Putting the ‘Research’ into Research Librarian

Abstract

Librarians in academic libraries are required to support the activities of researchers during the entire scholarly communication life cycle. Although we have a deep understanding of all the stages of the process, we have not often directly experienced it for ourselves. The authors of this paper sought out the opportunity to participate in a research project in order to give them a new perspective on the research process and deepen their credibility with the academics they support. Lessons learned during this process may help other librarians decide if they would like to pursue similar opportunities.

Keywords:

• Job negotiations
• practitioner
• academic libraries
• library
• research methods

Information in Practice Paper

Librarians in academic libraries are required to support the activities of researchers during the entire scholarly communication life cycle. Although we have a deep understanding of all the stages of the process, we have not often directly experienced it for ourselves. The authors of this paper sought out the opportunity to participate in a research project in order to give them a new perspective on the research process, and to deepen their credibility with the academics they support. This paper will describe our involvement so other librarians can consider whether they might benefit from a similar experience.

The authors of this paper were all employed in the Learning and Research Services Department at the University Library at the University of Adelaide. Their roles involved working directly with researchers; developing and delivering programmes to support researchers throughout the research life cycle including literature searching, Open Access publishing, the use of discipline and institutional repositories, data management, research impact and profiles. All three authors had knowledge of these areas from the perspective of a librarian. They had a theoretical understanding that researchers are time poor, that university systems can be complex, and that other priorities can overtake ‘good practice’ in the management and storage of research data and research outputs. However, they recognised that it would be useful to understand the point of view of the researcher through practical experience. It would build their credibility and give them hands-on experience of the scholarly communication life cycle from start to finish which they could use to improve their support services.

Given the requirements of their substantive positions and their relative lack of hands-on research experience, starting a research project from the beginning seemed a daunting task. However, an opportunity arose which seemed to be an appropriate entry point for them to build their skills.

In 2015, two American librarian practitioner-researchers, Leo Lo and Jason Reed, began a research project to examine the perceptions, expectations, and behaviours on job negotiations of both employers and job seekers in the U.S. To gather their data, Lo and Reed designed a survey that could be answered from the perspective of an employer or of a job seeker.

Lo and Reed’s findings were published in 2016 in a paper called You’re hired: an analysis of the perceptions and behaviors of library job candidates on job offer negotiations (Lo & Reed, 2016a); and were presented at the 2016 National Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Conference (Lo & Reed, 2016b). Lo and Reed then sought Australian collaborators to undertake local research for international comparison.

A collaboration with Lo and Reed was an ideal entry point for the authors into applied research. Direct comparison of the data internationally meant the Australian survey needed to be as close as possible to the U.S. survey; and Lo’s expertise in survey design and statistical analysis developed during his PhD candidature ensured the survey was robust. The authors would need to make sure the survey was appropriate to the Australian context but would not need to make significant changes to the structure or content. They would then need to coordinate the dissemination of the survey through the Australian library and information management industry, communicate findings with Lo and Reed, participate in collaborative analysis of the findings, then ideally present the findings through publications and conference presentations. Given these extremely favourable circumstances, the authors committed to the research project. We would strongly recommend this approach to other librarians seeking to learn about applied research. Partnering with experienced researchers allowed us to scaffold our activities upon their existing framework. It was low risk and high impact.

The first step was analysis of the survey to ensure it would be applicable within the Australian context. It was conceivable that some of the terminology would be U.S. specific and not be readily understood or directly translatable within Australia. However, this did not transpire to be a significant issue. The only major alternation to the wording of the original survey was changing the U.S. term ‘Dean’ to ‘Director’ and ‘Associate-Dean’ to ‘Associate-Director’. All other vocabulary and job titles were appropriate.

The U.S. survey included reference to a ‘sign-on bonus’ – asking whether it was a point of negotiation. In the authors’ experience, this was not a benefit widely offered in Australia, and feeling it may seem incongruous to an Australian audience the authors discussed removing it from the survey. However, the authors reasoned that objective research should by definition often go outside the bounds of authorial experience, or what would be the purpose of research? The question was retained. Ultimately, there were no positive responses to job candidates attempting to negotiate, being offered or receiving a sign-on bonus, but the reasoning behind inclusion of the question remains valid. Later anecdotal evidence suggested that the sign-on bonus is indeed a point of negotiation in Australia particularly in the IT industry, so may become more widespread in our local industrial relations culture.

The U.S. survey used the category of ‘Library support staff’ which presumably encompassed both library technicians and library assistants. The authors discussed whether this grouping was appropriate or whether they should be separate. As library technicians require a qualification it is conceivable that they may value their skills more highly than an unqualified library assistant, leading to different job negotiation behaviours. However, library assistants and library technicians are similarly positioned in the U.S. environment (American Library Association, n.d.), so the same arguments would apply in both countries. Given the importance of keeping the Australian survey structure as close as possible to the U.S. survey to allow straightforward comparison of data, the authors decided to keep technicians and assistants in the same category.

All of the decisions described above were made by the authors, using logic and ‘common sense’, then validated with the U.S. collaborators. Even to inexperienced researchers the best way to approach these issues seemed fairly straightforward. However, the authors did need to grapple with an issue that required input from an experienced Australian researcher.

The U.S. survey provided respondents with the option of identifying with particular ethnicities including African American, Latino, and other U.S.-specific options. The authors initially considered several different approaches to adapting this to the Australian context. The first was to use Australian Bureau of Statistics classifications relating to ancestry using the census format: English, Irish, Scottish, Italian, German, Chinese, Australian, and ‘Other – please specify’ (ABS, 2016). The response ‘Other – please specify’ requires a written response. The authors had concerns about asking any question that allowed a free text response, as these would need to be analysed manually. However, it would be virtually impossible to provide an automated option for every potential response.

The second option the authors considered was to use the three Australian options of Caucasian, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders and Other. This would provide a manageable number of responses and was locally appropriate. However, the authors were unclear what the purpose of this question would be. Not confident they would reach the best decision alone, the authors decided to gain the perspective of an experienced researcher, so they contacted Dr Bhuva Narayan for her advice. Dr Narayan is a Senior Lecturer at The University of Technology Sydney and a member of the ALIA Research Advisory Committee (ALIA, n.d.). Dr Narayan was available to mentor developing practitioner-researchers to answer their questions and provide advice where requested, congruent with ALIA’s role in supporting research (ALIA, 2015). Dr Narayan asked the authors whether the desired outcomes of the research would be directly supported by the question. It was clear this was not the case. The intention of the research was to make international comparisons of job seeking behaviour. Although it could be an informative piece of research in its own right, the ethnicity of the Australian participants was not relevant to this project so the authors decided to exclude the question.

As inexperienced researchers, these types of considerations were all new to the authors. However, the support of experiences researchers through the ALIA Research Advisory Committee provided a clear pathway to learning new skills and processes. Having this level of support available to nascent researchers is invaluable.

Once the authors had completed the changes to the survey, Lo inputted the Australian version into Qualtrics, the software the U.S. researchers had used for their arm of the research. This would give Lo and Reed unmediated access to the Australian data in a format readily able to be compared. They provided the authors with a link to the survey to disseminate throughout Australia.

Before that could happen, given that the authors were working at The University of Adelaide and were conducting the research under their professional identities, ethics approval needed to be granted. All research conducted at the University is required to go through a process of varying complexity, depending on whether the research is identified as exempt from review, as low risk or high risk. There are slightly different processes depending on whether the research involves humans or animals. Ethics approval is also subject to the provision of a yearly status report outlining the project’s progress and the researcher’s adherence to proper ethical standards.

The authors made contact with The Office of Research Ethics, Compliance and Integrity (ORECI) (The University of Adelaide, 2016) to discuss how this research would be categorised. As ‘the anxiety associated with an interview has the potential to cause a respondent discomfort’ (The University of Adelaide, 2018), this piece of research was considered to have associated risk, although only low risk, and required approval to proceed. The process was relatively straightforward. The authors were required to respond to questions about the nature of the research, how the research would be conducted, whether and how the anonymity of participants would be ensured, how respondents would be informed of their rights to withdraw, and who was responsible for handling any complaints of misconduct. The authors were also required to create and submit a Consent Form and a Participant Information Sheet for approval. Given the nature of the research, this submission was not required to be considered by the full Human Research Ethics Committee but could be reviewed between meetings.

The authors were advised in less than three weeks that provisional ethics approval had been granted, subject to some minor changes. The Participant Information Sheet needed to be changed from ‘we are recruiting any librarian’ to ‘we are inviting any librarian’. Under a section entitled ‘Can I withdraw from the project’, the documentation needed to explicitly specify that participants could only withdraw from the study at any time prior to submitting the online survey. Since the survey was anonymous, it would not be possible to retrieve responses after submission. This ethics process was more detailed and involved closer scrutiny than we anticipated. However, it was a case of ‘following the bouncing ball’ – the Research Office explained every step. Going through this process meant that the authors understood firsthand what the professional researchers were going through, and as it was not as intimidating or obtuse as might be assumed the authors could navigate these professional conversations more confidently.

Once these amendments had been made and the project had received ethics approval, the survey could be disseminated. The authors used a number of professional mailing lists to target library sector workers generally, and those in specific sectors such as public libraries, health and law. Out of 134 total respondents, 107 completed the entire survey. Although these numbers seem relatively small, the U.S. survey received 403 responses so the Australian sample is a larger proportion of total population. The response rate, combined with the research scope, results in the most comprehensive study on this topic to date. The authors used their experience as librarians rather than researchers to decide what would be an appropriate way to disseminate the survey. The success of the process demonstrates to potential practitioner-researchers that as library professionals we already have relevant skills and knowledge, we just need the confidence and the opportunities to build on this existing base.

Preliminary analysis of the Australian survey responses in comparison to the U.S. responses shows differences which could be attributed to differing industrial relations conditions within those countries. It will be interesting to see if this is impression is borne out by deeper and wider analysis. There is also potential for this research question to be further analysed in collaboration with human resources professionals. Such analysis could determine whether the behaviour of library professionals in negotiating job offers is different to that of the general population. Anecdotally, behaviours in the private sector in Australia seem similar to those specifically within the library sector, and surveying generalist job negotiators would enable direct comparison.

The existing and potential future research also has implications for educators within the discipline. The data suggests different behaviours between new graduates from the U.S. and Australia. In Australia new graduates are less likely than more senior library sector workers to attempt to negotiate, whereas in the U.S., new graduates are just as likely. This may suggest that curriculum content influences job seeking behaviours.

The survey will soon be widened further to include the ASEAN countries of the Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The ASEAN arm of the research will be led by Minette R. Vinzon and Marian Eclevia from De La Salle University, and Rizalyn Janio and Rowena Rhea Apolinario from The University of the Philippines. The responses from the ASEAN component of the survey will provide the research team with a rich data-set from a significant proportion of the globe. Analysis of the total data-set will include quantitative analyses of responses to multiple choice questions, and qualitative analyse to the responses to open ended questions.

This development demonstrates the value of participating in professional development opportunities. The authors were presenting a paper about this research at the Research Applications, Information and Library Studies (RAILS) conference in November 2017. At that conference they met the librarians from the Philippines, whose paper culminated with a statement that they would welcome invitations to collaborate in international research. The authors met the U.S. collaborators in similar circumstances at the ALIA conference in September 2016. This research project has grown significantly in scope and coverage as a direct result of conference attendance and networking.

Participating in this research project has already informed the authors’ professional practice as Research Librarians, allowing us to confidently discuss the research life cycle with researchers and students. The authors, and librarians in general, have a firm understanding of the specific components of research. However, practical experience of these particular components as part of an integrated whole, and understanding the underpinning administrative processes, has given the authors greater confidence and credibility within the community we support. Our professional practice has been strengthened and deepened and we encourage other librarians working within the academic context to pursue similar opportunities.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the initiators of this research project Leo Lo and Jason Reed, who provided us with this opportunity. They have proven to be thoughtful, pragmatic and good humoured collaborators.