College and Research Libraries Research Notes Encouraging Research through Electronic Mentoring: A Case Study Tami Echavarria, W. Bede Mitchell, Karen Liston Newsome, Thomas A. Peters, and Deleyne Wentz In 1991 the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Research Committee established an experiment using electronic mail to create mentoring relationships focusing on library and information science research. This article reports on that experiment's progress to date and includes first-hand accounts of participants' experiences. n innovative experiment in electronic mentoring that util- izes the Internet and listserv software is entering its fourth year. A small group of librarians is us- ing these relatively new technologies to extend the traditional boundaries of mentoring and the recent paradigm of network communication in the field of library and information science (LIS). The project, sponsored by the ACRL Research Committee with technical support from New Mexico State University, aims to get more professionals involved in LIS re- search by engaging them in discussions with mentors and fellow proteges on a variety of research topics and issues. Project goals include: introducing men- taring activities to the network environ- ment, expanding the scope of network/ listserv forms of communication, getting more LIS professionals involved in re- search, encouraging improvements and diversification in the research skills of LIS professionals, and expanding communi- cation within the LIS research community. GENESIS OF THE PROJECT The project began with a conference program titled "Mentoring and Academic Tami Echavarria is Reference Librarian at the University of California at San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California 92093-0175; e-mail: tami_echavarria@ucsdlibrary.ucsd.edu. W. Bede Mitchell is Associate Uni- versity Librarian at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608; e-mail: mitchellwb@con- rad.appstate.edu. Karen Liston Newsome is Information Access Team Leader at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85715; e-mail: newsome@bird.arizona.edu. Thomas A. Peters is Associate Director for Collection Development at Northern illinois University, DeKalb, illinois 60115; e-mail: c60tapl@com.cso.niu.edu. Deleyne Wentz is Reference Librarian at Utah State University, Ogden, Utah 84322-3000; e-mail delwen@library.lib.usu.edu. 352 Research: Using Bitnet Conferencing to Encourage Research," which took place at the 1991 American Library Associa- tion (ALA) Annual Conference in Atlanta. Helen Spalding from the University of Missouri-Kansas City spoke about the one-on-one, face-to-face mentoring tra- dition, and Vicki Gregory from the Divi- sion of Library and Information Science at the University of South Florida dis- cussed the possibilities for electronic mentoring. Program participants re- ceived a handbook containing program abstracts; guidelines; technical informa- tion; a network directory; and a selective bibliography on mentoring, LIS research, and electronic networks. Mentors and proteges were given the opportunity to get to know one another, exchange ideas, and discuss the potential for this program. Af- ter the Annual Conference, program par- ticipants returned to their locations to begin this unique experiment in elec- tronic mentoring. PROJECT DESIGN The Research Committee divided the participants into six groups centered around broad topics within the field of library and information science re- search: bibliographic control, collection management, expert systems, library ef- fectiveness, scholarly communication, and understanding the user. Each group was composed of one or more mentors, a group of proteges, and a member of the committee who functioned as liaison and facilitator. A listserv discussion group list was reserved for the use of each group. Mentors and proteges used the electronic mail facilities at their institutions to send messages to their list. The listserv software redistributed all incoming messages to everyone in the group. EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF MENTORING AND NETWORK COMMUNICATION The electronic mentoring project has attempted to extend the traditional prac- Encouraging Research 353 tice of mentoring by creating small groups of mentors and proteges and a nationwide network of people inter- ested in the same area of research in library and information science. Realiz- ing that the local pool of active researchers in LIS research is small, the committee hoped that nationwide communication among beginning researchers would en- courage more professionals to take the re- . search plunge. Although a much more recent phe- nomenon than professional mentoring, network communication using the List- serv software and national educational communication networks also has de- veloped "traditional" patterns and ac- cepted norms. Traditionally, the listowner announces the subject area for discus- sion, in addition to technical informa- tion on how to subscribe and post messages. The listserv list then functions as a type of high-tech forum or speaker's comer. Typically, a relatively small group of people are inclined to conduct the majority of the discussions, moving from one topic to the next within the given subject area, while many more subscribers read the postings. This ten- dency is typical of many forms of com- munication, information transfer, and business inventory, and it exemplifies the so-called 80/20 rule.* In this context, the rule can be stated as follows: "Ap- proximately 80 percent of the postings are made by 20 percent of the total potential participants." In light of the 80/20 rule, the Research Committee intentionally kept the number of members of each group between twelve and twenty-four in or- der to increase the likelihood that each participant would become actively in- volved in the discussion. REPORT ON ACTIVITIES During the first year of the pilot project, total message traffic for all groups aver- aged slightly over one message per day. The LIS Research Understanding the User (LISRUU) group was the most active, and *For an example of the application of the 80/20 rule to a library setting, see Richard Trueswell, "Some Behavioral Patterns of Library Users: The 80/20 Rule," Wilson Library· Bulletin 43 Gan. 1969): 458-61. 354 College & Research Libraries the general consensus was that it also was the most rewarding for the partici- pants. Unfortunately, it was the only group to continue after the first two years, for reasons that will be discussed later, and, therefore, most of the remain- der of this article focuses on the experi- ences of the LISRUU group. Surprisingly, the number of individu- als who contacted the listowner with technical questions was small, although a few problems did occur during the early stages of the project. Two months into the project's first year, the lis towner changed institutional affiliations and network nodes. This not only created confusion with individual messages to and from the listowner, but it also neces- sitated reconstructing all of the lists. Once the technical glitches were fixed, concerns and complaints expressed about the project were human-based. In essence, it is possible that electronic communication puts all the communicants on an equal footing- and, while it allows them to respond spontaneously, it also enables them to take time composing messages when more thought-out responses are desired. Participants found that the project af- fected them in a variety of ways that could ·not be achieved in more tradi- tional mentoring relationships. Few of the former or continuing participants are from the same institution. This al- lows proteges the freedom to explore topics without the interference that local political concerns might cause. The role of the mentor is also less likely to be as pivotal to the proteges' progress, espe- cially in tenure-track situations . While mentors' opinions particularly were solicited in several cases, proteges also offered insights by relating similar expe- riences, concerns, and suggestions for the research topics discussed. In essence, it is possible that electronic communica- tion puts all the communicants on an equal footing-and, while it allows them July 1995 to respond spontaneously, it also enables them to take time composing messages when more-thought-out responses are desired. Participants are also limited to the written word in expressing their ideas, intent, and criticism. Restating a posting is not uncommon after responses are re- ceived, which demonstrates how an in- tended meaning can be misconstrued. Composing clear and careful postings about a research project is good practice for writing up the results of that project when completed. The dynamic interac- tions of any group of people brought together for a common purpose also add to the group process in accomplishing a task. As well as the participants getting to know each other through posted mes- sages and statements of research inter- ests, the asides about personal situations create a trusting, supportive atmosphere in which even the most hesitant re- searchers can bounce ideas off each other. In just over a year, various mem- bers of the LISRUU group experienced a severe budget crisis, a tragic death, a marriage, and a birth. While these hap- penings were not explored at length (and in fact, were mentioned only briefly, usu- ally to explain long absences or temporary unavailability), they are a part of life and can interrupt research endeavors. In a group setting, other members can be re- lied on to "carry the ball" until the group as a whole can be reestablished. The patterns and discoveries dis- cussed in the foregoing summary of ac- tivities will be explored further in the words of the LISRUU participants in a later section of this report. Unfortunately, not all of the groups could overcome the hurdles of electronic mentoring; only one group survived. The researchers offer sev- eral speculations to explain the failure of the other groups. When the ACRL Research Committee began setting up the electronic men- taring project, the primary focus of at- tention was on the listserv software as a new communication device, rather than on the history of mentoring in the LIS profession and the possibility for future developments. The technical feasibility of the project drove its development, with an assumption that the human element would take care of itself. The elec- tronic mentors were not briefed ade- quately on the anticipated duties and responsibilities offered by this new ex- periment. Some of the mentors may not have realized that for this project, unlike in other forms of communica- tion via listservs, they would need to elicit participation delicately from a ma- jority of the proteges. The proteges, in turn, may not have understood their responsibilities. Further, the need to minimize the number of proteges per mentor had to be balanced with the need to have enough people in each group to sustain a discussion group. Finally, the introductory program's crowded and noisy environment was not conducive perhaps to the birth of lasting mentor- protege relationships. Once the groups formed, several fac- tors and events may have worked against the continuation of most of them. The technical problems encountered early in the project have been mentioned. An- other factor may have been poor matches between mentors and the groups of prote- ges. Although we have no evidence to sup- port this hypothesis, some of the mentors and proteges may have forsaken the elec- tronic group projects in favor of a more traditional mentoring relationship. Ulti- mately, the failure of most of the groups may have been due to the unfamiliarity and instability inherent in a national pro- fessional association overtly fostering a new kind of mentoring activity in an elec- tronic network environment. THE EXPERIENCES OF LISRUU In the early stages of establishing the pilot project, the LISRUU group encoun- tered various difficulties. Once the afore- mentioned technical problems were ironed out, the group struggled for an identity and an understanding of the respective roles of the mentor and proteges. There was uncertainty as to whether the mentor should prepare the equivalent of lessons and lectures or simply respond to protege inquiries about how to go about doing research. Encouraging Research 355 After much discussion, as well as long periods of silence, participants decided in the fall of 1991 that a simulated re- search project for the group would be the most useful way to proceed since all members would learn from each other's thoughts, and the work of the simulated project could be spread out among sev- eral people. The group discussed vari- ous research projects, but one member (who shall be referred to hereafter as the principal investigator) indicated she wanted to survey the patrons of her li- brary to compare their evaluations of two types of interlibrary loan service of- fered at that library. Thus the simulated project addressed a real-life issue involv- ing patron satisfaction levels. The mentor made it clear early on that he intended the proteges to do the work so that they would get as much first- hand experience as possible. The mentor would help answer difficult questions, guide the group away from pitfalls, and suggest areas that should be addressed or investigated. The principal investiga- tor provided background information about her institution, library services, and patrons, and specifics about the two types of interlibrary loan service of- fered-traditional ILL and a method for patrons to send their own ILL requests electronically to other libraries within the state. The group then discussed hy- potheses and methods for testing those hypotheses. The principal investigator prepared a draft of questionnaires to be given to the users of the two ILL services, and the group critiqued the drafts. Pro- gram participants performed a pretest of the instrument in order to identify any necessary refinements before conduct- ing the actual survey. Thus, the LISRUU project grew out of the several proteges' comments that their biggest research problem was sim- ply getting started. In early discussions, it became apparent that the idea of con- ceptualizing and implementing an en- tire research project was daunting. The spontaneous and informal style of daily electronic communication helped group members get to know each other, and together they began to break a research 356 College & Research Libraries project into its less formidable compo- nents. Responsibility for developing the frame- work for the study and the first draft of the survey instrument fell largely on the principal investigator, but the group's contributions were substantial and thoughtful and had a great impact on the direction of the project. Designing and pretesting of the questionnaire, deter- mining the population to be surveyed and the method for distributing the questionnaire, selecting the time frame in which the survey was to be carried out, and deciding how to encourage peo- ple to complete the questionnaire were discussed enthusiastically by the partici- pants. One protege contributed the lit- erature review, and another adapted the survey for use in her own institution. The LISRUU participants recorded the following evaluations of and responses to their experiences in the project: Member A In the beginning I volunteered to participate in this project because I'm in a library in a major research institu- tion where research is an expectation of librarians who want to advance. Even after two master's degrees, I have not learned how to do original research and have no one in my library with time and willingness to mentor me. I want to learn to do this properly, I have elec- tronic access, and I thought this might be a way to learn. But I had no idea of how electronic mentoring was supposed to work or what I was supposed to do. The set up of a listserv was entirely new to me, and I thought I was doing something wrong because the messages I sent to the list were returned to me as unde- liverable. As I read postings, I realized there were some problems outside of my immediate electronic environment that someone with technical expertise would straighten out. When those problems were ironed out, the next challenge began. The post- ings to the list seemed to be indicating that we had research projects indi- vidually under way and yet I had no July 1995 clue how or where to start. I was really lost and disappointed, but too ashamed to admit that I was so ignorant. . The breakthrough occurred when the mentor took the initiative to sug- gest working together on a learning project. To my relief I realized that I wasn't the only one out there who knew very little of how to approach this challenge. The brainstorming re- sulted in several ideas for research projects that were simple enough for beginners, and I was happy to think that I would really learn. The decision to begin with an ILL survey gave us a direction. Others on the list with some experience at this began to contribute citations to re- sources on how to develop a question- naire, perform the survey, and analyze it statistically. Others read the citations and summarized them faster than I was able to get my hands on them. I kept a file of all the citations, thinking that if I ever got time, I could go back and read and learn more. I know I would never have known these resources on my own. Then we began to write the ques- tionnaire. I contributed comments on the layout and content along with oth- ers. Then the ACRL Conference in Salt Lake City came along, and it presented an opportunity for two of the proteges and the mentor to meet in person. At that meeting we discussed the question- naire further, and I could see I was among colleagues more experienced than I at this. My contribution was small by comparison to theirs, but it was not undervalued. The best part of that meet- ing for me was that these people became real persons with faces and person- alities, and, thereafter, electronic com- munications with them were more enjoyable for me. The questionnaire took on life after that and, after a couple of more revi- sions, was in its final form. At the next ALA Annual Conference we met again, and I met both the listowner and the project member who had initiated the idea of the survey. At that meeting we realized that the original group of realized that the original group of nineteen who had been on the list had shrunk and that we were the only list- serv that had maintained activity since the start. I feel lucky to have been with this group, where real mentoring and learning have been taking place for me. I'm looking forward to con- tinuing this experience and am hope- ful that I will eventually learn to do meaningful research that can contrib- ute to the profession. MemberB I was excited when I read the an- nouncement about the formation of the ACRL electronic research mentoring groups. I immediately responded. Just choosing which group to join made me focus on what really interests me in our profession. I have come to real- ize that we probably all think we un- derstand our users better than we do. I [am glad] I picked the "Under- standing the User" group because it has met my needs. Our mentor does a fine job of lead- ing the group. He lets the group de- cide what concepts members want to learn and what projects to tackle. He prods us to keep moving, notes prob- lems that we may encounter in re- search, and spreads out the alternatives for us to study in order to reach a solu- tion. He has taught us a great deal about doing research. In addition, he has suggested sources to read and ar- ticles to discuss and given me profes- sional development advice. Being in this group has given us experiences that go far beyond learn- ing to do survey research. Being asso- ciated with LISRUU has affected my attitude toward the library profession, my role in my library, the needs of our patrons, and my desire to learn more about them. Many aspects of my life have been changed by my member- ship in this group. Being part of this research group motivated me to take a class on survey research from the sociology depart- ment. I also plan to take another one taught by the business department with Encouraging Research 357 a marketing emphasis. Between this list and the class I took, I feel I have the basic tools and understanding to design a survey. My interest in users and their needs prompted me to participate in a week- long total quality management (TQM) workshop. This led to more opportu- nities for networking. I contributed the bibliography for the class and made a presentation on TQM in Higher Edu- cation. It was a good experience for me to get acquainted with the professors who team-taught the class. Their ex- pert teaching methods made them role models for me. Being associated with LISRUU has affected my attitude toward the library profession, my role in my library, the needs of our patrons, and my desire to learn more about them. The contacts I have made are just as important as the knowledge I have gained. Both the group mentor and the professor of the class would likely be willing to critique a research pro- posal, look over a survey, etc. I recall that someone who is good with statis- tics is on the list, and I could possibly ask him or her for help too. I have found that I really enjoy networking with colleagues from around the country. The members of the group are supportive and willing to share their ideas. An electronic research group is a good way to network with other aca- demic librarians who are also feeling the pressure to publish and get help from someone who knows the ropes. I still feel a bit threatened by the idea of writing an article and submitting it on my own, but I feel comfortable con- tributing to LISRUU and getting feed- back from the group. I have plans to write an article on our library's liaison program and try to get it published. I plan to send it out to the group for critique. I am also thinking of doing a poster session on this program at ALA and will ask colleagues in the group 358 College & Research Libraries who have done poster sessions in the past for advice. This summer I transferred from the cataloging department to the refer- ence department, and this decision to change course was motivated by be- ing part of LISRUU. I realized that the environment in the cataloging depart- ment wasn't conducive to doing re- search, and I eagerly sought contact with library users. Being a part of LIS- RUU has had a strong influence on what I have read, what I have thought, and where I find myself today. Principal Investigator When I first joined the ACRL elec- tronic mentoring project, I had a re- search topic in mind that I wanted t9 investigate. I believe that expert sys- tems have the potential to greatly im- pact interlibrary loan and document delivery. Unfortunately, I knew little about the capabilities, types, and pos- sibilities for expert systems. I also real- ized that end-users as self-determining consumers might have different ex- pectations than traditional ILL pa- trons for whom library staff mediate. While I needed some technical educa- tion about expert systems, I also wanted to explore user behavior in an auto- mated resource sharing environment. The owner of the listservs agreed that my research interests were inter- disciplinary, and he allowed me to join both the Expert Systems and the Un- derstanding the User groups. The technical expertise in the Expert Sys- tems group was pretty daunting, but the members seemed willing to edu- cate the uninitiated. When I later sat down with the Understanding the User group, I found them to be very congenial and to have a wide variety of research experience. · There was a fair amount of activity on the Expert Systems group's list in the beginning. Several people, includ- ing me, asked some fairly low-level questions and were referred to basic texts. Several people on the list who were beginners were encouraged to purchase a basic ES software package. July 1995 At this time, there was simply no budget for me to buy this software, and it was highly doubtful that I had enough memory in my computer to run it. Right from the beginning, I felt pretty "at home" on the LISRUU list. I never knew who the mentor was until I had been on the LISRUU for a few months, and he happened to mention it. I did, however, notice right away that he was a natural leader and that he tended to focus the group. There have been times when he has sat back and let us contribute and help each other, and I think that has been an effective technique. After all, we are librarians. We can usually find appro- priate citations about any given aspect of research, as well as the evaluative materials that support its being one of the best citations. Although I believe that studying research techniques and recognizing good research are the keys to setting the standard that your own research must meet, the most dynamic part of this project has been sharing our individual ideas and insights with the group. It was gratifying when my project became the group project, but I have also felt selfish, wanting to be the de- cision-maker and maintain control of it. But this turned out not to be a prob- lem after all. I am certainly free to reject advice offered, but I find that if I really consider it, it is very good (and I cannot think of anything I have re- jected so far). The ideas and help have contributed greatly to guiding and shaping the project. I found it a little off-putting that some people were not enthused about doing a survey in- volving ILL patrons. I do not have a problem recognizing that it is not everyone's cup of tea, but then I feel that I am doing it, and it should be okay if everyone on the list is not. I am afraid maybe some people dropped off or lost interest in the list at the point we decided on the ILL project. Because the automated environment for which the survey is designed is unique, the survey is not replicable, with constructive criticism and a good place to bounce around ideas. For ex- ample, there is no better double-check for jargon than showing the surveys to someone who does not work in ILL every day. It really helped me decide what to clarify and what to omit. Within the last year I developed a lot of guilt over this project. For a variety of reasons I was not able to give it enough time, and I was afraid I was causing the group to lose momentum. I am grateful that another protege has begun sharing the development of a survey project in which the group is interested. I have been able to follow her research project with the rest of the group for the last few months while my own efforts simmer on the back burner. It is best for others to have projects as well, so that the forward motion of the group does not depend on one person. Mentor One of the sources that the ACRL Research Committee suggested we con- sult was Jennifer Cargill's article "De- veloping Library Leaders: The Role of Mentorship," which appeared in the Winter 1989 issue of Library Admini- stration & Management. Cargill de- scribes a mentor's responsibilities when guiding a protege within a typical li- brary or professional association. The responsibilities of a mentor in an elec- tronic environment are much the same, but naturally the lack of face- to-face communication creates chal- lenges that are not often found when the relationship exists within the same institution. Cargill says that a mentor should be a .developer of skills and of careers, a promoter of professional activities, and a counselor. I have found that much of an electronic mentor's efforts in those directions tends to be general and only sometimes specific to individuals be- cause of the public nature of listserv communication. As in a traditional class- room, communication is shared among all participants for the purpose of learn- ing together. While this approach has Encouraging Research 359 obvious advantages, the biggest draw- back is that it can inhibit honest and critical examination of individual prote- ges' research background and experience. Such discussion may need to be moved off of the list and handled privately. The development of a true mentor- protege relationship can also be hin- dered by the fact that e-mail is less personal than direct communication. The lack of nonverbal cues and lack of tonal inflections are examples of what is lost in electronic communica- tion. But what is a problem for some can be liberating for others: some people find that the lack of face-to- face contact in electronic communica- tion makes it easier for them to confess ignorance or ask questions they fear are naive. The greatest frustration I have en- countered has been the difficulty of gauging whether my messages are be- ing understood. In face-to-face discus- sions, a blank expression can be an indication that the listener does not understand the point being made. In the electronic environment, silence in response to a posting may mean any number of things: people are mysti- fied, people have not read their e-mail in several days, people are uninter- ested, etc. It is very important that electronic mentoring participants agree on certain protocols, so people know whether their postings are making their desired point. Acknowledgment of messages, even when no substan- tive response is made, goes a long way toward eliminating frustration and uncertainty. Originally I expected that we would spend much time examining specific research questions and ideas raised by the proteges. However, the proteges were reluctant to express what others might regard as naive questions, and they were more interested in pursu- ing the group research project as a means of gaining some faptiliarity with all aspects of one type of research. Nevertheless, some of the most inter- esting and informative interactions have been separate from the group 360 College & Research Libraries have been separate from the group project. The LISRUU group has en- gaged in philosophical discussions in- spired by research articles or queries about particular research methods. Readings have been suggested and topics introduced from time to time to generate participation, and such ef- forts have not always been initiated by the mentor. Proteges are taking an ac- tive role in furthering the direction of the group and stimulating discussion. Some of the topics that have been dis- cussed by the LISRUU group have been differences between pure and applied research, campus policies re- lating to human subjects research, tech- niques for generating ideas, the process of writing and applying for grants, and making time for research in the midst of busy schedules. All of the foregoing leads to the question of whether the LISRUU expe- rience represents a true mentor-protege arrangement. We believe it does qualify as a special kind of mentoring because we have done what Cargill describes in her account of the classic mentoring model. Nevertheless, some may think that the lack of regular face-to-face contact precludes mentoring in the classic, full sense of the term. It is also true that my original expectation of playing a largely reactive role (which has proven to not be the case anyway) may not be entirely consistent with what is typically expected of a true mentor. However, even if our experi- ence does not appear to qualify as true mentoring to some, the LISRUU par- ticipants continue to use the mentor- protege terminology. Why? While granting that electronic com- munication among remotely-located participants is inherently more lim- ited than the communication between a mentor and protege who work in the same physical location, the LISRUU participants do not believe that alter- native descriptions of their experience (e.g., electronic research tutorial) are adequate-as one participant put it, the perception that the so-called men- tor was a mentor influenced the way July 1995 in which the others asked questions and sought advice about many profes- sional and personal matters, many of which were unrelated to research. In short, the lack of an adequate alterna- tive description led the LISRUU par- ticipants to honor their founders by continuing to use the electronic men- taring model that the Research Commit- tee envisioned. If we have not achieved the goal yet, we will keep trying. I think our group has made creditable progress, and I have enjoyed working with stimulating and fun colleagues. I hope others will get involved in electronic mentor-protege relation- ships. However, I offer a final word of caution to those who do. Electronic mentoring can be sporadic and is ef- fective only when the protege makes time to report activities fully, not selec- tively. Thus, more than anything else the electronic mentor should have pa- tience and perseverance. CONCLUSION As the electronic mentoring project enters its fourth year, it is making the transition from experiment to estab- lishment. The project's first two goals largely have been accomplished: a spe- cial kind of mentoring has been intro- duced to the electronic network, and the scope of network forms of communica- tion has been expanded. Retaining the terminology of the ACRL Research Com- mittee and the experimental nature of this project led to flexibility in redefining men- tor and protege in the context of net- work/listserv forms of communication. Electronic mentoring developed some- what differently than the classic concept of face-to-face mentoring. Originally, it was expected that men- tors would respond to specific questions related to research interests and projects. Then the mentors and other participants would offer suggestions, ideas, and ques- tions that would generate discussions about research in general, as well as guide the original inquirer with his or her project. Instead, group members were unfamiliar with the venue, research techniques, and terminology so that most participants had difficulty articulating their interests and research ideas. We discovered that electronic mentors need to be prepared to spend time in- itially establishing trust among partici- pants and ground rules for participation. Participants should be encouraged to de- velop a pattern of regular posting. The mentor will need to break long si- lences by reviewing what the group was doing and discussing, and propos- ing provocative ideas, suggestions, and questions to kick start the group into re- newed participation. The nurturing and attention that this mentor gave to the group, combined with the group mem- bers' desire to interact, contributed to the survival of this group. With time and patience, the mentor found that the other participants gained a sense of ownership in the group and felt equally responsible for its success. As that occurred, this group contin- ued beyond the original experiment, and individuals began to try basic research projects of their own. One of the group members surveyed all 1989-1994 par- Encouraging Research 361 ticipants in a program that recruits mi- nority undergraduates to the LIS field. The investigation inquired into their progress and the influence of the pro- gram on their career choices. It is being analyzed with the intention of contrib- uting the results to the LIS literature. This group has assisted and coached that group member, and succeeded in improving and expanding that individ- ual's research skills. Modest progress has been made to- ward getting more LIS professionals in- volved in research and toward improving and diversifying their research skills. Fi- nally, as the project continues to refine itself and become an established fixture in the electronic network, it is time to address more directly the goal of expanding and accelerating communication within the LIS research community. New mentors and proteges should be sought and new groups created to accommodate the many areas of research interest. Anyone interested in participating should contact W. Bede Mitchell, the mentor, or Thomas A. Peters, the list-owner. SUGGESTED FURTHER READING Cargill, Jennifer. "Developing Library Leaders: The Role of Mentorship ," Library Administration & Management 3 (Winter 1989): 12-15. Cook, Michael H. "Mentoring-A Two-Way Street to Professional Development," Training and Development Journal 36 (May 1982): 4. Gibbons, Ann. "Key Issue: Mentoring," Science 255 (Mar. 13, 1992): 1368-69. Gregory, Vicki L. "Electronic Mentoring of LIS Research Utilizing BITNET: An ACRLPilot Project," in Networking, Telecommunications, and the Networked Information Revolution: Proceedings of the ASIS Mid-Year Meeting, May 28-30, 1992, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Silver Springs, Md.: Ameri- can Society for Information Science, 1992): 155-64. --. Electronic Mentoring of Research (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 336 113, 1991). Kaye, Anthony R., ed. Collaborative Learning through Computer Conferencing: The Najaden Papers (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992). Moore, G. Robert. "Computer to Computer: Mentoring Possibilities," Educational Leadership 49 (Nov. 1991): 40. Nofsinger, Mary M., and Angela S. W. Lee. "Beyond Orientation: The Roles of Senior Librarians in Training Entry-Level Reference Colleagues," College & Research Libraries News 55 (Mar. 1994): 161-70. 'Only kfinolta has a copJzng system that ilamages books nevermore!'' -EDGARALLANPOE Introducing the Minolta DPCS 3000 If Poe had to copy his original manuscript of "The Raven" the DPCS 3000 would have him waxing poetic. Because it's the face-up digital publication copying system that copies books gently, simply, quickly. Thanks to a unique face-up copying design, there's virtually no spine bending or brittle page breaking. Double-page spreads copy without curves or shadowed gutters. Photos and artwork reproduce to critical acclaim. Even 3-D objects are reproduced with precision. Digital imaging and laser technology make this a high speed operation. Plus, the DPCS 3000 will soon write a new chapter with image storage, fax, e-mail and Internet service capabilities to meet your expanding needs. Did we tell you about our service and expertise in copying and digital imaging? We don't want to give the whole story away. Call 1-800-9-MINOLTA for more information about the most novel idea in copying. Digital Publication Copying System 3000 Copiers Cameras F~~Xa Digital Systems IJot:utMnt 1l • Ctunco,.;;r" Binoculars Color Sensors Only from the mind ofMinolta MINOLTA