Fennewald.indd Research Productivity Among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publications at Penn State Joseph Fennewald Librarians at the Pennsylvania State University are consistently among the most published in academic library journals.This study explored the fac- tors contributing to research productivity among a cross section of Penn State librarians. Personal motivation, intellectual curiosity, and education were important factors in practice-, institutional-, and discipline-based research among the 38 librarians surveyed here. However, being part of an institution, where everyone is expected to participate in research, may be the most critical factor. tudies of research productiv- ity in library and information sciences o en place Pennsyl- vania State University among the top five institutions.1 (Only one other institution shares this distinction: the Uni- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.) The demands of promotion and tenure, along with institutional support—in travel funds and research grants—contribute to this accomplishment. The question arises, however, whether meeting institutional expectations is the only reason librarians conduct research and publish. Similarly, is institutional support alone responsible for librarians’ success? This study explores the various factors that contribute to active research among Penn State librarians. Previous research has identified sev- eral institutional factors that contribute to librarians’ research success. Faculty status and corresponding research expectations are o en cited as one major reason.2 In- stitutional support in funding and release time is also thought to be critical.3 In ad- dition, there have been studies of various institutional initiatives, such as mentoring programs,4 peer support groups,5 and research clubs;6 these initiatives appear to benefit most librarians with limited research experience. Personal factors may also explain the research success of some librarians. John M. Budd and Charles A. Seavey (1990) suggested that “individuals who are mo- tivated to write and publish likely gravi- tate to [doctoral] institutions where such activity is expected and valued.”7 Mickey Zemon and Alice Harrison Bahr (1998) discovered researchers in undergraduate institutional se ings, where publication is seldom required, publish “to share their innovation and/or concerns and to achieve recognition.”8 Educational train- ing is also viewed as an important factor. Dwight F. Burlingame and Joan Repp (1982) found that “academic librarians holding advanced degrees or doctorates are more likely to publish than those who do not hold these credentials.”9 Joseph Fennewald is Head Librarian at Penn State University – Hazleton Campus; e-mail: jaf23 @ psu.edu. 104 Research Productivity Among Librarians 105 Several authors have recommended that future studies concentrate on librar- ians’ research success within specific institutional se ings. Charles A. Schwartz (1991) encourages researchers to take: … a more interpretative approach in which productivity is investigated in the context of specific institu- tional surroundings. The aim of the inquiry would thus shi from dis- covering general ‘laws’ of research productivity, to understanding particular cases of effective factors in particular se ings.10 Ann C. Weller, Julie M. Hurd, and Ste- phen E. Wiberley, Jr. (1999) also identified the need for research that would further our understanding of “the relationship between the characteristics of an institu- tion and the publishing productivity of its librarians.”11 This study follows these recommendations. It looks at the personal and social factors within a specific insti- tutional se ing, that of Penn State, where librarians are expected to participate in, and the Libraries provide support for, research endeavors. Methodology Although previous studies have gathered information with self-administered ques- tionnaires, no one has conducted personal interviews with research-practitioners. Using this method allows librarians to describe in their own words what mo- tivates them to conduct research; what programs, experiences, or support they have found useful; and what hindrances they have faced. Tenured and tenure-track librarians at Penn State’s 24 campuses were sent a le er describing the study and asking whether they would agree to a one-hour interview. Of the 85 eligible librarians, 77 responded affirmatively, suggesting a high level of interest in the study.12 Of these 77, four librarians were selected for pilot interviews. (Pretest interviews had already been conducted with faculty members in other fields to develop the interview structure and master the me- chanics of tape-recording the sessions.) Initially, 25 librarians were randomly se- lected from the 73 remaining volunteers. Because the distance between the main campus at University Park and the other 23 campus locations ranges from 44 to 227 miles, other librarians in the vicinity of a randomly selected interviewee were contacted to secure more interviews that day. Thus, another 13 librarians were added to the randomly selected 25. Interviews were conducted between March and June 2005. They usually took place at the respondent’s home campus. An interview guide was created to explore previously identified factors thought to contribute to research success. (See Appen- dix: Interview Guide.) Each question had a series of probes to further explore each fac- tor.13 However, rather than directly ques- tion respondents about specific factors, they were encouraged to describe their own experience with a research project. How they selected research topics, what institutional resources were used, what difficulties they encountered, and what ad- vice they would give new librarians were commonly explored topics. Respondents were encouraged to elaborate on any areas that were particularly important to them. It is important to note that the interviews were intentionally informal. Narratives or accounts in the person’s own words were sought rather than quantifiable data.14 Institutional Setting As part of a research institution, Penn State University Libraries places considerable importance on research among its librar- ians. Librarians have faculty status at Penn State and are required to conduct research and present their findings whatever their campus location in the statewide system of libraries. The Promotion and Tenure (P&T) Criteria do not specify the number or type of publications, but there is an expectation that librarians should strive for single-au- thored articles in peer-reviewed journals and that these publications should reflect http:study.12 http:se�ings.10 106 College & Research Libraries March 2008 their primary library assignment. A er tenure, research and scholarly activities remain an important component of the librarian’s annual performance evalua- tion. In addition, “all tenured faculty are reviewed during the seventh year a er gaining tenure, their most recent promo- tion, or a er the last extended review.”15 These post-tenure reviews also evaluate the librarian’s research activities. The Libraries support librarians in their research endeavors in several ways. Every librarian receives a fixed amount of money to attend conferences and professional development workshops. They can also apply for additional funds for travel and research through several internal grants. In April 2004, the Libraries developed a formal mentoring program, which as- signs a mentor to new colleagues. The mentor is expected to “help new faculty members understand the promotion and tenure process, the culture of the Libraries and Pennsylvania State University, and expand the new faculty member’s knowl- edge of other areas of the Libraries.”16 Although there is no formal policy, librarians can negotiate with their imme- diate supervisor for time away from the reference or public service desk, or techni- cal service duties, for research activities. Tenured librarians are also eligible for sabbaticals. Finally, the Library Faculty Organiza- tion (LFO), which represents faculty in the governance structure, provides additional sup- port. The LFO Faculty Af- fairs Commi ee organizes an annual P&T workshop, which typically includes several presentations on conducting and publish- ing research. A second commi ee, the Research Committee, distributes requests for paper and conference presentation proposals to LFO mem- bers and sponsors a col- loquium at which librarians can present their research. Librarian Profile In many ways the librarians interviewed were similar to all Penn State librarians but there were also notable differences. The average number of years at Penn State was the same for both groups. In addition, the percentage of librarians interviewed at satellite campuses with only one other librarian was very similar. However, the profile of the 38 participating librarians differs from all Penn State librarians in several ways. As shown in table 1, there were fewer women interviewed (47% versus 56%) but more tenured librarians (76% versus 65%). In addition, the librarians who were in- terviewed had slightly more publications on average than Penn State librarians as a whole. The number of publications was determined by checking the Library Lit- erature Index for articles published in the 36 core journals identified in Budd and Seavey’s 1990 study on library research productivity.17 Only articles published after the librarian’s start date at Penn State were counted. If coauthored, each author was equally credited based on the number of authors. For example, an article with three authors was counted as one-third for each author. The 38 librar- ians interviewed had an average of 2.3 articles in these journals compared to 1.9 articles for all Penn State librarians. (See TABLE 1 A Profile of all Penn State Librarians and of those Interviewed Characteristics All Librarians Interviewees Years at Penn State (Average) 12 12 Satellite Campus* 17% 16% Female 56% 47% Tenured 65% 76% Number of Librarians 86 38 *Satellite campus is a term created by the author to identify the 15 campuses with only two librarians. http:productivity.17 Research Productivity Among Librarians 107 table 2, “Publications in Core Journals by Penn State Librarians.”) The proportion of librarians with no publications in the core journals was similar for both groups (27% and 24%). However, the proportion of interviewees with more than three published articles was greater for the in- terviewees (37% versus 26%). Thus, there is a slight bias in the interviews. Tenured male librarians who have successfully published in core library journals are be er represented. Arguably, authorship of core journal articles is only one measure of research productivity. Publishing articles in o t h e r r e f e r e e d j o u r n a l s , a u t h o r i n g books, contributing to edited volumes, and giving conference presentations are other indicators. Fortunately, 32 of the 38 respondents provided the author with a copy of their curriculum vitae. In addition to their 82 core journal articles, these librarians authored 58 articles in other refereed journals. They have also wri en or edited 28 books and contrib- uted 105 chapters in books, proceedings, or encyclopedias. Furthermore, three have served as journal editors, seven have sat on editorial boards, and four have wri en regular feature columns in professional publications. They have wri en over 220 book reviews and have given approximately 430 conference pre- sentations. Thus, core journal publication appears to be strongly associated with other indicators. TABLE 2 Publications in Core Journals by All Penn State Librarians and by Interviewees Core Publications All Librarians Interviewees 0 27% 24% 0.3 – 3.2 47% 39% 3.3 – 8.2 26% 37% Total Number of Publications 163 88 Average Number of Publications 1.9 2.3 Findings Motivation Significantly, no one interviewed indi- cated that P&T was the only reason they did research or that, having been awarded tenure, they no longer felt the need or the desire to do so. It may have been the initial reason; but many librarians found that they continued to conduct research and publish a er crossing the P&T line. As one librarian said, “Having been pushed for 4 to 5 years to write, it becomes a habit.” Similarly, several voiced doubts about whether they would have engaged in re- search if it were not expected of them, but now found it worthwhile. “I am not sure I would ever have started out thinking about problems that could be articulated into articles if I did not have P&T hang- ing over my head. However, having said that, I now love it and wish I could spend more time doing it,” commented another interviewee. While institutional expectations were initially very important, most respon- dents cited other reasons for doing re- search. Some clearly enjoy doing research and were a racted to their position at Penn State because of its research expec- tations. “I wanted to get to a place where not only is it accepted but expected and encouraged—that’s heaven!” Several viewed it as an expectation of being an academic librarian. “I have always seen librarianship and research as going hand in hand.” There were also those who felt a professional obligation because engagement in research strengthens and improves li- brary services. “The importance of research is to identify new knowledge that will enhance practice.” Many librarians were moti- vated by an intellectual curiosity, “If you find the right question, you want to pursue it,” or a personal sense of satisfaction. “I feel like I really accomplished something. That I have learned something in the process of do- 108 College & Research Libraries March 2008 ing the research and writing about it.” There was also the reluctantly admi ed pleasure of being recognized. “Being cited gave me great satisfaction.” Research Agendas As expected, most librarians interviewed described their research as practice-based. “Everything I have done is based firmly on practice. I don’t have ideas that just come to me that don’t relate to what I am doing.” They saw their research as being applicable to daily operations and resulting in be er service. “My research developed to improve services.” The prevalence of practice-based research was also due in part to the ease with which it could be incorporated into one’s primary assignment. “The more of what you do on the day-to-day basis that can fit into what you publish, the more likely you are to complete those projects.” There were also librarians whose research could be better described as institutional-based. Institutional-based research originates from one’s position or the programs and services unique to Penn State University Libraries. Several main campus librarians acknowledged the benefits of being one of only a handful of librarians nationally in their subject area. As such, they described their position as giving them “a wide array of things to write about. Every project that I’m work- ing on could be turned into an article or presentation.” They o en spoke of the importance of their research in helping smaller libraries who did not have a li- brarian with their subject expertise. Thus, a report on preparing materials to be moved from circulation to storage by the Preservation Librarian, for example, was seen as having value to libraries that are faced with this process but do not have a full-time librarian in such a position. In addition to institutional-based publications originating from a highly specialized position, there were also librarians whose publications developed out of a task force or special project. (This was more common at the main campus than the branch campuses.18) As one librarian reported, “One of the first things I worked on when I came here was the result of a task force.” Having one’s research develop out of a special project was viewed as particularly beneficial for librarians with limited research experi- ence. It o en provided them with op- portunities to collaborate with librarians more knowledgeable about the research process. Indeed, several task force or com- mi ees structure their activities with the goal of eventually achieving a research publication. “You have already started the research by finding out the best practices. You may call people or post a question to a listserv or read some articles. You probably will do all of these things—but that’s the literature review!” Given the time and energy invested in commi ee appointments, many expressed the value of converting this work into publications whenever possible. The interviews also revealed a third type of research among Penn State librarians. It could be described as dis- cipline-based research and reflects the librarian’s academic subject interests and education. “My interest in [research area] goes back to my time in graduate school.” Librarians who conduct discipline-based research o en talked of spending years examining an issue. They o en traced their research back to their thesis or dis- sertation in an academic field other than library science. Their research was further developed during their initial years of practice—even if those years were not at Penn State. “When I look at all of the col- lege courses I had, the degrees I earned, and the experiences I had, this brings it all together.” They described discussing ideas and concepts in their subject areas with scholars who may not be librarians. Although they have published in refereed journals, their accomplishments will not necessarily appear in library research productivity lists because they are pub- lishing outside the field of library and information sciences. These librarians more closely resembled the teaching fac- http:campuses.18 Research Productivity Among Librarians 109 ulty who were interviewed as part of the pretest. Each of those four faculty mem- bers stated that their research developed from their dissertation. Even if they were no longer doing research on that author or that period of history, they could link their new endeavors to their earlier work. Practice-, institutional-, and discipline- based research are not exclusive of one another. Indeed, librarians may have publications in all three areas. However, librarians with discipline-based research clearly viewed it as a product of their education, while librarians successful in publishing practice- or institutional-based research seldom cited their educational background as a contributing factor. Education Several librarians credited their educa- tional training and preparation for their research skills. Those who did typically gave credit to an earlier degree in English or History rather than Library Science. These librarians appreciated the writing- intensive nature of the degree program they completed. Those who majored in History, moreover, described the rigor- ous demands of a research methodology course as contributing to their success as researchers. “The library degree gave me the resources. What helped from my his- tory degree is how to do research, how to write to a specific topic, what you want to say. Writing, re-writing, and critiquing in the historical methods class was invalu- able.” Librarians who cited their graduate degree in library science as helpful were more likely to express appreciation for instructors who were actively engaged in research themselves and thereby served as role models. “The professors modeled very positive a itudes about research and why it is valuable.” Librarians with doctorates—whatever the field—distinguished themselves by their confidence in research methodolo- gies. “A Ph.D. is a research degree—that’s the whole point!” They approached prob- lems from a research perspective. “You start with your research question and a er reading and thinking about it you develop a hypothesis. If you don’t have a hypothesis, you don’t have much.” They credited their education as good prepara- tion for doing research. Although education was frequently cited by interviewees, when core journal publications are examined it has li le seeming influence. Librarians with an MLS degree averaged only 2.5 articles compared to 2.7 for those with a second master’s and 2.5 for those with doctor- ates. However, when other refereed publications, books, and parts of books are considered, the average number of publications increases with education. As illustrated in table 3, librarians with a library science graduate degree had on average only 6.5 publications; those with a second master’s, 9.4; and those holding a doctorate, 10.9. This supports Burlin- game and Repp’s finding that librarians holding advanced degrees are more likely to publish—when one considers all publications.19 TABLE 3 Average Number of Publications by Education (CV Subsample) Education MLS Only 2nd Master’s Doctorate Core Journals 2.5 2.7 2.5 Additional Refereed Journals 1.4 2.3 2.0 Books 0.7 1.3 0.7 Parts of Books 1.9 3.1 5.7 Average Number of Publications 6.5 9.4 10.9 Number of Librarians 14 9 9 http:publications.19 110 College & Research Libraries March 2008 Writing All librarians in this study enjoyed the exploration of solutions to problems and the search for information—the research process. However, when it came to writ- ing, the responses varied. A few found it easy because of their years of writing or their educational training. “Writing is not difficult for me; I came from a college that was writing intensive.” Most, however, found writing hard work, “just holy hell!” Even successful researchers with academ- ic backgrounds in English would describe their difficulties. “Writing has always been extremely painful. It doesn’t come easy. The English background helped but the only way to be a good writer is to write and to keep doing it.” One of the most frequent sugges- tions made to new librarians by the respondents, as well as others, is to ask a colleague to read a dra before submit- ting it for publication. Surprisingly, few librarians followed their own advice, though there were exceptions. When writing about a new service, authors o en shared early dra s with their colleagues who helped create the service. Generally, however, librarians found their coworkers to be too kind when critiquing their writ- ing; they were too supportive and failed to give the critical feedback needed. “I have difficulty finding someone to read dra s because I think [my colleagues] are too kind and would not be critical of anything I write.” It was also difficult for some librarians to share early dra s. “It’s embarrassing, especially when you know it’s not quite right but you need another point of view. You really need someone you can trust and not think too badly of you because your writing is so poor.” Several librarians did not feel they needed to have someone read an article before submi ing it to a journal. “I don’t usually have anyone read dra s. I go over my work two to three times. Everything that I have ever submi ed has been taken as is or had very minor revisions.” These librarians often relied directly on the journal editor or reviewers. “That’s really their job.” Most respondents credited reviewers’ comments for strengthening their articles. “I have a be er article as a result. It forced me to think harder and do more in-depth analysis and I am glad for that.” Some librarians also described disagreements with reviewers and suc- cessfully defended their work. Only a few found reviewers’ comments to be too tough or critical. It was interesting to learn how many li- brarians relied on their spouse, significant other, or children to proofread an article. “My children are very good proof-read- ers. Plus, they get it back to me on time.” Yet, some recognized the strain in these requests. “My husband reads my work before I send it off. I don’t have him read everything—that would be cruel and unusual!” Finding Time Writing is labor-intensive. Given the demands of their positions, almost all librarians interviewed identified time as the major hindrance to accomplish- ing research. “What I lack is the time to write” or “I usually tell people that I have got a job and a half” were common senti- ments. Finding time required ingenuity, discipline—and diplomacy. Librarians differed greatly in their writing habits. Some followed a regular routine for writing, se ing aside time ev- ery morning or evening or taking one day a week to write at the library or off cam- pus. Others followed a more haphazard approach, finding time whenever their schedules permi ed. “If I want to write something, I will come in and try to sched- ule some time in the morning and just blitz through it.” Some designated time over the summer. “I need one day a week during the summer to write an article.” Others indicated that they blocked out a period of time only when they are close to finishing a project. “When I am ready to write the article, I typically stay at home for a week.” Flexibility in schedules was seen as particularly valuable by many. “If I had to be in the library from 9 to 5, I Research Productivity Among Librarians 111 would not have been able to produce half as much as what I have done.” There is no formal policy at Penn State regarding released time for research. Rather, this is negotiated with one’s im- mediate supervisor and colleagues. This informal practice is extremely helpful. It accommodates and recognizes the unique writing habits of the librarian researcher. Supportive Environment All of the respondents had a clear under- standing of Penn State’s research require- ments and the support available. Most had utilized funds to a end conferences. Several were recipients of the Libraries’ research grants. Many had received addi- tional support, such as research assistants, special equipment, so ware packages, or acquisition of research materials. P&T workshops and posted calls for papers and presentations were mentioned by many as helpful. In addition, several interviewees have taken sabbaticals and valued that experience. “My sabbatical was a defining moment. I enjoyed the intellectual activity of taking apart a question and reading the literature around it.” Because interviews were conducted only one year a er the Libraries estab- lished this program in 2004, and only a few of the librarians interviewed had had meetings with their assigned mentor, it was too early to assess the success of the new mentoring program. In many ways, however, the new mentoring program only formalized informal practices al- ready present. Previously, some supervi- sors, on their own initiative, assigned a mentor to a new librarian. Some librarians reported seeking out someone to help them become familiar with the research expectations. Having a mentor provided opportunities to explore research ideas, get advice on where to publish, share frustrations, and create timelines to work on projects. As one librarian reported, “We started out meeting monthly and at the very first meeting she said ‘By the next time we meet, I want you to have some research ideas.’” In addition to having a mentor, there were numerous stories of librarians helping one another informally. As one librarian recalled, “Someone helped me so I feel like I need to do that for others.” Those with tenure o en expressed an ob- ligation to junior colleagues. “I feel that it is my duty to be a mentor for people who haven’t wri en an article.” In describing the role of the tenured librarian helping new colleagues, one librarian said, “Obli- gation makes it sound negative. I think it is a privilege.” There were various stories about how this help was given. “Within a few months of being here [someone] sent me an e-mail saying ‘Here’s a really interesting topic that you may want to pursue.’” Librarians serving as editors for books or special journals would request contributions from colleagues. Tenured librarians would seek out an untenured librarian to coauthor a publication and were o en willing to relinquish lead au- thorship to them. “[Librarian] is the point person, the lead to pull it all together, because she is on the tenure-track.” Several stated that they also benefited from being surrounded by librarians who were actively engaged in research. “Ev- erybody is deeply immersed in research. So, the more people [who] are doing it, the more it feeds off each other.” Likewise, the environment was generally seen as supportive. “When I was interviewed and met with the P&T commi ee, they stressed how collaborative it was. When I came here, I was pleasantly surprised to find out how true it was.” Many saw the administration and their colleagues as wanting them to succeed. As one among many respondents observed, the Library’s administration will do whatever they can to help their staff be successful researchers. “The a itude is ‘if we hire you, we want you to get tenure six years from now.’” Conclusion Previous research has concentrated on the impact of specific factors contribut- ing to publication productivity. These 112 College & Research Libraries March 2008 have shown that librarians at institutions where research is expected as a require- ment for promotion and tenure publish more. Likewise, it has been thought that in-house programs (such as writing sup- port groups) benefit librarians in their research endeavors. This qualitative study adds to the literature by identifying a range of factors that are significant. As one of the leading institutions in library research, Penn State is an appropriate se ing for this investigation. Penn State expects its librarians to conduct research. It is a requirement of the promotion and tenure process as well as part of the librarian’s annual review. Limited financial support is available to a end conferences and to defray the costs of research. Additional support comes from competitive research grants. There is no formal policy on released time to conduct research because it is seen as part of one’s duties and responsibilities. Although one cannot underestimate the influence of promotion and tenure and annual evaluations, this study also found personal factors motivated librar- ians to undertake research. For instance, most of the librarians in the narratives reviewed here expressed a commit- ment to add to the body of professional knowledge. Others spoke of their desire to enhance and expand services within the library, their intellectual curiosity, or a sense of satisfaction with the outcome of “being published.” Formal research training also appears to be a factor, but its lack, “librarians are not trained in this type of work,” does not prevent librarians from being ac- complished researchers. From a limited sample of curriculum vita, librarians with a Master’s in Library Science published the same number of core journal articles on average as those with a second master’s or a doctorate. However, earning a degree in a writing-intensive discipline, such as History or English, did give many librar- ians valuable research training. Such a de- gree contributed to a sense of confidence in their writing and research skills. It is only when one considers all publications (books, parts of books, and other refereed journals) that having a doctorate appears to influence productivity. Possibly the most significant factor at Penn State was the collegial support conveyed in formal and informal mentor- ing. Even before the formalization of a mentoring program, Penn State librarians had been mentoring one another. Sugges- tions for possible publications, leads to publications, willingness to collaborate reflected a well-established camaraderie achieved among librarians collectively engaged in research. Librarians who are motivated to do research and publish appreciate being surrounded by like col- leagues. “Everyone is deeply immersed in research. So, the more people are doing it, the more it feeds off each other. It builds synergy.” Even librarians lacking research confidence have found it supportive. As one librarian said, “No one indicated that [research] would be easy, but everyone indicated that it was doable and that they had every confidence that I would be able to do it.” For those lacking confidence, the demands of promotion and tenure pushed them in new directions. “I may not have dived into the pool without that initial push.” Even with the difficulty many have writing and finding the time to do so, one can be successful and come to share what one librarian described as “a love for research.” As illustrated by these interviews, librarians who are self- motivated to do research and publish, as well as those who lack confidence and research experience, benefit from a colle- gial environment in which involvement in research and publication is normative. Moreover, this collegial climate sup- ports diverse research styles and agendas. Penn State does not have a prescriptive formula of research support. Research is expected, but how it must be done is le to the individual librarian. Released time for research, whether it be daily, weekly, or during breaks, for example, is negoti- ated with colleagues and supervisors. Nor are the contents of research agendas Research Productivity Among Librarians 113 prescribed; practice-, institutional-, and This is but one case study. Further discipline-based are all valued. Thus, the studies should be conducted at other full range of styles and interests found in institutions to provide comparative this qualitative study are facilitated. data. Notes 1. John M. Budd and Charles A. Seavey, “Characteristics of Journal Authorship by Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 51 (Sept. 1990): 463–70; Ann C. Weller, Julie M. Hurd, and Stephen E. Wiberley, Jr., “Publication Pa erns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1993 to 1997,” College & Research Libraries 60 (Jul. 1999): 352–62; “University Science Indicators: Library and In- formation Science: Most Prolific U. S. Universities, 1999–2003,” In-cites. Available online at www. in-cites.com/research/ 2005/april_11_2005-1.html. [Accessed 20 May 2005]; Stephen E. Wiberley, Jr., Julie M. Hurd, and Ann C. Weller, “Publication Pa erns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1998 to 2002,” College & Research Libraries 67 (May 2006): 205–16. 2. Dwight F. Burlingame and Joan Repp, “Factors Associated with Academic Librarians’ Pub- lishing in the ’70s: Prologue for the ’80s,” in Options for the 80s: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College & Research Libraries, eds. Michael D. Kathman and Virgil F. Massman (Greenwood, Conn.: JAI Press, 1982), 395–404; Sylvia C. Krause and Janice F. Sieburth, “Pa erns of Authorship in Library Journals by Academic Librarians,” Serials Librarian 9 (Spring 1985): 127–38; Betsy Park and Robert Riggs, “Tenure and Promotion: A Study of Practices by Institutional Type,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (May 1993): 72–77; Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville, “Research, Publication, and Service Pa erns of Florida Academic Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 30 (Nov. 2004): 435–51. 3. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, “Scholarship and the Academic Librarian,” College & Research Libraries 55 (May 1994): 229–41; Kathleen Kenny, Linda D. Tietjen, and Rutherford W. Wi hus, “Increasing Scholarly Productivity Among Library Faculty: Strategies for a Medium-Sized Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16 (Nov. 1990): 276–79; Charles A. Schwartz, “Research Productivity and Publication Output: An Interdisciplinary Analysis,” College & Research Libraries 52 (Sept. 1991): 414–24; W. Michael Havener and Wilbur A. Stolt, “The Professional Development Activities of Academic Librarians: Does Institutional Support Make a Difference?” College & Research Libraries 55 (Jan. 1994): 25–36. 4. Sue Johnston and Coralie McCormack, “Developing Research Potential Through a Struc- tured Mentoring Program: Issues Arising,” Higher Education 33 (Apr. 1997): 251–64; Lois Kuyper- Rushing, “A Formal Mentoring Program in a University Library: Components of a Successful Experiment,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27 (Nov. 2001): 440–46. 5. John A. Camp, David G. Anderson, and Anne Page Mosby, “In the Same Boat Together: Creating an Environment for Research and Publication,” in Building on the First Century: Pro- ceedings of the Fi h National Conference of the Association of College & Research Libraries, eds. Janice C. Fennell (Chicago: ACRL, 1989), 9–11; Jeannie P. Miller and Candace R. Benefiel, “Academic Librarians and the Pursuit of Tenure: The Support Group as a Strategy for Success,” College & Research Libraries 59 (May 1998): 260–65; Richard Sapon-White, Valery King, and Anne Christie, “Supporting a Culture of Scholarship for Academic Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4 (2004): 407–21. 6. Darrell L. Jenkins, M. Kathleen Cook, and Mary Anne Fox, “Research Development of Academic Librarians: One University’s Approach,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 7 (May 1981): 83–86; Kathleen Kenny, Linda D. Tietjen, and Rutherford W. Wi hus, “Increasing Scholarly Productivity Among Library Faculty: Strategies for a Medium-Sized Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16 (Nov. 1990): 276–79. 7. Budd and Seavey, “Characteristics of Journal Authorship by Academic Librarians,” 465. 8. Mickey Zemon and Alice Harrison Bahr, “An Analysis of Articles by College Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 59 (Sept. 1998): 422–32. 9. Burlingame and Repp, “Factors Associated with Academic Librarians’ Publishing in the ’70s,” 403. 10. Schwartz, “Research Productivity and Publication Output,” 420 11. Weller, Hurd, and Wiberley, “Publication Pa erns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1993 to 1997,” 360. 12. Librarians at the law library, medical school, and technical training school were omi ed because of their unique circumstances in the Promotion and Tenure process. 13. John Lofland and Lyn H. Lofland, Analyzing Social Se ings: A Guide to Qualitative Observa- 114 College & Research Libraries March 2008 tion and Analysis, 3rd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1995), 82–83. 14. Noriko Hara, Paul Solomon, Seung-Lye Kim, and Diane H. Sonnewald, “An Emerging View of Scientific Collaboration: Scientists’ Perspectives on Collaboration and Factors That Impact Collaboration,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54 (Aug. 2003): 952–65; Lofland and Lofland, Analyzing Social Se ings. 15. Penn State University Libraries Human Resources, “Guideline UL-HRG01 Periodic Ex- tended Reviews for Tenured Faculty” (Dec. 6, 2000) [Internal document]. 16. Nancy L. Eaton, Le er describing new mentoring program along with a ached documents (Mentoring Program Description, Apr. 26, 2004). 17. Budd and Seavey, “Characteristics of Journal Authorship by Academic Librarians.” 18. Librarians at satellite campuses with only one other librarian—and thus fewer opportunities for collaboration—had fewer publications. On average, these librarians (15) had 0.5 publications in the core journals versus 2.1 publications for all other librarians (71). 19. Burlingame and Repp, “Factors Associated with Academic Librarians’ Publishing in the ’70s.” Research Productivity Among Librarians 115 Appendix: Interview Guide Introduction Is using the tape recorder okay? • There are 2 copies of the consent form. Could you read one of them, and if it is all right, sign it and give it to me. You can keep the other copy. Brief explanation of the study The study is about the research process. I am looking at the various factors that aid and hinder one in doing research. In the interview, I will be asking you to describe a specific project—how you selected the topic, conducted the research, and wrote your findings. We’ll start by looking at just one project. Is this clear? Are there any questions you would like to ask me before we begin? Interview Guide What research project would you like to discuss?  Based on a review of your curriculum vitae, is this one appropriate or would you like to choose another one? How did you become interested in this topic?  Personal observations  Previous research 1  Triggered by something read (journals, listservs, magazine) 1  Conference 1  Water cooler What did you do next? How did you proceed?  Readings 1  Discussions When did you realize that you had something that could lead to publication?  Confirmation from others 1  Self-recognition 1 Did you feel prepared to do the research?  Education o Academic achiever o Good writing skills 1  Professional development activities 1  Collaboration  Consultation with colleagues or faculty 1 o Reliance on others to assist in weak areas What helped you in doing the research?  Institutional demand 1 o Promotion and tenure 1 o Peer pressure 1  Institutional support o Release time 1 116 College & Research Libraries March 2008 o Sabbaticals 1 o Funding 1  Opportunities to discuss research with others 1 o Library colleagues 1 o Faculty 1 o Mentors 1 o Friends or family members 1 When do you find time to conduct research?  Amount of time spent on the project 1  Time management issues 1  Is your present position conducive to research? 1 What hinders you in doing research?  A itude toward professional literature 1  Institutional expectations 1 What aspect of the research did you enjoy most?  Reviewing the literature 1  Discussing problem with colleague 1  Writing 1  Seeing it in print 1  Sense of accomplishment 1 What impact has the research had on you, your work, or the profession? Let me summarize what you have said. Is this process similar to previous experience?