Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Introducing the New and Emerging Researchers Submission
Category

Lorie A. Kloda, PhDa

aVice-Dean of Libraries, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1429-1497 , lorie.kloda@mcgill.ca

Cite as: Kloda LA. Introducing the New and Emerging Researchers Submission Category.
Hypothesis. 2025;37(2). doi:10.18060/29393

Kloda. All works in Hypothesis are licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International. Authors own copyright of their articles
appearing in Hypothesis. Readers may copy articles without permission of the copyright
owner(s), as long as the author(s) are acknowledged in the copy, and the copy is used for
educational, not-for-profit purposes. For any other use of articles, please contact the copyright
owner(s).

1

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1429-1497
https://orcid.org/
mailto:lorie.kloda@mcgill.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/


Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

Fresh insights from new researchers

I am delighted to introduce Hypothesis readers to the nascent New and Emerging Researchers
category. This new category reflects the importance to the profession of encouraging and
supporting librarians to engage in research and to submit their work for publication. Going
forward, Hypothesis welcomes submissions from new and emerging researchers with the
intent to promote greater visibility and recognition to those at the outset of their research
careers.

There is never a better time to do research in librarianship than now. By this I don’t mean that
this point in history is better than any other, only that it is no less good. In my own
experience, I have sometimes been under the impression that all the important questions have
been asked and answered. Or that these important questions were best answered by someone
else, some more qualified expert in method x or y or with population z. It can be daunting to
come up with a focused question that feels new or original enough to pursue, let alone to
design a study to answer such a question. In our field, librarians spend a significant amount of
our work day encouraging students, clinicians, and researchers to search the literature for
previous findings to inform not only their decisions but also their next projects. It’s only
natural that some would conclude that everything that’s worth studying has already been
studied, and that research should be left to those with more experience or more training. It’s
all too easy to talk ourselves out of undertaking a new research project in these circumstances.
I am therefore all the more impressed at the number of health sciences librarians who
continue to ask new research questions, design studies to investigate them, and report on their
findings and experiences. I am delighted that Hypothesis is showcasing emerging researchers,
who along with their day to day professional work, carved out the time to undertake research
in LIS and to disseminate it.

In this issue

In this issue of Hypothesis are three papers authored by new emerging researchers in library
and information studies. Mary Margaret Thomas from University of Iowa reports on original
research using a qualitative approach that she developed as a participant at the MLA Research
Training Institute. The pilot study contributes to what is known on the impact of mental
health first aid training for librarians in academic health sciences and public libraries.

Christine Neilson from University of Manitoba conducted a content analysis on librarians’
relationship to knowledge synthesis work. Her findings provide valuable insight to a
perspective typically omitted from publications about knowledge synthesis work and
complementary to reports on health researchers’ needs and behaviours with respect to this
popular set of research methods.

Devon Olson and Sara B. Westall present a report on their work at the University of North
Dakota of a needs assessment of users’ awareness about open access during OA week by way
of a quiz competition. The paper provides an excellent description of an awareness campaign
for open access as well as an assessment tool for evaluating its success and for identifying
areas of further instruction.

I hope these articles not only inform your thinking about health sciences librarianship, but

2



Hypothesis, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2025

inspire you in your own investigations, whether as a novice or a more experienced researcher,
to ask questions and apply new methods to continue to inform the field.

3