamiliarity with the research process, lack of support, lack of confidence, and lack of motivation (Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012). These barriers limit academic librarians' engagement in understanding and exploring the delivery of information services and resources in their own organizations and across the profession. Solutions are needed to help mitigate the factors negatively affecting librarian research productivity and to overcome barriers that prevent librarians from conducting their own library research investigations (Hoffman, Berg, & Koufogiannakis, 2014). One potential solution is to provide academic librarians with convenient access to an in-house research expert with interests in library and information science. This is exactly what occurred at the authors' university library. A faculty member from the same university agreed to spend his one-year sabbatical as a “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” as a means of not only conducting his own research, but also of helping librarians think about and conduct research themselves. The idea was that providing librarians with access to a faculty researcher with interests in “all things library” would reduce the mystery surrounding the research process, facilitate convenient research support, and provide an in-house mentor who could encourage, motivate and rally librarians to not only embark on their own research projects with confidence and ease, but also to delve into research questions and problems that mattered to librarians and library paraprofessionals. Further, the program would provide an opportunity for the faculty member to engage in library research himself and foster new potential library research projects and collaborations.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011 0099-1333/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
2
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
The next section of the paper provides background information on academic librarian research in general. More details are given on the factors affecting the extent to which research is conducted by academic librarians, and recent mentorship approaches to help foster and promote research conducted by academic librarians. The “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” program is presented as a potential solution to overcome the barriers affecting the research productivity of librarians and as a mechanism to enhance recent academic librarian mentorship approaches. Next, a description is provided of how the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” program at McMaster University Library originated and was carried out, as well as a summary of the major outcomes achieved. From there, discussion occurs on the various factors the authors believe led to the success of the residence program. Importantly, recommendations are provided for other academic libraries interested in replicating the program at their own institutions. Last, summary remarks are made. BACKGROUND Though a considerable amount of research on libraries is conducted by faculty members from Library & Information Science (LIS) schools and colleges, a large portion of research on libraries is conducted by librarians themselves. For instance, Hildreth and Aytac (2007) analyzed a sample of 206 articles out of 401 published articles in LIS journals between 2003 and 2005, and discovered that 47.1% of articles were written by librarians and that 9.7% of articles comprised mixed academic and library practitioner research teams. Hildreth & Aytac also report that research among academic librarians is significantly higher than that of public librarians. There are several reasons why academic librarians conduct research. First, research on academic libraries is required for purposes of day-today decision making, quality assurance and/or performance evaluation (Dube, 2011; Osinulu & Amusa, 2010; Tang, 2013). In recent years, the profession has taken a strong interest in evidence-based decision making, the systematic collection and analysis of data as a foundation for effective planning and priority setting (Booth, 2011; Eldredge, 2013). The founding of Evidence-Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) is a case in point; EBLIP represents a social movement among library and information practitioners that serves principally to provide a process for informed decision making in libraries (Eldredge, 2012, 2014). In practice, the volume of published literature, especially on applied topics, is not always rich and academic librarians often find themselves needing to conduct the research themselves or to replicate the research conducted by others to determine the applicability in their local environment. For example, Koufogiannakis (2011, 2012) describes how local evidence collected in libraries and the professional knowledge of library practitioners are both needed and can complement research-based evidence. The dearth of high-quality applied research may arguably be caused by the LIS academic's greater focus on theoretical investigations: these scholars typically have limited access to research libraries and may not be aware of the need to conduct such research in the first place as they are not immersed in the day-today happenings and trends in the quickly changing, fast-paced library world. Second, conducting research is often a requirement of an academic librarian's employment and/or status within the profession (Best & Kneip, 2010). There is an expectation for many academic librarians to participate in research as part of their overall contribution to their institution and their profession (Meadows, Berg, Hoffman, Torabi, & Martin Gardiner, 2013). For example, since 1974, the Association of College and University Librarians, a division of the American Library Association, in its Joint Statement on Faculty Status for College and University Librarians, has encouraged faculty librarians to be held to the same standards as other faculty members when being evaluated (ACRL, 2014). Last, academic librarians conduct research for personal fulfillment or growth purposes. Many librarians derive personal and professional
satisfaction from conducting research, as it satisfies innate desires to discover new knowledge, provides opportunities to hone areas of expertise and develop skills, and improves librarians' professional contributions to the field of librarianship and the academic mission of the institutions in which they work (Clapton, 2010; Perkins & Slowik, 2013). Though academic librarians are productive in conducting and disseminating research, most research activities conducted by librarians involve consuming research (e.g., reading and interpreting existing research) as opposed to conducting research (Luo, 2011; Powell et al., 2002). For those librarians who do conduct research, the most popular data collection method used by librarians is the self-administered survey questionnaire; the least popular is experimental design (Luo, 2011). The extent to which more research conducted by librarians will occur in the future is unclear. On one hand, some advocate that more librarian research will occur. For example, a recent survey by Canadian University Librarians and Deans of Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) note a significant shift in research and scholarly expectations for Canadian academic librarians in the past five years and that they expect this trend to continue (Berg, Jacobs, & Cornwall, 2013). On the other hand, some predict less research will be conducted by librarians as evidenced by some universities and colleges reclassifying the librarian position as a staff job as these institutions reassess the role of their research libraries more broadly (Dunn, 2013; McKinzie, 2010). Though forces exist which may reduce the research expectations of academic librarians, such forces are likely to be more acute at, or constrained to, institutions of higher learning where research is of less importance. It is the authors' opinion that universities and colleges that place importance and value on research activities as part of their mission and vision statements will continue to demand an emphasis on research outputs in the future, and place increasing pressure on academic librarians to conduct more research as a means of not only meeting institutional service needs, but also to satisfy employer and peer expectations of what librarians should be doing in their roles in research-intensive institutions. The literature on the success factors affecting the research productivity of librarians is not vast. Fennewald (2008) identifies personal motivation, intellectual curiosity, and education as important factors contributing to the research productivity of librarians, and being in an environment where everyone is expected to participate in research as the most critical factor. A recent literature review by Hoffman et al. (2014) identifies few library-related research studies that explore the success factors affecting librarian research productivity. A content analysis of these studies identify the following grouping of success factors affecting academic librarian research productivity present in the library literature: a) individual factors such as personality traits, education and experience, professional commitment to research, and extrinsic motivation; b) peer and community factors such as guidance, mentoring, and peer support; and c) institutional factors such as time, positive organizational climate, and access to and use of resources (Hoffman et al., 2014). Though there is no consensus as to which of these factors is the most influential in predicting librarian research productivity, several of these factors are discussed in the literature as being important influencing factors to consider. Time is certainly a prevalent factor (Schrader, 2010, 2011; Schrader, Shiri, & Williamson, 2012). For example, Kennedy and Brancolini (2012) report that the largest barrier for academic librarians to reading the research literature and conducting research was time; only 39% of academic librarian participants in their study reported that their institution provided release time for librarian research. Fox (2007a, 2007b) reports that most university librarians have year-round administrative work schedules that inhibit sustained, meaningful scholarship, and that full-time librarians, although spending an average of 47 h per week on all of their combined responsibilities, devote less than 5 h per week to scholarly pursuits. It appears that lack of institutional support to provide research time for librarians is a
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
significant challenge to librarian research productivity (Havener & Stolt, 1994). Another prevalent factor reported in the literature is research confidence. For example, Kennedy and Brancolini (2012) found that confidence in one's ability to perform research is a statistically significant predictor of a librarian conducting research and disseminating results. Literature in this area suggests that research confidence is most likely linked with the education and experience of librarians. Specifically, the literature reports that, in general, librarians have little formal educational training on how to conduct research, such as how to write research grant proposals, formulate research questions, conduct literature reviews, apply for research ethics clearances, recruit participants, collect and analyze data, disseminate research results, and manage research projects. This may be a result of the lack of research-intensive training provided to students in course-based graduate LIS programs. For the most part, current LIS degree programs do not adequately prepare graduates entering the library workplace with sufficient research skills to design and carry out research data collection and analysis on their own (Sapon-White, King, & Christie, 2004; Tysick & Babb, 2006). Luo (2011) reports that only about 61% of LIS degree programs offer a research methods course in their curriculum; O'Connor and Park (2001) report that only 50% of the 24 top-rated LIS programs require their students to take research methods. Despite this low amount of formal research training afforded in the typical LIS curriculum, evidence suggests that there is merit in providing research methods courses and research training opportunities to LIS students. For example, Luo (2011) reports that research methods courses in LIS programs increase librarian interest and skills in research, facilitate librarians being better able to provide assistance to library patrons in their own research process, and, improve problem-solving and decision-making in libraries. In all likelihood, these factors do not work in isolation and their combined effects may likely be powerful influential forces. For example, Fenske and Dalrymple (1992) found that the combination of institutional support, continued education training, and research courses explained 31.1% of the variation in research productivity among academic librarians. A recent study by Schrader et al. (2012) provides insight into how to overcome the barriers affecting the research productivity of academic librarians. Specifically, Schrader et al. provide a ranked list of areas in which academic librarians want to increase their research skills and confidence. Higher ranked items concern learning how to analyze data, choose a research methodology, and formulate a problem statement or research question. Lower ranked items pertain to how to publish research findings and how to write a research or grant proposal. Earlier work by Schrader (2010, 2011) identifies suggestions from academic librarians on how to help academic librarians improve their research skills and confidence. These suggestions include providing academic librarians with: i) access to expert guidance; ii) instructional opportunities on how to conduct research that incorporate hands-on sessions with research projects in development they are involved with; iii) research workshops that offer follow-up opportunities for discussion and assignments; and, iv) access to research guidance and resources at critical points in the research process. In a sense, activities in this area are already happening. Recent mentorship approaches are being offered to specifically help foster and promote research conducted by academic librarians. For example, in Canada, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) launched the Librarians' Research Institute (LRI) in 2012. This highlysuccessful and pedagogically-rich institute offers an intensive five-day workshop experience for academic librarians to hone and further their research skills. The institute is a way for academic librarians to foster relationships with other librarian researchers and to foster a research infrastructure within CARL libraries. The founding principles of LRI are to focus on librarian strengths (not deficits), develop habits of mind (not skills), and to offer a grassroots experience where content for annual workshops are created and delivered by librarians for librarians
3
(Jacobs & Berg, 2013). Likewise, in the United States, a similar institute was established in 2014 called the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL). Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Loyola Marymount University, San Jose State University School of Information and Library Science, and the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium, the institute offers a summer workshop. The goals of the workshop are to increase the confidence of academic librarians to conduct research, offer a cost-effective, sustainable model for academic librarians to become skilled researchers, and to help workshop attendees flesh out their own draft research proposals. Attendees to the workshop complete an intensive series of class exercises and hands-on writing sessions focused on the research process. Importantly, IRDL provides a collegial atmosphere and on-going support via social networking tools (IRDL, 2014). The availability of peer support is at the core of both these mentorship approaches. Evidence suggests that peer support can be extremely helpful in promoting librarian engagement in research, conducting new research projects that analyze and investigate a library's services and resources, and disseminating research results within the library profession and the wider higher education community (Hall & McBain, in press). However, the authors of this paper caution just how effective “one shot” (single experience) workshops can be in the absence of other support mechanisms. Only a select few academic librarians can attend such workshops, leaving most academic librarians without access to similar research support opportunities. Though peer academic librarian workshops can motivate and help librarians carry out their own research projects, it may be hard for workshop participants to keep momentum with their research projects and maintain interactions with fellow workshop participants once back at their home campuses, even with the help of social media tools. Given this, such workshops may be more effective if there were infrastructure in place back at home campuses to facilitate research that offered broader and continued research support to all librarians. In this light, a Faculty-MemberIn-Residence program, such as the one outlined below, may be a more useful and effective solution for colleges and universities to consider when contemplating how to foster and promote research by academic librarians at their own institutions. THE FACULTY-MEMBER-IN-RESIDENCE PROGRAM The Faculty-Member-In-Residence (FMIR) program at McMaster University Library was contemplated and discussed between the authors of this paper (i.e., the University Librarian at McMaster and the faculty member from McMaster's business school) for several months prior to its official establishment. Initial conversations concentrated on the scope of the program, i.e., what specific roles the FMIR would assume. In general, it was agreed that the FMIR would interact with librarians, learn about the services and resources of the library, and identify and promote potential library research projects. Though only one specific project was delineated at the start of the program (i.e., a project that involved a qualitative analysis of textual comments from the library's last administered LibQUAL+ survey instrument), it was understood that emphasis would be placed on the realization of research projects that were evidenced-based (practice-based) and of interest and relevance to academic librarians. Importantly, one of the major roles of the FMIR would be to serve as a coach or mentor for librarians to conduct their own research projects. That is, the FMIR was to help librarians think about and conduct their own research projects. Emphasis was placed on facilitating research of relevance and importance to librarians. Research projects could be anything. Within this context, the FMIR would help librarians in a wide range of research-related activities, such as motivating librarians to conduct research, identifying a research topic or research questions, designing a research program, conducting a literature review, presenting a conference paper, and writing a journal article, book chapter, working paper, or research grant proposal. The FMIR would help problem-solve,
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
4
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
identify potential research opportunities, match people with similar research interests together, and foster introductions between librarians and other library researchers, faculty members and graduate students. A variety of mechanisms were used to encourage such activities. Initially, the FMIR met individually with each academic librarian, either formally in their offices or informally over coffee, to discuss their interest in research and potential research ideas. Soon after, a knowledge café was organized by the FMIR to rally potential research collaborations between the university library and the local city library (i.e., Hamilton Public Library). The knowledge café was a two hour workshop with over 30 participants attending from both libraries. Participants comprised librarians, library paraprofessionals and library managers. Five academic researchers, with backgrounds or research interests in library and information science, helped serve as facilitators. The meeting was organized in a way so that participants had several opportunities to contribute ideas and thoughts about research in rounds of small group discussions concerning the five most popular research topics solicited from attendees in advance of the meeting. That is, participants were free to immerse themselves in a round of conversation at a table on a particular topic for a preset amount of time (i.e., 20 min) and then were asked to move onto a different table to discuss another research topic. Academic facilitators at each table welcomed newcomers to their tables and shared the essence of that table's conversation so far. Newcomers related any conversational threads they were carrying from other tables, and then the conversation continued, deepening as each round progressed. In total, the knowledge café comprised three 20-minute rounds of discussion, followed by a recap by the whole group to identify and clarify the most important and salient research topics to potentially investigate. A list of potential research topics was formulated, and this list was then further refined and prioritized over the next several weeks in conversations and meetings between the FMIR and senior library administrators from both libraries. Later in the year, a workshop was conducted where the FMIR had academic librarians fill out individual research workbooks to help them contemplate and reflect upon various tasks in their own research projects. The workshop explored the context of librarian research itself, and presented an opportunity for librarians to self-assess their own research projects. Outputs from these exercises were extensive. The collaborative research project between the FMIR and the library's Director of Assessment and Accountability, where the textual comments from the library's last administered LibQUAL survey were analyzed, yielded a lengthy but informative report to senior library management, a conference paper, and peer-reviewed journal article publication. One of the outputs of the knowledge café was the formal establishment of a collaborative research agreement between the two libraries. The agreement outlined the parameters of how joint research and projects would best be carried out between the two libraries. The café also spurred the concept of formal temporary job exchanges between the two organizations, the final details of which are being resolved now. Another output was the formation of a joint digital storytelling project between the two libraries and the municipal government that involved the creation, storage, and dissemination of digital stories concerning significant city cultural icons and their history. The workshop held later in the year rallied considerable interest among librarians to start conducting research projects on their own; several attendees from that workshop met later with the FMIR to discuss plans and ideas about how librarians could go about conducting their own research. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS A variety of factors led to the success of the residence program. First, the FMIR had a strong background and interest in library research (with many publications relating to libraries and library issues to his credit, some of them co-authored with practicing librarians from campus).
This background and interest is important as it not only provides the FMIR with the requisite knowledge and motivation to jump right in to conducting research in a library setting, it provides the FMIR with some credibility and expertise in library and information science to gain easier acceptance by members of the library community in which the FMIR is situated. Second, the FMIR was given an office in the library. This physical space was pivotal in allowing the FMIR to interact more closely with librarians and staff on a daily basis, and to gain a better understanding and appreciation of how libraries work. Also, being situated in the library allowed librarians and staff to more easily ask the FMIR ad hoc questions about research. Third, the FMIR was given several opportunities to interact with librarians. This occurred on both a formal and informal basis. For example, he was invited to attend regular management group meetings. He joined various library committees, as well as participated in several social events and library retreats. This interaction helped the FMIR build trust and a rapport with both the librarians and the entire library staff. Fourth, the library's senior leadership team strongly supported the initiative. This was pivotal in allowing the FMIR to have a legitimate and authorized presence in the library. Senior management paved the way for the FMIR to gain entry to the library by hosting a welcome breakfast and setting up individual meetings for the FMIR with managers from various library departments. Senior library management gave the FMIR an official title of “Faculty-Member-In-Residence”. This title gave the FMIR an official presence and immediate legitimacy among academic librarians. Information about the program was broadcast widely on campus and to other library professionals across the province. It would be hard to imagine that without such senior library management support, the FMIR program could be successful. Senior library management provides the FMIR with not only the requisite permission to exist, but also provides the FMIR with opportunities to explore potential library research ideas, meet key library personnel, and gain needed access to library resources and services in order to conduct library research investigations in the first place. Last, there was considerable flexibility in how the FMIR program played out. No formal outcomes were established at the beginning of the FMIR's tenure. No librarian or staff member was mandated to conduct research. Rather, participation was voluntary and fluid. The FMIR merely encouraged research to occur. This approach led to an organic, grassroots growth of research interest among academic librarians. For example, the idea for the FMIR to conduct a formal workshop for librarians on how to conduct research was spearheaded by the academic librarians themselves. In this sense, the authors of this paper recommend that any faculty member who is recruited to serve as an FMIR have strong interests in library and information science research, and be given an official title, an office space within the library, opportunities to meet individually with library members and serve on various library committees, as well as leeway to organically work on research ideas and possibilities as they arise. Upon reflection, it should be noted that the success of any FMIR initiative is likely dependent on a few key factors. One is gaining senior library management buy-in. Another is finding suitable and willing faculty members to take on the role. This may require libraries to better market the rich research opportunities that exist within the library as well as to offer some form of incentives (e.g., course relief, office space, research grants) as a means of enticing faculty. Last, any library considering an FMIR initiative at their own institution should consider setting up some sort of evaluation process to provide input on how well the program worked and what changes are required to make the program work better. For example, library personnel and library senior management could be polled on the effectiveness of the initiative and/ or the FMIR could provide reflection on what worked well and what could be improved. Importantly, it should be noted that the introduction of a FMIR into an academic library setting is an organic process. Despite the
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
introductions and ease with which senior library management helped facilitate and introduce the FMIR into the library, the FMIR still had to work hard to clarify his role and dispel early misconceptions that the program was too “top-down” and “not organic” enough. In response, the FMIR was able to relay that the concept of spending his sabbatical year helping the library conduct research was originally his own, and that it was only after several discussions with senior library management that the newly-minted title of FMIR evolved. Early concerns about the scope of research and the need for intense amounts of data collection and analysis also needed attention: The FMIR was able to waylay those initial fears by clarifying that projects could be very modest in scale and could involve the use of other researchers (e.g., research faculty, graduate students) to carry out and help facilitate research activities on projects originally conceived and planned out by academic librarians. It is important to note that, in many ways, the FMIR program offers a viable solution to address many of the challenges and barriers to librarian-led research discussed in the literature, such as lack of time, unfamiliarity with the research process, lack of support, lack of confidence, and lack of motivation (Hoffman et al., 2014; Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012). For example, the FMIR program operationalizes many of the suggestions summarized by Schrader (2010, 2011) to improve librarian research skills and confidence, such as providing academic librarians with access to expert guidance, instructional research opportunities, research workshops, and access to research guidance at critical points in time. An in-house faculty member in residence can provide a means to address all these points. For example, at McMaster University Library, FMIR-led initiatives, such as the knowledge café and the librarian research workshop, provided academic librarians with instructional opportunities for research. Further, situating the FMIR in the library at McMaster provided academic librarians with access to one-on-one consultations and research support at points in time when it was needed. In such ways, an FMIR program can help foster a research environment in the library and promote a research culture that overcomes barriers to librarian-led research identified in the literature. CONCLUSION This paper described the problems and constraints typically confronted by academic librarians in carrying out their own research projects, and a potential solution available to academic libraries to overcome these challenges, namely the Faculty-Member-In-Residence program. Specifically, the benefits and positive outcomes of offering a Faculty-Member-In-Residence program were provided, as well as recommendations of how libraries could offer FMIR programs in their own institutions. The authors encourage other libraries to replicate the Faculty Member in Residence program as an effective way to promote academic library research. REFERENCES ACRL (2014). Joint statement on faculty status of college and university librarians. Association of College & Research Libraries (available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/ standards/jointstatementfaculty; last accessed June 2014). Berg, S.A., Jacobs, H.L.M., & Cornwall, D. (2013). Academic libraries and research: A study of Canadian library administrator perspectives. College & Research Libraries, 74(6), 560–572. Best, R.D., & Kneip, J. (2010). Library school programs and the successful training of academic librarians to meet promotion and tenure requirements in the academy. College & Research Libraries, 71(2), 97–114. Booth, A. (2011). Is there a future for evidence based library and information science practice? Evidence Based Library and Information Science Practice, 6(4), 22–27. Clapton, J. (2010). Library and information science practitioners writing for publication: Motivations, barriers and supports. Library and Information Research, 34(106), 7–21. Dube, L. (2011). Quality assurance practices in university libraries in South Africa. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 77(1), 26–36. Dunn, S. (2013, March 18). As their roles change, some librarians lose faculty status. The chronicle of higher education.
5
Eldredge, J.D. (2012). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part I: Defining EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 139–145. Eldredge, J.D. (2013). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part II: The broader professional purpose of EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(1), 102–110. Eldredge, J.D. (2014). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part III: Revitalizing the profession through EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), 62–73. Evans, G.E., & Layzell Ward, P. (2007). Management basics for information professionals. New York: Neal-Schuman. Fennewald, J. (2008). Research productivity among librarians: Factors leading to publications at Penn State. College & Research Libraries, 69(2), 104–116. Fenske, R.E., & Dalrymple, P.W. (1992). Factors influencing research productivity among health sciences librarians. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 80(4), 353–360. Fox, D. (2007a). Finding time for scholarship: A survey of Canadian research university librarians. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(4), 451–462. Fox, D. (2007b). The scholarship of Canadian research university librarians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 2(2), 1–24. Hall, L.W., & McBain, I. (2014s). Practitioner research in an academic library: Evaluating the impact of a support group. The Australian Library Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/00049670.2014.898238 (in press, last accessed August 2014). Havener, W.M., & Stolt, W.A. (1994). The professional-development activities of academic librarians: Does institutional support make a difference? College & Research Libraries, 55(1), 25–36. Hildreth, C.R., & Aytac, S. (2007). Recent library practitioner research: A methodological analysis and critique. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 48(3), 236–258. Hoffman, K., Berg, S., & Koufogiannakis, D. (2014, May 2). Success in research: Factors that contribute to increased research productivity across librarianship and other disciplines. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Information Science& Inaugural Librarians' Research Institute Symposium, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. IRDL (2014). Institute for research design in librarianship. available at http://irdlonline. org/ (last accessed: June 2014) Jacobs, H.L.M., & Berg, S.A. (2013). By librarians, for librarians: Building a strengths based institute to develop librarians' research culture in Canadian academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 227–231. 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. Koufogiannakis, D.L. (2011). Considering the place of practice-based evidence within evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP). Library & Information Research, 35(111), 41–58. Koufogiannakis, D.L. (2012). Academic librarians' conception and use of evidence sources in practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 5–24. Luo, L. (2011). Fusing research into practice: The role of research methods education. Library and Information Science Research, 33(3), 191–201. McKinzie, S. (2010). 590: Local notes — Tenure for academic librarians: Why it has to go. Against the Grain, 22(4), 60. Meadows, K.N., Berg, S.A., Hoffman, K., Torabi, N., & Martin Gardiner, M. (2013). A needsdriven and responsive approach to supporting the research endeavours of academic librarians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 8(2), 1–33. Moran, B., Stueart, R., & Morner, C.J. (2013). Library and information center management (8th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries UnLimited. O’Connor, D. O., & Park, S. (2001). Crisis in LIS research capacity. Library and Information Science Research, 23(2), 103–106. Osinulu, L.F., & Amusa, O.I. (2010). Information technology, quality assurance, and academic library management. Library philosophy and practice (e-journal, Paper 324, available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/324; last accessed: August 2014). Perkins, G.H., & Slowik, A.J.W. (2013). The value of research in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 143–157. Powell, R.R., Baker, L.M., & Mika, J.J. (2002). Library and information science practitioners and research. Library & Information Science Research, 24(1), 49–72. Rubin, R. (2010). Foundations of library and information science (3rd ed.). Chicago: NealSchuman. Sapon-White, R., King, V., & Christie, A. (2004). Supporting a culture of scholarship for academic librarians. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 407–422. Schrader, A.M. (2010). Fostering a research culture in Canadian Academic Libraries. Paper presented at Super Conference 2010. Ontario Library Association. Schrader, A.M. (2011). Exploring the research knowledge needs of Canadian academic librarians. New trends in qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries: Selected papers presented at the 2nd Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) (pp. 297–306). Schrader, A.M., Shiri, A., & Williamson, V. (2012). Assessment of the research learning needs of University of Saskatchewan Librarians: A case study. College & Research Libraries, 73(2), 147–163. Tang, K. (2013). Quality assurance improvements in Australian university libraries. Performance Measurement & Metrics, 14(1), 36–44. Tysick, C., & Babb, N. (2006). Writing support for junior faculty librarians: A case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 94–100.
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Academic Librarianship
Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program Brian Detlor a,⁎, Vivian Lewis b,1 a b
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, DSB-A201, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada McMaster University Library, McMaster University, Mills Library, Room 204, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4L8, Ontario, Canada
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 June 2014 Accepted 25 November 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Academic libraries Library research Mentorship
a b s t r a c t As a means of fostering academic library research, this paper provides an overview of an inaugural “FacultyMember-In-Residence” program implemented at McMaster University Library, where a non-librarian faculty member from McMaster spent his sabbatical year conducting library research and helping librarians think about research. In addition to providing background on the context of academic library research and the research productivity of academic librarians, the paper describes the objectives, outcomes, and benefits of the program, as well as personal reflections and recommendations on how to move the program forward. Academic libraries are encouraged to launch similar “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” programs at their own institutions. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION Libraries provide fertile ground for research. They have a steep history, dating back to around 2400 BC when papyrus scrolls were first introduced to record events and maintain a list of happenings and events. They are complex organizations that offer a wide variety of information services and resources to meet the burgeoning and ever growing needs of a diverse user population. They offer services and resources ranging from the physical to the electronic, and that span the full spectrum of the information life cycle from creation, collation, storage, retrieval, organization, and access to information. They undergo and respond to continual and profound changes in both the internal and external environment, including technological, fiscal, legal, political and societal challenges, such as an ever-changing technological landscape, shrinking fiscal budgets, and copyright, privacy, and information ethics issues (Evans & Layzell Ward, 2007; Moran, Stueart, & Morner, 2013; Rubin, 2010). In this light, research on libraries is important. Libraries need, and can benefit from, empirical evidence gathered on the services and resources that they provide. According to Powell, Baker, and Mika (2002, p. 49), research on libraries “improves problem solving and decision making in the workplace, to make professional practitioners critical consumers of the research literature, and to better equip librarians to provide optimal information services to researchers in other fields.” In this sense, research on libraries can offer empirically-based insights and ideas on improvements to the way library information services and resources are provided. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 905 525 9140x23949. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Detlor), [email protected] (V. Lewis). 1 Tel.: +1 905 525 9140x23883.
The problem, however, is how to facilitate research in libraries in general, and in academic libraries specifically. Moreover, how can research led by academic librarians be promoted? Though many academic librarians are successful researchers, academic librarians are confronted with several challenges that can inhibit or restrict their ability to conduct research, such as lack of time, unfamiliarity with the research process, lack of support, lack of confidence, and lack of motivation (Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012). These barriers limit academic librarians' engagement in understanding and exploring the delivery of information services and resources in their own organizations and across the profession. Solutions are needed to help mitigate the factors negatively affecting librarian research productivity and to overcome barriers that prevent librarians from conducting their own library research investigations (Hoffman, Berg, & Koufogiannakis, 2014). One potential solution is to provide academic librarians with convenient access to an in-house research expert with interests in library and information science. This is exactly what occurred at the authors' university library. A faculty member from the same university agreed to spend his one-year sabbatical as a “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” as a means of not only conducting his own research, but also of helping librarians think about and conduct research themselves. The idea was that providing librarians with access to a faculty researcher with interests in “all things library” would reduce the mystery surrounding the research process, facilitate convenient research support, and provide an in-house mentor who could encourage, motivate and rally librarians to not only embark on their own research projects with confidence and ease, but also to delve into research questions and problems that mattered to librarians and library paraprofessionals. Further, the program would provide an opportunity for the faculty member to engage in library research himself and foster new potential library research projects and collaborations.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011 0099-1333/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
2
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
The next section of the paper provides background information on academic librarian research in general. More details are given on the factors affecting the extent to which research is conducted by academic librarians, and recent mentorship approaches to help foster and promote research conducted by academic librarians. The “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” program is presented as a potential solution to overcome the barriers affecting the research productivity of librarians and as a mechanism to enhance recent academic librarian mentorship approaches. Next, a description is provided of how the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” program at McMaster University Library originated and was carried out, as well as a summary of the major outcomes achieved. From there, discussion occurs on the various factors the authors believe led to the success of the residence program. Importantly, recommendations are provided for other academic libraries interested in replicating the program at their own institutions. Last, summary remarks are made. BACKGROUND Though a considerable amount of research on libraries is conducted by faculty members from Library & Information Science (LIS) schools and colleges, a large portion of research on libraries is conducted by librarians themselves. For instance, Hildreth and Aytac (2007) analyzed a sample of 206 articles out of 401 published articles in LIS journals between 2003 and 2005, and discovered that 47.1% of articles were written by librarians and that 9.7% of articles comprised mixed academic and library practitioner research teams. Hildreth & Aytac also report that research among academic librarians is significantly higher than that of public librarians. There are several reasons why academic librarians conduct research. First, research on academic libraries is required for purposes of day-today decision making, quality assurance and/or performance evaluation (Dube, 2011; Osinulu & Amusa, 2010; Tang, 2013). In recent years, the profession has taken a strong interest in evidence-based decision making, the systematic collection and analysis of data as a foundation for effective planning and priority setting (Booth, 2011; Eldredge, 2013). The founding of Evidence-Based Library and Information Practice (EBLIP) is a case in point; EBLIP represents a social movement among library and information practitioners that serves principally to provide a process for informed decision making in libraries (Eldredge, 2012, 2014). In practice, the volume of published literature, especially on applied topics, is not always rich and academic librarians often find themselves needing to conduct the research themselves or to replicate the research conducted by others to determine the applicability in their local environment. For example, Koufogiannakis (2011, 2012) describes how local evidence collected in libraries and the professional knowledge of library practitioners are both needed and can complement research-based evidence. The dearth of high-quality applied research may arguably be caused by the LIS academic's greater focus on theoretical investigations: these scholars typically have limited access to research libraries and may not be aware of the need to conduct such research in the first place as they are not immersed in the day-today happenings and trends in the quickly changing, fast-paced library world. Second, conducting research is often a requirement of an academic librarian's employment and/or status within the profession (Best & Kneip, 2010). There is an expectation for many academic librarians to participate in research as part of their overall contribution to their institution and their profession (Meadows, Berg, Hoffman, Torabi, & Martin Gardiner, 2013). For example, since 1974, the Association of College and University Librarians, a division of the American Library Association, in its Joint Statement on Faculty Status for College and University Librarians, has encouraged faculty librarians to be held to the same standards as other faculty members when being evaluated (ACRL, 2014). Last, academic librarians conduct research for personal fulfillment or growth purposes. Many librarians derive personal and professional
satisfaction from conducting research, as it satisfies innate desires to discover new knowledge, provides opportunities to hone areas of expertise and develop skills, and improves librarians' professional contributions to the field of librarianship and the academic mission of the institutions in which they work (Clapton, 2010; Perkins & Slowik, 2013). Though academic librarians are productive in conducting and disseminating research, most research activities conducted by librarians involve consuming research (e.g., reading and interpreting existing research) as opposed to conducting research (Luo, 2011; Powell et al., 2002). For those librarians who do conduct research, the most popular data collection method used by librarians is the self-administered survey questionnaire; the least popular is experimental design (Luo, 2011). The extent to which more research conducted by librarians will occur in the future is unclear. On one hand, some advocate that more librarian research will occur. For example, a recent survey by Canadian University Librarians and Deans of Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) note a significant shift in research and scholarly expectations for Canadian academic librarians in the past five years and that they expect this trend to continue (Berg, Jacobs, & Cornwall, 2013). On the other hand, some predict less research will be conducted by librarians as evidenced by some universities and colleges reclassifying the librarian position as a staff job as these institutions reassess the role of their research libraries more broadly (Dunn, 2013; McKinzie, 2010). Though forces exist which may reduce the research expectations of academic librarians, such forces are likely to be more acute at, or constrained to, institutions of higher learning where research is of less importance. It is the authors' opinion that universities and colleges that place importance and value on research activities as part of their mission and vision statements will continue to demand an emphasis on research outputs in the future, and place increasing pressure on academic librarians to conduct more research as a means of not only meeting institutional service needs, but also to satisfy employer and peer expectations of what librarians should be doing in their roles in research-intensive institutions. The literature on the success factors affecting the research productivity of librarians is not vast. Fennewald (2008) identifies personal motivation, intellectual curiosity, and education as important factors contributing to the research productivity of librarians, and being in an environment where everyone is expected to participate in research as the most critical factor. A recent literature review by Hoffman et al. (2014) identifies few library-related research studies that explore the success factors affecting librarian research productivity. A content analysis of these studies identify the following grouping of success factors affecting academic librarian research productivity present in the library literature: a) individual factors such as personality traits, education and experience, professional commitment to research, and extrinsic motivation; b) peer and community factors such as guidance, mentoring, and peer support; and c) institutional factors such as time, positive organizational climate, and access to and use of resources (Hoffman et al., 2014). Though there is no consensus as to which of these factors is the most influential in predicting librarian research productivity, several of these factors are discussed in the literature as being important influencing factors to consider. Time is certainly a prevalent factor (Schrader, 2010, 2011; Schrader, Shiri, & Williamson, 2012). For example, Kennedy and Brancolini (2012) report that the largest barrier for academic librarians to reading the research literature and conducting research was time; only 39% of academic librarian participants in their study reported that their institution provided release time for librarian research. Fox (2007a, 2007b) reports that most university librarians have year-round administrative work schedules that inhibit sustained, meaningful scholarship, and that full-time librarians, although spending an average of 47 h per week on all of their combined responsibilities, devote less than 5 h per week to scholarly pursuits. It appears that lack of institutional support to provide research time for librarians is a
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
significant challenge to librarian research productivity (Havener & Stolt, 1994). Another prevalent factor reported in the literature is research confidence. For example, Kennedy and Brancolini (2012) found that confidence in one's ability to perform research is a statistically significant predictor of a librarian conducting research and disseminating results. Literature in this area suggests that research confidence is most likely linked with the education and experience of librarians. Specifically, the literature reports that, in general, librarians have little formal educational training on how to conduct research, such as how to write research grant proposals, formulate research questions, conduct literature reviews, apply for research ethics clearances, recruit participants, collect and analyze data, disseminate research results, and manage research projects. This may be a result of the lack of research-intensive training provided to students in course-based graduate LIS programs. For the most part, current LIS degree programs do not adequately prepare graduates entering the library workplace with sufficient research skills to design and carry out research data collection and analysis on their own (Sapon-White, King, & Christie, 2004; Tysick & Babb, 2006). Luo (2011) reports that only about 61% of LIS degree programs offer a research methods course in their curriculum; O'Connor and Park (2001) report that only 50% of the 24 top-rated LIS programs require their students to take research methods. Despite this low amount of formal research training afforded in the typical LIS curriculum, evidence suggests that there is merit in providing research methods courses and research training opportunities to LIS students. For example, Luo (2011) reports that research methods courses in LIS programs increase librarian interest and skills in research, facilitate librarians being better able to provide assistance to library patrons in their own research process, and, improve problem-solving and decision-making in libraries. In all likelihood, these factors do not work in isolation and their combined effects may likely be powerful influential forces. For example, Fenske and Dalrymple (1992) found that the combination of institutional support, continued education training, and research courses explained 31.1% of the variation in research productivity among academic librarians. A recent study by Schrader et al. (2012) provides insight into how to overcome the barriers affecting the research productivity of academic librarians. Specifically, Schrader et al. provide a ranked list of areas in which academic librarians want to increase their research skills and confidence. Higher ranked items concern learning how to analyze data, choose a research methodology, and formulate a problem statement or research question. Lower ranked items pertain to how to publish research findings and how to write a research or grant proposal. Earlier work by Schrader (2010, 2011) identifies suggestions from academic librarians on how to help academic librarians improve their research skills and confidence. These suggestions include providing academic librarians with: i) access to expert guidance; ii) instructional opportunities on how to conduct research that incorporate hands-on sessions with research projects in development they are involved with; iii) research workshops that offer follow-up opportunities for discussion and assignments; and, iv) access to research guidance and resources at critical points in the research process. In a sense, activities in this area are already happening. Recent mentorship approaches are being offered to specifically help foster and promote research conducted by academic librarians. For example, in Canada, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) launched the Librarians' Research Institute (LRI) in 2012. This highlysuccessful and pedagogically-rich institute offers an intensive five-day workshop experience for academic librarians to hone and further their research skills. The institute is a way for academic librarians to foster relationships with other librarian researchers and to foster a research infrastructure within CARL libraries. The founding principles of LRI are to focus on librarian strengths (not deficits), develop habits of mind (not skills), and to offer a grassroots experience where content for annual workshops are created and delivered by librarians for librarians
3
(Jacobs & Berg, 2013). Likewise, in the United States, a similar institute was established in 2014 called the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL). Funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Loyola Marymount University, San Jose State University School of Information and Library Science, and the Statewide California Electronic Library Consortium, the institute offers a summer workshop. The goals of the workshop are to increase the confidence of academic librarians to conduct research, offer a cost-effective, sustainable model for academic librarians to become skilled researchers, and to help workshop attendees flesh out their own draft research proposals. Attendees to the workshop complete an intensive series of class exercises and hands-on writing sessions focused on the research process. Importantly, IRDL provides a collegial atmosphere and on-going support via social networking tools (IRDL, 2014). The availability of peer support is at the core of both these mentorship approaches. Evidence suggests that peer support can be extremely helpful in promoting librarian engagement in research, conducting new research projects that analyze and investigate a library's services and resources, and disseminating research results within the library profession and the wider higher education community (Hall & McBain, in press). However, the authors of this paper caution just how effective “one shot” (single experience) workshops can be in the absence of other support mechanisms. Only a select few academic librarians can attend such workshops, leaving most academic librarians without access to similar research support opportunities. Though peer academic librarian workshops can motivate and help librarians carry out their own research projects, it may be hard for workshop participants to keep momentum with their research projects and maintain interactions with fellow workshop participants once back at their home campuses, even with the help of social media tools. Given this, such workshops may be more effective if there were infrastructure in place back at home campuses to facilitate research that offered broader and continued research support to all librarians. In this light, a Faculty-MemberIn-Residence program, such as the one outlined below, may be a more useful and effective solution for colleges and universities to consider when contemplating how to foster and promote research by academic librarians at their own institutions. THE FACULTY-MEMBER-IN-RESIDENCE PROGRAM The Faculty-Member-In-Residence (FMIR) program at McMaster University Library was contemplated and discussed between the authors of this paper (i.e., the University Librarian at McMaster and the faculty member from McMaster's business school) for several months prior to its official establishment. Initial conversations concentrated on the scope of the program, i.e., what specific roles the FMIR would assume. In general, it was agreed that the FMIR would interact with librarians, learn about the services and resources of the library, and identify and promote potential library research projects. Though only one specific project was delineated at the start of the program (i.e., a project that involved a qualitative analysis of textual comments from the library's last administered LibQUAL+ survey instrument), it was understood that emphasis would be placed on the realization of research projects that were evidenced-based (practice-based) and of interest and relevance to academic librarians. Importantly, one of the major roles of the FMIR would be to serve as a coach or mentor for librarians to conduct their own research projects. That is, the FMIR was to help librarians think about and conduct their own research projects. Emphasis was placed on facilitating research of relevance and importance to librarians. Research projects could be anything. Within this context, the FMIR would help librarians in a wide range of research-related activities, such as motivating librarians to conduct research, identifying a research topic or research questions, designing a research program, conducting a literature review, presenting a conference paper, and writing a journal article, book chapter, working paper, or research grant proposal. The FMIR would help problem-solve,
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
4
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
identify potential research opportunities, match people with similar research interests together, and foster introductions between librarians and other library researchers, faculty members and graduate students. A variety of mechanisms were used to encourage such activities. Initially, the FMIR met individually with each academic librarian, either formally in their offices or informally over coffee, to discuss their interest in research and potential research ideas. Soon after, a knowledge café was organized by the FMIR to rally potential research collaborations between the university library and the local city library (i.e., Hamilton Public Library). The knowledge café was a two hour workshop with over 30 participants attending from both libraries. Participants comprised librarians, library paraprofessionals and library managers. Five academic researchers, with backgrounds or research interests in library and information science, helped serve as facilitators. The meeting was organized in a way so that participants had several opportunities to contribute ideas and thoughts about research in rounds of small group discussions concerning the five most popular research topics solicited from attendees in advance of the meeting. That is, participants were free to immerse themselves in a round of conversation at a table on a particular topic for a preset amount of time (i.e., 20 min) and then were asked to move onto a different table to discuss another research topic. Academic facilitators at each table welcomed newcomers to their tables and shared the essence of that table's conversation so far. Newcomers related any conversational threads they were carrying from other tables, and then the conversation continued, deepening as each round progressed. In total, the knowledge café comprised three 20-minute rounds of discussion, followed by a recap by the whole group to identify and clarify the most important and salient research topics to potentially investigate. A list of potential research topics was formulated, and this list was then further refined and prioritized over the next several weeks in conversations and meetings between the FMIR and senior library administrators from both libraries. Later in the year, a workshop was conducted where the FMIR had academic librarians fill out individual research workbooks to help them contemplate and reflect upon various tasks in their own research projects. The workshop explored the context of librarian research itself, and presented an opportunity for librarians to self-assess their own research projects. Outputs from these exercises were extensive. The collaborative research project between the FMIR and the library's Director of Assessment and Accountability, where the textual comments from the library's last administered LibQUAL survey were analyzed, yielded a lengthy but informative report to senior library management, a conference paper, and peer-reviewed journal article publication. One of the outputs of the knowledge café was the formal establishment of a collaborative research agreement between the two libraries. The agreement outlined the parameters of how joint research and projects would best be carried out between the two libraries. The café also spurred the concept of formal temporary job exchanges between the two organizations, the final details of which are being resolved now. Another output was the formation of a joint digital storytelling project between the two libraries and the municipal government that involved the creation, storage, and dissemination of digital stories concerning significant city cultural icons and their history. The workshop held later in the year rallied considerable interest among librarians to start conducting research projects on their own; several attendees from that workshop met later with the FMIR to discuss plans and ideas about how librarians could go about conducting their own research. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS A variety of factors led to the success of the residence program. First, the FMIR had a strong background and interest in library research (with many publications relating to libraries and library issues to his credit, some of them co-authored with practicing librarians from campus).
This background and interest is important as it not only provides the FMIR with the requisite knowledge and motivation to jump right in to conducting research in a library setting, it provides the FMIR with some credibility and expertise in library and information science to gain easier acceptance by members of the library community in which the FMIR is situated. Second, the FMIR was given an office in the library. This physical space was pivotal in allowing the FMIR to interact more closely with librarians and staff on a daily basis, and to gain a better understanding and appreciation of how libraries work. Also, being situated in the library allowed librarians and staff to more easily ask the FMIR ad hoc questions about research. Third, the FMIR was given several opportunities to interact with librarians. This occurred on both a formal and informal basis. For example, he was invited to attend regular management group meetings. He joined various library committees, as well as participated in several social events and library retreats. This interaction helped the FMIR build trust and a rapport with both the librarians and the entire library staff. Fourth, the library's senior leadership team strongly supported the initiative. This was pivotal in allowing the FMIR to have a legitimate and authorized presence in the library. Senior management paved the way for the FMIR to gain entry to the library by hosting a welcome breakfast and setting up individual meetings for the FMIR with managers from various library departments. Senior library management gave the FMIR an official title of “Faculty-Member-In-Residence”. This title gave the FMIR an official presence and immediate legitimacy among academic librarians. Information about the program was broadcast widely on campus and to other library professionals across the province. It would be hard to imagine that without such senior library management support, the FMIR program could be successful. Senior library management provides the FMIR with not only the requisite permission to exist, but also provides the FMIR with opportunities to explore potential library research ideas, meet key library personnel, and gain needed access to library resources and services in order to conduct library research investigations in the first place. Last, there was considerable flexibility in how the FMIR program played out. No formal outcomes were established at the beginning of the FMIR's tenure. No librarian or staff member was mandated to conduct research. Rather, participation was voluntary and fluid. The FMIR merely encouraged research to occur. This approach led to an organic, grassroots growth of research interest among academic librarians. For example, the idea for the FMIR to conduct a formal workshop for librarians on how to conduct research was spearheaded by the academic librarians themselves. In this sense, the authors of this paper recommend that any faculty member who is recruited to serve as an FMIR have strong interests in library and information science research, and be given an official title, an office space within the library, opportunities to meet individually with library members and serve on various library committees, as well as leeway to organically work on research ideas and possibilities as they arise. Upon reflection, it should be noted that the success of any FMIR initiative is likely dependent on a few key factors. One is gaining senior library management buy-in. Another is finding suitable and willing faculty members to take on the role. This may require libraries to better market the rich research opportunities that exist within the library as well as to offer some form of incentives (e.g., course relief, office space, research grants) as a means of enticing faculty. Last, any library considering an FMIR initiative at their own institution should consider setting up some sort of evaluation process to provide input on how well the program worked and what changes are required to make the program work better. For example, library personnel and library senior management could be polled on the effectiveness of the initiative and/ or the FMIR could provide reflection on what worked well and what could be improved. Importantly, it should be noted that the introduction of a FMIR into an academic library setting is an organic process. Despite the
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011
B. Detlor, V. Lewis / The Journal of Academic Librarianship xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
introductions and ease with which senior library management helped facilitate and introduce the FMIR into the library, the FMIR still had to work hard to clarify his role and dispel early misconceptions that the program was too “top-down” and “not organic” enough. In response, the FMIR was able to relay that the concept of spending his sabbatical year helping the library conduct research was originally his own, and that it was only after several discussions with senior library management that the newly-minted title of FMIR evolved. Early concerns about the scope of research and the need for intense amounts of data collection and analysis also needed attention: The FMIR was able to waylay those initial fears by clarifying that projects could be very modest in scale and could involve the use of other researchers (e.g., research faculty, graduate students) to carry out and help facilitate research activities on projects originally conceived and planned out by academic librarians. It is important to note that, in many ways, the FMIR program offers a viable solution to address many of the challenges and barriers to librarian-led research discussed in the literature, such as lack of time, unfamiliarity with the research process, lack of support, lack of confidence, and lack of motivation (Hoffman et al., 2014; Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012). For example, the FMIR program operationalizes many of the suggestions summarized by Schrader (2010, 2011) to improve librarian research skills and confidence, such as providing academic librarians with access to expert guidance, instructional research opportunities, research workshops, and access to research guidance at critical points in time. An in-house faculty member in residence can provide a means to address all these points. For example, at McMaster University Library, FMIR-led initiatives, such as the knowledge café and the librarian research workshop, provided academic librarians with instructional opportunities for research. Further, situating the FMIR in the library at McMaster provided academic librarians with access to one-on-one consultations and research support at points in time when it was needed. In such ways, an FMIR program can help foster a research environment in the library and promote a research culture that overcomes barriers to librarian-led research identified in the literature. CONCLUSION This paper described the problems and constraints typically confronted by academic librarians in carrying out their own research projects, and a potential solution available to academic libraries to overcome these challenges, namely the Faculty-Member-In-Residence program. Specifically, the benefits and positive outcomes of offering a Faculty-Member-In-Residence program were provided, as well as recommendations of how libraries could offer FMIR programs in their own institutions. The authors encourage other libraries to replicate the Faculty Member in Residence program as an effective way to promote academic library research. REFERENCES ACRL (2014). Joint statement on faculty status of college and university librarians. Association of College & Research Libraries (available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/ standards/jointstatementfaculty; last accessed June 2014). Berg, S.A., Jacobs, H.L.M., & Cornwall, D. (2013). Academic libraries and research: A study of Canadian library administrator perspectives. College & Research Libraries, 74(6), 560–572. Best, R.D., & Kneip, J. (2010). Library school programs and the successful training of academic librarians to meet promotion and tenure requirements in the academy. College & Research Libraries, 71(2), 97–114. Booth, A. (2011). Is there a future for evidence based library and information science practice? Evidence Based Library and Information Science Practice, 6(4), 22–27. Clapton, J. (2010). Library and information science practitioners writing for publication: Motivations, barriers and supports. Library and Information Research, 34(106), 7–21. Dube, L. (2011). Quality assurance practices in university libraries in South Africa. South African Journal of Libraries & Information Science, 77(1), 26–36. Dunn, S. (2013, March 18). As their roles change, some librarians lose faculty status. The chronicle of higher education.
5
Eldredge, J.D. (2012). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part I: Defining EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 139–145. Eldredge, J.D. (2013). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part II: The broader professional purpose of EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 8(1), 102–110. Eldredge, J.D. (2014). The evolution of evidence based library and information practice, part III: Revitalizing the profession through EBLIP. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 9(1), 62–73. Evans, G.E., & Layzell Ward, P. (2007). Management basics for information professionals. New York: Neal-Schuman. Fennewald, J. (2008). Research productivity among librarians: Factors leading to publications at Penn State. College & Research Libraries, 69(2), 104–116. Fenske, R.E., & Dalrymple, P.W. (1992). Factors influencing research productivity among health sciences librarians. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 80(4), 353–360. Fox, D. (2007a). Finding time for scholarship: A survey of Canadian research university librarians. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 7(4), 451–462. Fox, D. (2007b). The scholarship of Canadian research university librarians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 2(2), 1–24. Hall, L.W., & McBain, I. (2014s). Practitioner research in an academic library: Evaluating the impact of a support group. The Australian Library Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/00049670.2014.898238 (in press, last accessed August 2014). Havener, W.M., & Stolt, W.A. (1994). The professional-development activities of academic librarians: Does institutional support make a difference? College & Research Libraries, 55(1), 25–36. Hildreth, C.R., & Aytac, S. (2007). Recent library practitioner research: A methodological analysis and critique. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 48(3), 236–258. Hoffman, K., Berg, S., & Koufogiannakis, D. (2014, May 2). Success in research: Factors that contribute to increased research productivity across librarianship and other disciplines. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Information Science& Inaugural Librarians' Research Institute Symposium, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. IRDL (2014). Institute for research design in librarianship. available at http://irdlonline. org/ (last accessed: June 2014) Jacobs, H.L.M., & Berg, S.A. (2013). By librarians, for librarians: Building a strengths based institute to develop librarians' research culture in Canadian academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39(3), 227–231. 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. Koufogiannakis, D.L. (2011). Considering the place of practice-based evidence within evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP). Library & Information Research, 35(111), 41–58. Koufogiannakis, D.L. (2012). Academic librarians' conception and use of evidence sources in practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7(4), 5–24. Luo, L. (2011). Fusing research into practice: The role of research methods education. Library and Information Science Research, 33(3), 191–201. McKinzie, S. (2010). 590: Local notes — Tenure for academic librarians: Why it has to go. Against the Grain, 22(4), 60. Meadows, K.N., Berg, S.A., Hoffman, K., Torabi, N., & Martin Gardiner, M. (2013). A needsdriven and responsive approach to supporting the research endeavours of academic librarians. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 8(2), 1–33. Moran, B., Stueart, R., & Morner, C.J. (2013). Library and information center management (8th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries UnLimited. O’Connor, D. O., & Park, S. (2001). Crisis in LIS research capacity. Library and Information Science Research, 23(2), 103–106. Osinulu, L.F., & Amusa, O.I. (2010). Information technology, quality assurance, and academic library management. Library philosophy and practice (e-journal, Paper 324, available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/324; last accessed: August 2014). Perkins, G.H., & Slowik, A.J.W. (2013). The value of research in academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 143–157. Powell, R.R., Baker, L.M., & Mika, J.J. (2002). Library and information science practitioners and research. Library & Information Science Research, 24(1), 49–72. Rubin, R. (2010). Foundations of library and information science (3rd ed.). Chicago: NealSchuman. Sapon-White, R., King, V., & Christie, A. (2004). Supporting a culture of scholarship for academic librarians. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 407–422. Schrader, A.M. (2010). Fostering a research culture in Canadian Academic Libraries. Paper presented at Super Conference 2010. Ontario Library Association. Schrader, A.M. (2011). Exploring the research knowledge needs of Canadian academic librarians. New trends in qualitative and quantitative methods in libraries: Selected papers presented at the 2nd Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries (QQML) (pp. 297–306). Schrader, A.M., Shiri, A., & Williamson, V. (2012). Assessment of the research learning needs of University of Saskatchewan Librarians: A case study. College & Research Libraries, 73(2), 147–163. Tang, K. (2013). Quality assurance improvements in Australian university libraries. Performance Measurement & Metrics, 14(1), 36–44. Tysick, C., & Babb, N. (2006). Writing support for junior faculty librarians: A case study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(1), 94–100.
Please cite this article as: Detlor, B., & Lewis, V., Promoting Academic Library Research Through the “Faculty-Member-In-Residence” Program, The Journal of Academic Librarianship (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.11.011