




































Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

From the Ground Up: Building a Culture of Research in an

Academic Library

Jenessa M. McElfresh, MLIS, AHIPa, Maggie Albro, MLISb, K. Megan Sheffield, MS,
MLISc

aSystematic Review Service Coordinator, Senior Research and Learning Services
Librarian/Associate Professor, Health Sciences Library, University of Tennessee Health

Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1633-4633 ,
jmcelfre@uthsc.edu

bAgriculture and Natural Resources Librarian/Assistant Professor, Pendergrass
Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine Library, University of Tennessee Knoxville,
Knoxville, Tennessee, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0538-3501 , malbro@utk.edu

cData Services Librarian/Associate Librarian, University Libraries, Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4030-2674 ,

msheff@clemson.edu

Background: This article discusses the motivations, benefits, and actions taken to
create and support a culture of research among library employees at a Carnegie
Research 1 University Library system. Despite substantial pressures to publish and
engage in library science research, many academic librarians lack the training or
support to build their own research agendas. This is particularly worrisome as tenure
requirements and professional trends require librarians to be knowledgeable and
productive in their research dissemination.

Experience: At Clemson University Libraries, librarians responded to this problem by
adapting evidence-based solutions from scientific and medical disciplines to fit their
own research empowerment needs. The process of building a productive culture of
research at Clemson Libraries was a multi-year endeavor that took considerable
initiative, planning, and flexibility.

Discussion: Each of the initiatives required adaptation to the knowledge levels and
existing culture in the Libraries. Organizers had to be willing to make changes and
attempt new approaches as the organization evolved and comfort with the research
process grew. Some initiatives, like Writing Circle, were disbanded, while others, like
Journal Club and Research Roundtable, continue to develop with high levels of
engagement.

Takeaways: The success of this progressive approach to fostering a thriving culture of
research at Clemson Libraries is evident through the rates of participation,
dissemination, and satisfaction of library employees in addition to the expansion of the
Libraries’ engagement with research in outside departments and disciplines. Librarians
who seek to enhance their own institution’s research culture should consider
implementing some or all of these initiatives to jumpstart their efforts, including
writing circles, journal clubs, and research roundtables.

1

https://www.orcid.org/0000-0002-1633-4633
https://orcid.org/
mailto:jmcelfre@uthsc.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0538-3501
https://orcid.org/
mailto:malbro@utk.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4030-2674
https://orcid.org/
mailto:msheff@clemson.edu


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

Background:

Librarians have been conducting and disseminating research throughout the history of
the profession, yet many struggle with research undertakings without ample support
and a robust knowledge base from which to grow. At many colleges and universities,
librarians are eligible for tenure; for example, an academic librarian position that is
hired as “tenure track” implies that the position will be annually renewed and is
expected to undergo a rigorous peer review process of their achievements after several
years of work. Achieving tenure typically comes with a promotion and a more
permanent contract. Though specific criteria vary among institutions, a common
metaphor for tenure is a three-legged stool in which the legs are librarianship, research
(expressed in terms of grants, scholarly articles, book chapters, professional conference
presentations, and similar venues), and service (expressed via committee work, peer
review services, or other activities in service to the profession). This often differentiates
tenure-track librarians from their non-tenure-track counterparts, who may have no
research or service components to their positions. Academic librarians may feel greater
pressure to publish their own original research to maintain their employment and
achieve tenure, a pressure many other academic disciplines colloquially call “publish or
perish.” This stress may be compounded by a lack of research methods training in their
professional graduate programs. This article seeks to explore how one academic
research library set out to enhance their culture of research to advance the comfort of
librarian researchers and advocate to the institution the strengths of the library faculty.

As the library system at a large public, land-grant institution, Clemson Libraries faced
the challenge of re-envisioning themselves as a major research library when Clemson
University became a Carnegie Research 1 (R1) institution in 20161. To support this
development, the University’s ClemsonForward strategic plan, implemented in Fall
2016, set forth a goal to “increase annual production of nationally recognized forms of
scholarship by 50 percent”2. For the Libraries, this meant increased support for all
research conducted by University affiliates while increasing the research productivity of
Libraries’ faculty. In accordance with this goal in 2017, the Libraries guidelines for
reappointment, tenure, and promotion were changed to include scholarship and creative
activities, otherwise known as research output, as a required element for consideration
for any of these faculty movements. With all of these developments, Libraries
employees, both faculty and staff, found themselves in the unique position of needing to
increase their engagement with research in order to both support the institution’s needs
and to ensure their own professional success.

As with any change, implementation took time. Faculty librarians could not become
expert researchers publishing in top journals overnight, and knowledge and experience
gaps had to be identified and addressed to increase the entire department’s research
output. One such gap was the lack of internal support for new and experienced faculty
members conducting research. In other colleges and departments, already-tenured
faculty can be relied upon for mentoring and knowledge-sharing for inexperienced
faculty members expected to conduct research. In this situation, however, tenured
Libraries faculty were largely inexperienced with conducting most forms of scientific
research and had little experience with the methodologies, software, and publishing
requirements that untenured faculty needed the most guidance with. Most Libraries

2



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

faculty, tenured and untenured, had never taken a research methods course that
pertains to library and information studies, and those that had taken such a course had
experience pertaining to their other degrees in other fields.

The lack of internal research support became readily apparent after a new wave of
Libraries faculty members came on board. Between 2017 and 2020, the Libraries
welcomed 12 tenure-track faculty members who all would be evaluated using the new
research requirements. In the absence of tenured faculty support, newer Libraries
faculty members sought guidance from each other and developed informal networks of
research support. While a faculty Mentoring Committee was formed in 2019, most new
Libraries faculty members had already started in their roles by that time, and the
program of mentoring to provide untenured faculty with structured career support,
including with research, has yet to be fully implemented in 2021.

In addition to the lack of internal experience with scientific research and large numbers
of new Libraries faculty, there was also an obstacle of pervasive imposter syndrome
throughout the Libraries3. Though many had assisted, supported, and collaborated
with other faculty at the University, Libraries faculty did not see themselves as
researchers, or even at times faculty members, at the same level as their institutional
peers. This manifested in widespread self-doubt in trying new methods, planning large
projects, and even talking about or promoting research projects internally. All of this
together highlights the stark need behind the initiatives explored in this case study—to
increase the comfort with and willingness to engage in scientific research among
Libraries employees by increasing the internal culture of research.

Librarians as researchers

Academic librarians are not unique in that they are a community of practitioners who
have crossed the bridge into academia. As can be seen in a study conducted with
nurses in the UK, this transition from professional practitioner to educator requires a
blending of the two cultures and a supportive community of practice to foster the skills
required by the academy4. Unfortunately, academic librarians often find their
preparedness and support for research to be lacking, creating a culture where research
is often met with trepidation.

Many librarians have taken some sort of course or workshop on research methodology,
with a good proportion completing this training as part of their MLIS coursework5.
However, participating in a research methods course or workshop is not a predictor of
whether a professionally employed librarian will conduct research6. For most
tenure-track librarians, research and scholarship are one of several required components
for tenure, thus motivating them to engage in research of some sort. Requirements
about the number and type of research outputs produced varies. Some institutions
provide specific numbers, while others only measure by vague categorizations such as
“consistency” or “progress.” Requirements for type of authorship (single, first author,
co-authored, etc.) also vary between institutions5. These unclear tenure expectations
are commonly faced by new faculty members, and they are a significant source of
stress7.

3



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

While types of publications valued when working towards tenure varies, in most
institutions, the peer-reviewed article is valued the highest as librarians and
administrators place a significant level of value on the peer review process5. Since many
early-career academic librarians lack practice or formal training in writing and
publishing for peer review, this process can be a barrier for those seeking tenure. As
found by Sassen and Wahl, “with little grounding in research methodology, statistical
analysis, and scholarly writing, many academic librarians are not prepared to fulfill the
research and publication requirements for promotion and tenure criteria”8. Librarians,
as practitioner–researchers, need a thorough understanding of the research life cycle in
order to support user needs, engage with developing trends in scholarly
communications, and support the library’s tie to institutional strategic visions9.

Confidence plays a role in a librarian’s perceived ability to engage in research; though
librarian confidence in ability to conduct a literature review is high, confidence in other
discrete stages of the research project is much lower10. Many librarians feel like they
have the training to read and understand library research articles. Similarly, many feel
they received enough training in their LIS degree coursework to conduct original
research. However, many felt their capabilities and confidence relating to research
writing would be bolstered with additional training11. Despite this need, the
availability of formal research support, such as additional training, is lower for
librarians than for those in other fields5. Early career librarians in particular “have
limited access to formal or institution-sponsored research support and rely heavily on
informal mentoring”5. This lack of support can be detrimental to a librarian’s
willingness and ability to conduct research while working in a professional capacity12.

While formal support is a significant factor in an academic librarian’s research
approach, one of the biggest challenges librarians face in making progress toward their
research agenda is finding the time to conduct research5, 10, 13. Time and time again,
academic librarians cite the lack of room in their schedule as a reason why research
does not happen. Even for those who seek to engage more in the research process,
either by reading disseminated products or conducting their own studies, the lack of
work time to do so serves as a substantial barrier to doing so and is reflective of other
trends in the profession such as salary compression (when there is little difference in
pay between employees of different status, experience, and rank) and under
compensation (when employees are not provided with pay and benefits commensurate
with their rank, workload, and experience).

Despite these barriers, the amount of research being produced by LIS practitioners is
steadily growing14. Academic librarians seeking tenure and those with a passion for
research are contributing to the growing body of LIS research being published in a
number of journals in the field. With proper support and dedication to reduce barriers,
LIS research and scholarship can continue to grow, and a culture of research
productivity can blossom among librarians.

Fostering a research culture

Supporting and sustaining a culture of research requires understanding the peer and
library management support needs, meeting the visions of library administration, and

4



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

developing library-wide engagement among employees9. Librarians are unique in higher
education due to the difference in their educational background, which is at odds with
the level of scholarship they are expected to produce once on the tenure track15. While
previous research studies have found that there is no correlation between whether
librarians conduct research and whether they believe their educational backgrounds
have prepared them as researchers, anecdotal evidence suggests there is much more
that graduate programs in Library and Information Science can do to equip degreed
academic librarians to conduct research with their academic peers in other disciplines12.

Many librarians find a benefit to informal mentoring surrounding research because the
emotional support and nonjudgmental relationship fosters a sense of safety and comfort
that carries over into their feelings about performing research. Formal mentoring has
also been shown to be beneficial as the more experienced mentors are able to work with
mentees to specifically tailor their programs of research to their institution’s tenure and
promotion processes5. As demonstrated in nursing, mentoring relationships between
experienced researchers and junior faculty can be mutually beneficial, including
increasing productivity, providing clarity in establishing hierarchical relationships
within the research team, incorporating developing trends in research focus to existing
projects, helping to fulfill requirements for both tenure and promotion, and enhancing
the stability and reputation of the institution16. Having multiple support systems in
place for librarian researchers may prove to be the most beneficial option. Both peer
and mentor support can positively influence early-career librarians in their journey to
conduct research5.

In addition to formal mentoring, research indicates two other types of collaboration
that can be beneficial to new researcher librarians: collaboration while managing the
research process and collaboration while writing research manuscripts15. According to
Wilkinson, these two types of peer interaction “alleviates the burden on each individual
librarian while also providing an opportunity for a more experienced librarian to model
successful research and writing strategies for a newer colleague”15. Beyond producing
outputs, these efforts contribute to the emotional needs of new librarians through
“provid[ing] reassurance that other new library faculty members are having the same
experiences and anxieties”15. These supportive collaboration models help “bolster
confidence and foster a sense of belonging” for new librarians and novice researchers15.
As demonstrated throughout the research, as librarians progress in their research
process, particularly with enhanced support networks, their confidence in their own
ability to conduct research grows5, 10.

Benefits to institutions and the profession

Fostering a supportive and productive culture of research in academic libraries has
direct benefits to the institution and the profession. As reported in Perkins and
Slowik’s study of the value of librarian research as perceived by library administrators,
librarians who conduct research add value to the library, university, and profession
through research outputs that enhance library procedures and services, grant funding,
recognition and awards, relationship building on and off campus, fulfillment of tenure
requirements, and engagement with other research in the field17. Establishing a culture
of research in an academic library can lead to outcomes such as increased librarian

5



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

understanding of the research process and greater appreciation of disseminating LIS
research results for the benefit of the profession in addition to increased research
output by institutional librarian authors9.

For academic libraries, the impact of librarians as research practitioners has a positive
correlation to the success of core library functions. Researcher librarians improve their
librarianship by having a more informed practice, which can also lead to improved
services for library users11. Research trends such as evidence-based librarianship has a
large impact on the success of the academic library as evidence-based library research
can directly lead to necessary changes to library practice18. The practice of conducting
research improves librarians’ problem-solving and decision-making skills, which can lead
to better in-the-moment responses to unexpected library issues13. Training librarians in
research methodologies allows librarians to teach graduate level methodology courses,
mentor students, and engage with researchers as peers at their university, particularly
in qualitative methods, expanding the scope and possibilities for partnership in the
institution19.

As it impacts universities, librarians as practicing researchers help to form connections
between departments and colleges. There is ample opportunity for collaboration
between practitioners and other academic peers, in particular as library science
research is highly collaborative with co-authorship reported in a majority of published
articles5, 14. These collaborations help improve the standing of the library and
library–researcher in many ways, including by demonstrating a contribution to the
mission of the institution”13. As it impacts librarian–faculty relations, Borrego and
Pinfield demonstrate that “carrying out research in partnership with faculty offers
librarians the opportunity to gain valuable experience in how research operates13. This
knowledge may help them provide better library research support services. While
research demonstrates the many personal, institutional, and profession-wide benefits of
nurturing librarians as researchers, the process of creating and sustaining a research
culture in an academic library requires forethought, planning, and flexibility, as
demonstrated through the experience at Clemson University Libraries.

Experience:

Writing Circle

One of the first attempts at introducing a research culture to Clemson Libraries was a
Writing Circle. Librarians were invited to participate in the circle where each would
author their own article. Other members of the circle were to provide extensive editing
and assistance with writing to the degree that they would be listed as co-authors on
each article. The goal was to complete the articles in eight weeks, and a schedule was
created to provide a concrete timeline.

Finding librarians who were eager to participate in the Writing Circle proved to be a
challenge. Some librarians were uncertain about the relatively short turnaround for
writing. Others did not have projects prepared to write about. Still more were
concerned about their work being of high enough quality for publication. After much
targeted outreach and many one-on-one conversations, four librarians committed to

6



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

participating in the Writing Circle

The circle itself did not meet its original goals. During the writing process, one
member realized their data was incomplete and not ready to be written about. Another
encountered continuity problems with surveys conducted at different dates that made
statistical analysis unrealistic for the skills of the group; however, a conference
presentation about the data proved successful with all members of the Writing Circle
listed as co-authors. A different member completed an article but was not confident
enough in the manuscript to ever submit it to a journal. The final member had their
article accepted and published in a refereed journal. The group as a whole completed a
conference presentation about their process. The ultimate goal of four published
articles by the circle was not realized, but the circle did complete two conference
presentations and one published article, which was still progress by a group so new to
the requirement of research.

Many of the shortcomings of the Writing Circle can be distilled down to moving too
quickly into trying to produce research outcomes. More groundwork was needed to get
the librarians to a place where they saw themselves as researchers. If librarians
identified as researchers, they would likely have been more interested in participating in
a Writing Circle. Though the writing circle was designed to help build confidence and
provide group support for the writing process, many librarians were not yet in a place
where they had the confidence to jump directly into publishing. Had more time been
spent building up librarians’ skills as researchers and writers prior to the
implementation of a writing circle, the Writing Circle may have seen greater success.

Journal Club

As casual discussions with coworkers and the experiences from the writing circle
revealed, the librarians needed more familiarity with the current library research being
done in the field. To address this in a low-stakes way that would facilitate discussion,
Journal Club was framed as a casual meeting over lunch where participants (who could
be any faculty or staff member) just showed up to discuss the reading as they ate. The
goal was to eliminate as many participation barriers as possible; for example, staff
frequently might not get time away from their service points other than lunch but
might still be interested in attending Journal Club. The Journal Club was not
organized by the library administration or leadership, so it was seen as a social
gathering of equals rather than just another presentation or committee meeting.

The club was described in an email invitation as functioning similarly to a book club,
in which everyone reads the book ahead of time, but with scholarly journal articles
related to librarianship. There was no singular “chair” of the group; instead, members
took turns “hosting” by selecting the article and preparing a couple of open-ended
discussion questions in advance of the biweekly meetings. Everything was organized on
an openly available Google Doc whose link was distributed library wide. Hosts also
frequently brought treats for the group such as donuts or pizza, which was a big draw
when meetings were held at lunchtime. One person did serve as coordinator by owning
the Google Doc and scheduling meeting rooms, but these administrative tasks were
often also handled by other Journal Club attendees.

7



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

Soon, a core group of dedicated Journal Club attendees emerged. These attendees
regularly read the articles and talked critically about the methods, data analysis, and
writing of the selections. By doing so, these librarians became more confident in their
abilities to judge research in their own field. Many signed up to be peer reviewers for
journals that matched their research interests. Although initial Journal Club article
selections focused on specific areas of librarianship, the group eventually began to shift
to broader topics that transcended service areas such as work–life balance and social
justice in librarianship. The group has even spawned a research group that is
investigating publishing practices in LIS journals.

Overall, the Journal Club has been successful in achieving its goals of getting people in
Clemson Libraries to talk more openly about the process of doing and publishing
research. However, the Journal Club saw dramatically decreased attendance when it
was moved to a virtual format in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to
this change, the Journal Club is currently on hiatus until the majority of library
personnel have returned to working in the library building again.

Research Roundtable

Following the success of Journal Club, the need emerged to bridge the gap between
discussing research and supporting the research projects of attendees. Recognizing this
need, the Research Roundtable was formed as a monthly informal meeting to gather
and discuss research. Much like Journal Club, Research Roundtable sought to be
accessible to all practitioners of research in the Libraries with open meeting invitations,
snacks, and loosely structured conversations. Unlike the more frequent Journal Club
meetings, Research Roundtable is a monthly meeting that gives participants time to
reach their goals and report progress between meetings.

In the earliest Research Roundtable gatherings, the meetings had a central theme, such
as setting a research agenda, and the rotating host would provide information on the
theme before leading a discussion on the topic. Meeting norms were established early
as a way to provide a safe space for attendees to speak honestly about their
experiences, frustrations, and successes in their projects and were reviewed at the start
of each meeting. Attendees were welcome to participate in meetings as they desired,
but a core group of participants were present monthly.

While the themed meetings were successful, they did not provide the intended space for
participants to dive deeper into their interests and projects. A new structure for
Research Roundtable meetings was established in which every month featured a
Research Captain (RC), who would partake in a series of interview questions regarding
their current projects, frustrations, successes, and goals. To foster collegiality, an
additional question was added in which the RC could share something that was
currently bringing them joy, which could range from a television show, podcast, new
snack, or other personal detail. This structure was successful in giving attendees the
space to share their projects, learn from others, and provide accountability in moving
forward in individual projects. While there are still special event-themed Research
Roundtable events, often in collaboration with other committees or groups, the
structured interview RC approach has been the most successful method to provide a

8



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

supportive and reflective space to foster research initiatives in the Libraries.

Discussion:

As experiences such as Journal Club and Research Roundtable have taken hold, the
culture surrounding research in the Libraries has begun to shift. Most notably,
librarians seem more comfortable talking about library research. Prior to the
establishment of Journal Club and Research Roundtable, there was hesitancy to state
out loud any apprehension, confusion, or discomfort surrounding research, particularly
since it became one of the areas on which librarians are evaluated. By providing a safe
space to explore what research looks like, share experiences, and grow as a group,
barriers to having honest conversations about scholarship have been broken down. In
turn, this has led to increased willingness to participate in research because librarians
have become more comfortable trying new methods and projects without fear of
performing a study in a vacuum.

Having the experience to critique what has already been published has illustrated that
not every project has to be perfect to be complete. Taking time to dive deep into the
literature published in journals that define the profession has reduced the intimidation
felt by librarians seeking to publish as they realize they are capable of producing work
of similar quality. Seeing colleagues experience similar struggles and setbacks in their
research has made it easier to talk about concerns with one’s own projects. Research
and writing has become a more approachable endeavor within the library, and
colleagues are more willing to share both the highs and the lows of what they are
working on.

In addition to improved perception of research as a process within the Libraries,
collaborative research projects have increased in number. Having a space to talk about
research and share ideas has led to groups that have spun off from Journal Club or
Research Roundtable to take on projects. People are able to connect with others who
have similar research interests, where before it was more of a challenge to know what
colleagues in other units were interested in researching. These collaborative groups
have already produced several conference presentations, and manuscripts for articles
are underway.

Takeaways:

While the shift in culture surrounding research at the library has come a long way,
there is still plenty of room to grow. One of the most notable areas for growth is
among tenured faculty, who view the training, group learning, and sharing sessions as
systems in place for their pre-tenure colleagues only. A large contingent of these
tenured faculty members received tenure under the old faculty guidelines, which did not
require research. As such, their research agendas take a different shape than those who
were hired under the new guidelines. A barrier to effectively reaching this group of
librarians is their reluctance to admit they have something to learn about research.
The growing pains associated with new guidelines and a large cohort of pre-tenure
faculty can make it uncomfortable for tenured librarians to admit they may not have
the same or more knowledge and experience their new colleagues have. In order for the

9



Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

Libraries’ research culture to reach its fullest potential, this discomfort needs to be
assuaged, and tenured librarians will need to join the conversations surrounding library
research. The efforts described in this article (forming a Writing Circle, Journal Club,
and Research Roundtable) were open to all faculty regardless of tenure status, but
tenured librarians rarely participated. Future efforts may target them more specifically;
for example, the department chair has discussed requiring a “research agenda” as part
of the regular annual activity review.

Future considerations

Given the opportunity, many changes could continue to advance the research culture at
Clemson Libraries. First, the authors could get approval from their Institutional
Review Board (IRB) to conduct a research project with human subjects; this would
allow for a study to be done on the research agendas and research culture at Clemson
Libraries directly. With some form of data to back up the findings, it would be easier
to create a cohesive plan to continue to encourage Clemson librarians to conduct
research.

Second, one change going forward could be formal recognition of these efforts within
the library. To date, activities like Journal Club and Research Roundtable are
grassroots efforts spearheaded by untenured faculty. If these activities were adopted
more widely and supported by the Libraries’ administration, not only would engaging
tenured faculty be easier but also leaders of these activities could receive recognition for
their overlooked labor.

Although not discussed at length here, one weakness that faculty librarians have faced
in the past is the perception of how their research compares to that done by other
university faculty. Along with formal recognition from library administration,
promoting the research of library faculty at the same level as that of other university
faculty helps demonstrate the legitimacy of librarian research and ideally situates
library faculty alongside their institutional peers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.A., J.M.M., K.M.S.;
Project administration: M.A., J.M.M., K.M.S.;
Writing – Original draft: M.A., J.M.M., K.M.S.;
Writing – Review and editing: M.A., J.M.M., K.M.S.

References

1. CW Staff. Clemson moves into top tier of research universities [Internet]. Clemson
World. 2013 May 1 [cited 31 Aug 2021]. Available from:
https://clemson.world/clemson-moves-into-top-tier-of-research-universities/
2. ClemsonForward strategic plan [Internet]. [updated Mar 2019; cited 31 Aug 2021].
Available from:
https://www.clemson.edu/provost/documents/clemsonforwardplan-updated32019.pdf
3. Clark M, Vardeman K, Barba S. Perceived inadequacy: a study of the imposter

10

https://clemson.world/clemson-moves-into-top-tier-of-research-universities/
https://www.clemson.edu/provost/documents/clemsonforwardplan-updated32019.pdf


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

phenomenon among college and research librarians. Coll Res Libr [Internet]. 2014 May
[cited 31 Aug 2021];75(3):255-71. doi:10.5860/crl12-423
4. Andrew N, Ferguson D, Wilkie G, Corcoran T, Simpson L. (2009). Developing
professional identity in nursing academics: the role of communities of practice. Nurse
Educ Today [Internet]. 2009 Aug [cited 31 Aug 2021];29(6):607-11.
doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.01.012
5. Ackerman E, Hunter J, Wilkinson ZT. The availability and effectiveness of research
supports for early career academic librarians. J Acad Librariansh [Internet]. 2018 Sept
[cited 31 Aug 2021];44(5):553-68. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2018.06.001
6. Luo L. Fusing research into practice: the role of research methods education. Libr
Inf Sci Res [Internet]. 2011 Jul [cited 31 Aug 2021];33(3):191-201.
doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2010.12.001
7. Eddy PL, Gaston-Gayles JL. New faculty on the block: issues of stress and support.
J Hum Behav Soc Enviro [Internet]. 2008 Oct [cited 31 Aug 2021];17(1-2):89-106
doi:10.1080/10911350802168878
8. Sassen C, Wahl D. Fostering research and publication in academic libraries. Coll Res
Libr [Internet]. 2014 Jul [cited 31 Aug 2021];75(4):458-91. doi:10.5860/crl.75.4.458
9. Hall LW. (2018). From practice to research at Flinders University Library:
sustaining a research culture. Libr Manag [Internet]. 2015 [cited 31 Aug
2021];39(8-9):615-24. doi:10.1108/LM-10-2017-0110
10. Kennedy MR, Brancolini, KR. Academic librarian research: a survey of attitudes,
involvement, and perceived capabilities. Coll Res Libr [Internet]. 2012 Sept [cited 31
Aug 2021];73(5):431-48. doi:10.5860/crl-276
11. Apolinario RRU, Eclevia MR, Eclevia Jr. CL, Lagrama ERC, Sagun KKA.
Librarian as researcher and knowledge creator: examining librarian’s research
involvement, perceived capabilities and confidence. Paper presented at: IFLA WLIC
2014. Proceedings of the IFLA Annual Congress; 2014 Aug 16-22; Lyon, France.
Available from: http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/961
12. Kennedy MR, Brancolini, KR. Academic librarian research: an update to a survey
of attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities. Coll Res Libr [Internet]. 2018
Sept [cited 31 Aug 2021];79(6):882-951 doi:10.5860/crl.79.6.822
13. Borrego Á, Pinfield S. Librarians publishing in partnership with other researchers:
roles, motivations, benefits, and challenges. portal [Internet]. 2020 Oct [cited 31 Aug
2021];20(4):655-75. doi:10.1353/pla.2020.0031
14. Aytac S, Slutsky B. Published librarian research, 2008 through 2012: analyses and
perspectives. Collab Librariansh [Internet]. 2014 [cited 31 Aug 2021];6(4):6. Available
from: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol6/iss4/6/
15. Wilkinson Z. Rock around the (tenure) clock: research strategies for new academic
librarians. New Librar World. 2013 [cited 31 Aug 2021];114(1/2):54-66.
doi:10.1108/03074801311291965
16. Morrison-Beedy D, Aronowitz T, Dyne, J, Mkandawire L. (2001). Mentoring
students and junior faculty in faculty research: a win-win scenario. J Prof Nurs
[Internet]. 2001 Nov-Dec [cited 31 Aug 2021];17(6):291-6. doi:10.1053/jpnu.2001.28184
17. Perkins GH, Slowik AJ. The value of research in academic libraries. Coll Res Libr
[Internet]. 2013 Mar [cited 31 Aug 2021];74(2):143-58. doi:10.5860/crl-308
18. Booth A. Bridging the research-practice gap? The role of evidence based
librarianship. New Rev Inf Libr Res [Internet]. 2003 Jul [cited 31 Aug 2021];9(1):3-23.
doi:10.1080/13614550410001687909

11

https://doi.org/10.5860/crl12-423
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.01.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.06.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911350802168878
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.4.458
https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-10-2017-0110
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-276
http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/961
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.6.822
https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2020.0031
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship/vol6/iss4/6/
https://doi.org/10.1108/03074801311291965
https://doi.org/10.1053/jpnu.2001.28184
https://doi.org/10.5860/crl-308
https://doi.org/10.1080/13614550410001687909


Peer Reviewed Article Hypothesis , Vol. 34, No. 1, 2022

19. Hansman CA. Training librarians as qualitative researchers: developing skills and
knowledge. Ref Librar [Internet]. 2015 Oct [cited 31 Aug 2021];56(4):274-94.
doi:10.1080/02763877.2015.1057683

12

https://doi.org/10.1080/02763877.2015.1057683

