Funding, Time, and Mentoring: A Study of Research and Publication Support Practices of ARL Member Libraries

Smigielski, Elizabeth M.; Laning, Melissa; Daniels, Caroline

doi:10.1080/01930826.2014.924309

Cited by 28 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A survey of ARL libraries found that the top institutional means of support were funding and time for research, followed closely by mentorship. 35 When compared to a 2007 study, time allocations for research appear to be decreasing. The majority of librarians in that study reported having an average time allocation of 10 to 14 percent for scholarship, though the range was from less than 5 percent to more than 40 percent.…”

Section: Institutional Expectations and Support For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Librarian Publishing Productivity: An Analysis of Skills and Behaviors Leading to Success

Crampsie

Neville

Henry

2020

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholarly publishing continues to be a prominent expectation for many academic librarians. This survey explores characteristics, behaviors, motivations, institutional supports, and educational opportunities that help library practitioners become successful authors. It also looks at perceived confidence in research skills of both novice and experienced librarians. Many librarians show confidence in research activities related to their overall job assignments (literature searching, writing, and such) but find more sophisticated research skills, such as statistical analysis, more challenging. Findings indicate that having additional graduate research experience beyond the library degree, time-management skills, and collaboration with other researchers may provide useful benefits.

show abstract

Section: Institutional Expectations and Support For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Librarian Publishing Productivity: An Analysis of Skills and Behaviors Leading to Success

Crampsie

Neville

Henry

2020

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Common supports include writing support groups (Campbell, Ellis & Adebonojo, 2012;Exner & Harris Houk, 2010;Fallon, 2012;Tysick & Babb, 2006), journal clubs (Fitzgibbons, Kloda, & Miller-Nesbitt, 2017), support groups or forums for research conversations (Carson, Colosimo, Lake, & McMillan, 2014;Hall & McBain, 2014;Miller & Benefiel, 1998;Sapon-White, King & Christie, 2004), mentorship programs (Cirasella & Smale, 2011;Stephens, Sare, Kimball, Foster, & Kitchens, 2011), research skills development initiatives (Edwards, Jennerich, & Ward, 2009;Jacobs & Berg, 2013;McBain, Hall, & Culshaw, 2013;Schrader, Shiri, & Williamson, 2012), research leaves or release time, and funding (Smigielski, Laning, & Daniels, 2014). Alongside these supports, Canadian academic librarians are actively developing communities within and outside of their institutions to foster a positive research culture across Canada (Carson et al, 2014;Jacobs & Berg, 2013;Meadows, Berg, Hoffmann, Torabi, & Gardiner, 2013;Mierke & Williamson, 2017;Wilson, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Factors that Encourage Research Productivity for Academic Librarians

Hoffmann¹,

Berg²,

Koufogiannakis³

2017

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -This project identifies the factors that contribute to the success of librarians as active researchers. Research success is generally aligned with productivity and output, and the authors are therefore interested in understanding the factors that encourage research productivity. This fills a gap in the literature on librarians as researchers, which has tended to focus on barriers rather than enablers.Methods -For this quantitative study, we distributed an online survey to 1,653 potential participants across Canada and received 453 usable responses for a 27% response rate. The Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2017, 12.4 103 survey asked participants to report their research outputs and to answer questions that addressed three categories of factors: Individual Attributes, Peers and Community, and Institutional Structures and Supports. We then statistically analyzed participant responses in order to identify relationships between the research output variables (weighted output score and number of peer-reviewed articles) and the three categories, the factors within those categories, and the constituent components.Results -Participants' research output consisted largely of presentations, non-peer-reviewed articles, peer-reviewed articles, and posters. All three categories of factors were significantly related to research output, both for a calculated weighted output score and for number of peerreviewed articles. All of the factors identified within those categories were also significant when tested against weighted output score, but Intrinsic Motivations was not a significant factor when tested against number of peer-reviewed articles. Several components of factors were also not significant for number of peer-reviewed articles. Age was the only significant component of Demographics. Three components of Education and Experience were significant: whether participants had received research training after completing their MLIS, whether they were working on an advanced degree, and the institution where they had obtained their MLIS.Conclusions -Research productivity is significantly impacted by all three categories: Individual Attributes, Peers and Community, and Institutional Structures and Supports. Fostering an environment that focuses on all of these areas will be most likely to promote research output for librarians. At the same time, this study's findings point to particular aspects that warrant further investigation, such as the nature and effect of institutional support and librarians' motivations for doing research.

show abstract

“…154 Intra-library mentoring also contributes to research success, but not all libraries offer formal mentoring; 155 libraries that grant tenure are more likely to provide this type of support. 156 Lacking resources like time, institutional support, or professional mentorship may cause librarians to 1) not be prepared methodologically, 2) not fully consider the ethical implications of their study design and implementation, and/or 3) not have time to conduct their research in an ethically rigorous way.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Primer to Library Learning Analytics Practices, Initiatives, and Privacy Issues

Jones

Briney

Goben

et al. 2020

C&RL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universities are pursuing learning analytics practices to improve returns from their investments, develop behavioral and academic interventions to improve student success, and address political and financial pressures. Academic libraries are additionally undertaking learning analytics to demonstrate value to stakeholders, assess learning gains from instruction, and analyze student-library usage, et cetera. The adoption of these techniques leads to many professional ethics issues and practical concerns related to privacy. In this narrative literature review, we provide a foundational background in the field of learning analytics, library adoption of these practices, and identify ethical and practical privacy issues.

show abstract

Funding, Time, and Mentoring: A Study of Research and Publication Support Practices of ARL Member Libraries

Cited by 28 publications

References 16 publications

Academic Librarian Publishing Productivity: An Analysis of Skills and Behaviors Leading to Success

Academic Librarian Publishing Productivity: An Analysis of Skills and Behaviors Leading to Success

Understanding Factors that Encourage Research Productivity for Academic Librarians

A Comprehensive Primer to Library Learning Analytics Practices, Initiatives, and Privacy Issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About