The Push to Publish: What is the Impetus for Australian Academic Librarians?

Abstract

Drawing on a case study about a librarian/academic research and writing collaboration, this paper proposes why, despite a lack of explicit compulsion, academic librarians in Australia should choose to research and write for publication. It offers a reflection on the process as seen through the authors’ experience of a collaboration between academic librarians and a faculty academic, and considers the challenges and benefits in establishing a publishing track record. It argues that there are benefits in collaborative research for librarians with academics in generating research and publishing it to contribute to evidence-based practice, individual professional development and to contribute to their organisation’s publication output.

Keywords:

• Collaboration
• publication
• academic librarian
• research

Introduction

The completion of the new Melbourne School of Design building at the University of Melbourne incorporating a purpose-built, discipline-based library, offered an opportunity to investigate the relationship between library design and the current pedagogical philosophies and approaches that influence teaching and learning in universities. The focus of the research was directed to the project design team’s perceptions of the contribution made by librarians to the design process. The unique aspect of this research team was in its make up: which consisted of three librarians from senior management to faculty liaison, and a faculty academic who had been part of the design reference group. The initial impetus for the collaboration was the publication and presentation of a single paper at a conference. It led to further papers and presentations discussing the importance of a good design brief and the key role that librarians had (and can have) in contributing to a design brief.

Using the above collaboration as a case study, this paper offers a reflection on why academic librarians in Australia should write for publication.

Context

Librarians in Australian universities are not accorded academic status; their role is generally seen as supporting curriculum delivery and research performed by others. Job descriptions rarely embrace the role of having a responsibility for research activity. The position descriptions for Liaison Librarians at the University of Melbourne (2016) make no mention of participation in research or publication. An environmental scan of academic library vacancies advertised via the ALIA website during September and October, 2017 (Australian Library & Information Association, 2017) supports this – during that period there was no mention in any of the position descriptions of the necessity to write for publication or to have a publication track record.

A similar scan of the United States ‘HigherEdJobs’ site reveals a contrary picture. The University of Colorado, advertising for a Data Services Librarian, requires the successful applicant to have ‘potential for research, scholarly work, and professional service.’ An Information Literacy Librarian at the University of Tennessee is expected to ‘progress successfully along the promotion and tenure-track, and participate fully as a member of the university faculty.’ (HigherEdJobs, 2017). Beyond this, some positions are clearly described as academic – a position description for a Librarian Assistant Professor at the University of Kennesaw stated the requirement to:

“Be professionally active and contribute to developments in the field of library science and/or subject-specific discipline through scholarship, presentations, publications, and service for a non-tenure-tracked position.” (HigherEdJobs, 2017)

Librarians in the US are required to participate in academic life actively, and their position titles and descriptions reflect this impetus. They have access to support for writing in terms of paid time to write, and the availability of grant funding from sources such as federal government agencies and library professional organisations (Sassen & Wahl, 2014).

We argue that despite the absence of the requirement to publish as a condition of employment, there remain valid reasons for librarians in Australia to write for publication.

Why Write?

Given that there is no explicit requirement for librarians in Australian universities to publish, what benefits arise from doing so? There are two major reasons for librarians to conduct research and publish. The first is individual, and the second is to benefit the profession. For the individual, one of the considerable advantages is that research and writing contributes towards career development. Including a list of publications on a CV may increase the chances of success with a selection committee, providing evidence of expertise, capacity, professional engagement and initiative (Lamothe, 2012). A publishing track record, while not essential, is becoming increasingly important to elevate one’s position in a competitive field. For example, the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), Library and Information Science Education, Skills and Employment Trend Report (2016) underscores the competitive nature of the current job market in Australia, highlighting a 43% drop in librarian positions over a five-year period, and a ‘tight’ job market. The ALIA 2014 report on the Future of the Profession (ALIA, 2014, p. 21) points to ‘continuous professional development’ as the ‘single most important method for individuals to secure their future’. While research and writing can make important contributions to professional development, the ALIA report does not mention publishing as a means to this end. Neither is publication listed as a ‘typical task’ of the professional librarian in the information provided in, ‘Careers in Libraries and Information Management’ (ALIA, 2016). The web page identifies ‘unique technical skills’ and ‘seek(ing) challenges that require creative solutions’ as essential characteristics of librarians. Despite there being no explicit encouragement or requirement to publish, Sullivan, Leong, Yee, Giddens, and Phillips (2013) argue that the value of sharing knowledge and practice through publication is self-evident to librarians, and perhaps this can explain the implicit encouragement to, and interest in, writing for publication.

The second reason for library professionals to research and publish is that research in the field and formally written and disseminated sharing of innovative practice strengthens the profession. Johanson and Williamson (2013) list multiple reasons that research and publishing in professional practice should be undertaken for the benefit of the profession, for example, to provide an evidence base for problem solving, service development and policy formulation.

Despite the benefits of research and publishing, Hoffmann, Berg, and Koufogiannakis (2014) argue that librarians are predominantly service and practice-oriented and that there is a lack of an established research culture for librarians. Professional organisations (such as the CAVAL¹ Research Interest Group in 2015, and 2017) run webinars and conference sessions devoted to developing and supporting librarians as ‘practitioner-researchers’. By positioning academic librarians as researchers and writers, it can be argued that the library profession increasingly sees itself as playing a role in creating research outputs. The need for academic librarians to understand research and publishing are key skills (Haddow, 2012). The best way to understand something, it can be argued, is to participate actively in it.

A scan of a selection of Australian university library annual reports indicates that, although establishing and maintaining publishing track records are not recognised as core business, a number of university libraries celebrate the achievement by listing staff publications and conference papers. Examples include RMIT University (Anderson, 2013), the University of Queensland (University of Queensland Library, 2014) and Monash University (Harboe-Ree, 2015).

The University of Wollongong’s library website makes manifest the benefit that publishing brings librarians:

The University of Wollongong Library aims to be recognised as a knowledge resource centre of distinction, integral to the achievement of the University’s research, teaching and learning goals. The organisation fosters staff to become innovative information specialists, skilled in providing exceptional service, customised to meet individual needs and preferences. The list of publications on this site reflects staff development outcomes in those areas. (University of Wollongong, 2015)

Given this background, this paper posits that collaborating with academics presents an opportunity for librarians to gain an understanding of the research and writing process they are usually supporting, by actively participating in it. By developing knowledge and experience of the research, writing and the publication process, collaborating with an academic can drive research and publication in a more scholarly direction. This is not to discourage academic librarians from writing without academic collaboration, as the process of writing for publication is valuable in itself, but suggests such collaborations as a valuable addition to practice.

The Literature

Much of the literature considering librarians and writing comes from the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). In the US, academic librarians are often considered as academic faculty and, as such, are expected to publish in order to achieve tenure and promotion (Hoffmann et al., 2014). However, as Bradley (2008) points out that there is no requirement in Australia for librarians to publish for professional advancement. The research and writing process, therefore, is a product of librarians’ intrinsic motivation to contribute to their profession.

The UK research is relevant to the Australian, as academic librarians in the UK operate under similar employment conditions regarding research as do academic librarians in Australia. Joint (2006) and Clapton (2010), writing in the UK, observe that librarians, in most part, publish ‘descriptive’ pieces, related to their day-to-day professional activities, as opposed to research focused academics. McBain, Culshaw, and Walkley Hall (2013) argue for creating a culture of evidence-based research to encourage librarians to engage with professional research and writing. Joint (2006, p. 6) argues, ‘There is much to be said for practitioners … trying to produce true research articles….’ Bradley (2008, p. 729) supports this, acknowledging ‘the need for practitioners to connect with, and contribute to, research’. As Binder and Hall (2014, p. 1) suggest, librarians are ‘expected to engage in activities for their own professional and personal growth’. As discussed in the section ‘Why Write?’, improving practice, raising one’s profile and career progression are some of the key motivators for librarians to publish (Clapton, 2010). Additionally, as Johnson (2004) points out, publication is a very effective way to share experiences with colleagues, to raise an individual’s profile, and to demonstrate to prospective employers breadth of experience and knowledge.

Literature from both the US and Australia has given some consideration to this issue, but from different perspectives. Maguire (1973) began posing the question about the necessity for library research in 1973. Other more recent contributions have been made by Haddow and Klobas (2004), examining the gaps between research and practice in librarianship, Willard, Kennan, Wilson, and White (2008), investigating publication by library academics and practitioners; Pymm and Hider(2008) examined the relevance of research publications to practicing librarians. McBain, et al. (2013) and Walkley Hall (2015) present analyses of a project carried out at Flinders University encouraging librarians to write by allocating funding and time to create a support group to develop a research culture among library staff. There is a further argument that librarians need to ‘transform themselves into partners in the scholarly enterprise’ (Marcum, 2012, p. 35).

The benefits of collaborative writing, in general, are supported in the literature (Hafernik, Messerschmitt, & Vandrick, 1997; Lowry, Curtis, & Lowry, 2004; Stivers & Cramer, 2013), however, there are many challenges faced by librarians in undertaking writing for publication (Burns & McCarthy, 2010). These challenges include finding time to fit in research and writing, which are not part of core duties; a lack of research funding support; a lack of confidence in knowledge and skills to undertake research and publication, and perceived lack of managerial support (Clapton, 2010; McBain et al., 2013).

The literature (for example, Bahr and Zemon (2000), Joint (2006) Bradley (2008) and Hahn & Jaeger, 2013) demonstrates that conditions of employment for academic librarians vary globally. This variability influences the research and publication potential of librarians, especially where there is no incentive to publish scholarly research. As discussed above, generally, when librarians do write, they tend to write descriptive pieces that are practice-based, limited to a narrowly focused area (Clapton, 2010; Joint, 2006). Despite this, the literature also argues for the benefits that derive from publication (Binder & Hall, 2014; Lamothe, 2012).

The literature around librarian and academic collaboration usually centres on teaching partnerships, whereby librarians provide support to academics through teaching information literacy skills (for example, McBain et al., 2013; Norelli & Harper, 2013; Smith, 2014). Hart (2007) contends that co-authored articles are of a higher quality, but concentrates on librarians collaborating with librarians, as does Joint (2005), who supports collaborations between practicing librarians and those active in research. The collaborative writing group can also act as a support net, a motivational force, confidence builder, and can provide fresh perspectives, a critical eye and the opportunity for a broader professional network (Burns & McCarthy, 2010; Hafernik et al., 1997; Stivers & Cramer, 2013). Bahr and Zemon (2000) suggest that across all disciplines collaboratively written articles have a greater chance of publication. The wider avenues of publication also enable all parties to build a professional profile and become known in their fields, which in turn could lead to more opportunities for collaboration.

What the literature we found has not yet explored, is how partnering with an academic can assist academic librarians with producing scholarly research. In collaborating with academics, librarians can offer their information seeking, retrieval and analysis expertise, and can also add and develop their faculty discipline knowledge. As Lamothe (2012, p. 157) argues, ‘[a]dvancement in any field can only be achieved when participants bring forth their ideas and experiences.’ The case study presented below provides an example of how collaboration can go beyond teaching practice and into research and writing.

Case Study

In late 2014, the new Melbourne School of Design (MSD) building at the University of Melbourne opened, incorporating the purpose-built Architecture, Building and Planning (ABP) Library. The ABP Library is one of the very few libraries at the University of Melbourne that are discipline-focused and co-located with the faculty they support. The redevelopment of this embedded library model made a compelling case for consideration in examining the unique requirements of the ABP student cohort and how the design of the library could respond to them.

While preparing to move into the new library, the library manager and the librarians involved in the redevelopment saw the potential for a conference paper investigating the library and its place in the new building. The redevelopment of the ABP Library offered an opportunity for research and writing in an area that combined specialised knowledge of supporting the ABP faculty, with sharing knowledge about the design process. Of interest was how the design of the library reflected the principles that guided the design of the whole building, and how the service delivery and pedagogical philosophies sat with these design principles. The library manager saw this as an opportunity for the ABP librarians to prepare and present a conference paper (something neither had done before). In preparation, it was decided that it would enhance the paper to have the input of an academic who had been involved in the building design process, to complement the experience of the librarians in understanding the requirements of the space and the stakeholders who would use it. Accordingly, a faculty academic agreed to participate, and a collaborative partnership formed. The sole purpose at this stage was for the team to write a paper about the features of the new library for presentation at an upcoming higher education conference. The production of a conference paper, from the librarians’ perspective, was predicated on celebrating the completion of the library and on disseminating the experience of relating pedagogic practice in the context of a new library.

The embedded nature of the ABP library enables the librarians to develop close relationships with the faculty and student cohort. The ABP Library is constantly evaluating its relationship to, and with, the faculty and is always seeking to strengthen ties. Engaging faculty with the collections and their research potential is one stream, but prior to this project, the librarians in the ABP Library had not canvassed the idea of librarians collaborating with academics as research partners.

The initial intention was to produce a presentation and paper to ‘show off’ the new library, in effect mirroring the descriptive approach suggested by the literature above, whereby the nature of many library practitioner papers is to be descriptive (Clapton, 2010; Joint, 2006). The librarian/academic collaboration occurred as the architectural disciplinary expertise and viewpoint of the academic strengthened the design aspect of the content, presenting a more expertly informed perspective of the design process. Partnering with an academic also drove the project in a much more scholarly, research-focused direction. Academic writing was a new skill for the librarians, which required a reconsideration of the paper in having to think seriously about a ‘research question’ and what its contribution to knowledge would be. The critical analysis employed resulted in the production of a research-based paper, a better, more considered end product. The academic input has also driven the project into a longer-term entity, extending to several conference presentations and journal publication potential (Gardiner, Charing, Mullumby, & Kealy, 2015a, 2015b).

Discussion of the Collaboration Process

The collaborative writing process has produced a number of outcomes. The conference paper was initially viewed as an end in itself. However, the academic perspective is that a conference paper is a starting point – a testing ground for a paper and further research. This was the cause of some frustration for the academic involved as the librarians did not necessarily share this view. It took a long time to establish a research question – this was something that the librarians found quite challenging but eventually worthwhile.

Further learning for the librarians is that writing for publication is not just about the actual writing. Writing is just a part of the research cycle, which includes planning, conducting and writing up the research. Within the collaboration, everyone needed to have an identifiable role, and each role needed to be understood and accepted by all partners. Individual strengths and vulnerabilities were exposed in the research and writing process, but each member contributed. The academic was able to leverage his industry contacts to organise interviews with the design team. The librarians gravitated towards roles that reflected their strengths and capabilities – assisting with interviews, organising funding and approval for conference attendance, and funding and staffing for interview transcription, conducting and writing the literature review, in addition to contributing to the writing and editing process. What has become evident, on reflection, is the need for clear expectations about the scope and breadth of the project to be established from the outset.

All members of the group acknowledged the importance of, and made the time for, regular meetings. The meetings in themselves were not demonstrably productive, but extremely useful in establishing a team dynamic and setting goals and tasks.

As librarians, the team was driven to critically examine and reevaluate how they work with faculty by developing specialised design disciplinary knowledge. As library managers and academic liaison staff move away from operational tasks, there is an incentive to seek out opportunities to specialise and to develop a body of knowledge that contributes to the profession, and in doing so, to contribute as researchers (Bradley, 2008; Joint, 2005). The outcomes of the collaboration were two conference papers in two different discipline areas; librarianship and architectural design (Gardiner et al., 2015a, 2015b), and presentations at a University professional staff conference and a CAVAL library forum. We were, through the process of researching and writing the paper, able to add our experience of involvement in a library redevelopment to the body of knowledge that is useful to our colleagues, many of whom were experiencing, or were about to undergo redevelopment of their library spaces. It also caused us to reflect on the research and writing process in order to write this paper as encouragement to colleagues to engage in research and dissemination.

Collaborating with an academic enabled the development of a deeper understanding of qualitative research, and of the links between pedagogy and learning space design, as well as a better understanding of the research publication process. It has been a rewarding, challenging and inspiring experience. It has led to consideration of further writing, and the development of an awareness of avenues of activity beyond the bounds of the position description. The knowledge gained through researching the paper has enabled a greater understanding of library design, and the confidence and ability to better work with faculty.

Benefits

There have been many benefits to the collaborative process. The sharing of research and writing and the leveraging of individual strengths being among them. Parts of the paper can be written individually then edited into a single collaborative voice. Debate and openness can produce a shared understanding within a multidisciplinary team enabling shared definition of purpose and direction in writing, as well as developing new ideas and further publication opportunities. Collaborative writing also entails more scrutiny and rigour, and as a result, can facilitate an improvement in the quality of the output.

Benefits for the librarians involved have included experience in writing and presenting and the insights offered by working with an academic colleague, which has been invaluable. For those with limited experience in scholarly writing, collaboration makes the process a lot less intimidating and enables the development of new skill sets. Networking with faculty colleagues and industry professionals have enriched the librarians’ discipline knowledge and extended their professional networks and engagement with the profession.

Benefits for all parties have included collegial interaction – the relationship built has been both educative and enjoyable on a personal level. As Stivers and Cramer (2013, p. 31, 32) argue, ‘a partner from a related field may give you fresh perspectives on your work and lead you to a new readership’ and new understanding. The diversity of disciplinary coverage has contributed wider knowledge and broadened the approach to the papers allowing for more diverse avenues for publication. In addition, the collaboration has provided a break from routine practice while remaining beneficially related to practice and importantly it has, on the whole, been enjoyable work.

Research skills in identifying relevant literature and understanding of how to find the best avenues for publication through particular resources, as well as the development of academic writing styles were benefits for the librarians involved.

Challenges

As Bahr and Zemon (2000) discuss, collaboration requires a lot of give-and-take and can present some significant challenges. These require some consideration, but to our mind never outweigh the benefits to be gained from working collaboratively. Predominant among the challenges faced in this case were the different disciplinary focuses and writing styles of the participants and finding a way to allow group members to incorporate each other’s voices, opinions and styles. This complexity was driven by the different styles of the group – the academic was used to writing for scholarly, architecture and design publications and was always focused on what research question was being answered. Two librarians in the group had little or no publication experience and a less direct style of engaging with the writing process. As has been stated earlier many librarians have a preference for descriptive, rather than analytical writing. This was reflected in the initial draft of the paper which was not appropriate for the academic collaborator. What also became evident was the need to reconcile the different lexicons used – the differing use of library and design and construction disciplinary languages.

The challenges also included the commonly identified factors of time, clashing work priorities (Clapton, 2010; McBain et al., 2013), and waning motivation and engagement with the project after the initial thrill of the production and presentation of the first conference paper. Although librarians are skilled in identifying potential journals in which to publish, there is a challenge in identifying journals whose audience and reviewers find the research relevant and interesting. The need to build resilience to deal with possible rejection and reviewer’s comments should not be disincentives to pursue further opportunities.

Finding an academic with whom to collaborate could potentially be the biggest challenge. We had an established professional relationship with the academic involved in the case study, but finding other collaborators could be a challenge and raises some questions. How does one know whom to ask? Are academics (outside of librarianship) receptive to collaborating with librarians? Do librarians feel that they can be equal research partners with academics?

A major consideration that the librarians had not previously given thought to was the requirement for academics to write within a discipline-related field of research for the work to contribute to their faculty’s publication output for the purposes of research assessment and evaluation. The collaboration is professionally useful to academics only if the research can be classified with their field of research, thus contributing their faculty’s oeuvre and their own personal publication track record. Work falling outside collaborating academics established field of research, may mean for them that the value of the collaboration may be diminished, particularly research does not progress further. In our case, the benefits outweighed any challenges. Producing publications is rewarding despite the hurdles that can be encountered in any collaborative process.

Conclusion

Academic librarians in Australia do not have academic status. Thus, a primary motivating factor geared around the ‘publish or perish’ maxim, connected as it is to published output as one of the base measures for promotion, does not directly apply to librarians. Also, the funding opportunities upon which research relies are limited in library-related research. What then underpinned the desire for published output by the ABP librarians and why is it argued that such activity is a worthy pursuit for academic librarians?

Initially, the impetus for publication sprang from a desire to celebrate by dissemination of a publication the completion of library building works. The experience outlined in the case study, however, indicates the publication involved more than just writing a piece about the process. Through collaboration with an academic the team demonstrated that research needed to underpin the writing and that the research and writing process can be a positive, career-enhancing experience for librarians. Despite the lack of compulsion for Australian librarians to research and publish, the opportunity to contribute to the field of librarianship for purposes such as evidence-based practice and to differentiate oneself in a competitive job market, make such engagement useful and rewarding activities. Furthermore, the collegial relationships that develop can enhance the development of networks and opportunities for more ‘traditional’ librarian activity in supporting faculty teaching, learning and research. Writing for publication is a positive career achievement for academic librarians and the collaborative process makes it a learning experience and more rewarding.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Sarah Charing is a research support librarian at the University of Melbourne Library. She is interested in how writing partnerships can develop relationships within the Faculty research community, and in how librarians can increase their professional development and engagement through finding opportunities to research and write. She has a background in history and has written on new library space and on the restoration and digitisation of a historical collection.

Blair Gardiner is an architect and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at The University of Melbourne. His research interests lie in design management and the role of built-environment design in the promotion of social capital.

Notes

1. Cooperative Alliance of Victorian Academic Libraries.