458 Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries Catherine Sassen and Diane Wahl Catherine Sassen is Principal Catalog Librarian and Diane Wahl is User Experience Librarian at Uni- versity of North Texas Libraries; e-mail: Catherine.Sassen@unt.edu and Diane.Wahl@unt.edu. © 2014 Catherine Sassen and Diane Wahl, Attribution-NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0/) CC BY-NC. This study concerns administrative support provided to encourage the research and publishing activities of academic librarians working in As- sociation of Research Libraries member libraries. Deans and directors of these libraries were asked to respond to an online survey concern- ing the support measures that their libraries provide, as well as their thoughts on support measures that academic libraries should provide. When compared to earlier studies, the survey results indicate that most support measures have grown over time. Results also suggest increases in the requirements for publication in academic libraries, as well as in the number of libraries at which librarians have faculty status. esearch and publication are included in the requirements for promotion and tenure or continuing appointment at many academic libraries. How- ever, not all academic librarians are prepared to meet these requirements because of time constraints and a lack of training. In many cases, academic librarians received little or no training in research meth- odology or scholarly writing in their graduate library education.1 A 2010 study of 49 library and information sciences programs accredited by the American Library Asso- ciation revealed that only 61 percent of the programs required their students to take a research methods course.2 An academic librarian who has not written a thesis or dissertation almost certainly has a less rigorous educational background in research methods than the typical teaching faculty member. In most cases, the typical teaching faculty member acquired research skills by designing and conducting research, and then by documenting and defending this research in a doctoral dissertation. A faculty member who has gone through this process benefits in several ways.3 The process of preparing a dissertation provides experience in research, writing, and scholarship that is much more extensive than the usual graduate school research paper. The dissertation may be reworked into a series of articles and may serve as a platform for further research. The dissertation advisors help the student assimilate into academia by serving as writing and research mentors as well as academic coaches. This graduate education experience prepares students for the rights and responsibilities of faculty membership by stressing the values of academic freedom, scientific norms, research methodology, and the ethics of scholarship.4 crl13-447doi:10.5860/crl.75.4.458 Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 459 The emphasis in library school is not on producing scholars but on producing pro- fessionals to serve in a variety of library settings.5 Courses such as research methods are usually open to students who will work in a variety of settings, including school libraries, public libraries, special libraries, academic libraries, and information tech- nology. Library school faculty members typically focus on teaching various skills, not on preparing students to assimilate into the research culture of academia. 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. A study by Sare, Bales, and Neville acknowledged the difficulty that many new academic librarians have in assimilating into academia.6 The researchers interviewed a group of new academic librarians to explore their perceptions of the profession of librarianship. They reported that all of the tenure-track academic librarians “did not appear to know what to make of tenure” and that their “attitude toward publication was one of ambivalence.”7 In a 2010 study of academic librarians, Kennedy and Brancolini found that only 26 percent of 815 respondents believed that their master’s degree programs in library and information science “adequately prepared them to conduct original research.”8 Time is another factor that affects academic librarians’ research productivity. Many academic librarians have 12-month appointments, unlike teaching faculty members who usually have 9-month appointments. Furthermore, most academic librarians have a “relatively inflexible schedule” every term because of their work responsibilities on campus in direct support of library services.9 When academic librarians are required to take on research and publication activities in addition to job responsibilities and service obligations, they may find that they are facing much more work than can fit in a 40-hour workweek. However, studies of teaching faculty have revealed that their workweeks also may exceed 40 hours. According to the 2004 National Study of Postsec- ondary Faculty, full-time instructional faculty and staff in all types of higher education institutions report working an average of 53.4 hours per week.10 Boice, Scepanski, and Wilson studied the schedules of librarians with full faculty status at a large university and compared them to those of teaching faculty members at two similar institutions.11 The investigators found that the “core activities and other requirements” of both groups usually filled most hours in their workweeks.12 Although librarians reported that they worked more hours on campus each week than teaching faculty, the teaching faculty reported spending time at home on teaching-related activities, such as grading papers, writing syllabi, and preparing lectures. Both groups indicated that they did not have sufficient time for research. These findings suggest that time is a concern in academia, and not just in academic libraries. Administrative support is a key factor in fostering the scholarly productivity of librarians. As Black and Leyson stated, “If we are to expect librarians to contribute within the faculty structure in the areas of professional practice, scholarship and service, then we must be prepared to provide the structure necessary for success.”13 Literature Review Few researchers have investigated the administrative support measures provided by Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries to encourage the research and publishing activities of librarians. Rayman and Goudy published the earliest significant study on this topic in 1980.14 They surveyed 94 ARL academic libraries and received responses from 68 (72%). The authors found that 10 percent of all libraries allowed librarians to receive release time for research, as opposed to 17 percent of libraries with faculty status. A total of 23 percent of all libraries allowed librarians to apply for research funding within the library, as opposed to 33 percent of faculty-status 460 College & Research Libraries May 2014 libraries. Finally, 31 percent of all libraries had library research committees, as opposed to 67 percent of the libraries with faculty status. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan conducted a survey of ARL academic library directors in 1987 to determine the extent of support for publishing.15 Responses were received from 85 of 97 libraries, constituting a response rate of 87.6 percent. Release time for publication activities was available to librarians at 96 percent of institutions requiring publication for promotion, and at 80.4 percent of institutions not requiring publication for promotion. Only 17 percent of respondents indicated that their librar- ies provided committee or staff assistance to aid librarians in publishing. The most typical forms of support provided for publishing included secretarial assistance, office supplies, computer time, and statistical support. No comprehensive follow-up surveys to the Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan study have been published. Although other surveys of ARL academic libraries have concerned librarian research support, they have focused on various subpopulations of librarians or libraries. A 2002 survey of research support at ARL libraries focused on entry-level librarians.16 Black and Leysen surveyed entry-level librarians and their deans and directors at 111 ARL academic libraries. They received responses from 63 institutions, constituting a response rate of 56 percent. The authors indicated that release time for professional development or conference attendance “is normally provided as part of the regular week” but did not provide any details. Only 28 percent of responding librarians indi- cated that they had had a formal mentor. A 2010 survey was limited to the deans and directors of ARL academic libraries at which tenure was awarded to librarians.17 Blessinger and Costello conducted this survey to determine if budget cuts had affected the support received by tenure-track librarians. Responses were received from 25 of 43 institutions, constituting a 58 percent response rate. More than half (52%) of the respondents reported that their institutions had decreased their financial support for travel and conference attendance. Nearly two thirds (62%) of respondents indicated that workloads for faculty had increased, resulting in less time for research, publication. and service activities. Other surveys concerning support for the research and publishing activities of academic librarians have not been restricted to ARL institutions. Some studies have been limited to specific geographic locations, including California, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and Canada.18 Additional surveys have focused on par- ticular types of libraries, such as Carnegie research libraries and college libraries.19 The topics addressed most often in these studies are released time for research, sabbaticals, and research funding. Levels of support reported in these studies vary considerably, as do the ways in which the survey results are analyzed. Some of the highest levels of support were reported in a survey limited to librar- ians at Carnegie Research I and II institutions.20 Responses were received from 81 of 125 institutions, constituting a 65 percent response rate. The researchers found that several support measures varied according to the factor of faculty status for librar- ians.21 “Long term leave” and “short term leave” were available at 93 percent of faculty status institutions where publication was required for promotion. These types of leave also were available at 96 percent of faculty status institutions where publication was required for tenure. However, these types of leave were not available at non–faculty status institutions. Research funds were available at 86 percent of faculty status institu- tions where publication was required for promotion and at 88 percent of institutions where publication was required for tenure, but were not available at non–faculty status institutions. Sixty-three percent of all respondents indicated that their libraries had mentoring programs. The authors concluded that librarians’ status “affects the structure Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 461 and expectations in place for their appointment and advancement.” 22 A related pattern of research universities providing more support than other types of institutions was found in studies of academic libraries in Oklahoma and Florida.23 In the Florida study, support measures for librarian research activity were higher at graduate degree–grant- ing institutions than at baccalaureate colleges or associate colleges. In the Oklahoma study, support measures were highest at doctorate-granting institutions. The literature on librarian research support also includes many case studies about various collaborative methods used to encourage scholarship. These methods include mentoring arrangements and library research committees. Mentoring may support the research and publication activities of librarians in several ways. A mentor may suggest research directions and help the mentee focus on a research agenda.24 Other mentoring activities include recommending topics for publication and sharing information about publication opportunities.25 A mentor also may offer advice about how to balance research and other professional obli- gations and may help the mentee construct timelines for projects.26 In some cases, the mentor may edit the writing of the mentee or collaborate with the mentee on research projects.27 Mentoring arrangements may be informal or formal. Formal one-on-one mentor- ing programs include those at Louisiana State University, the University of Delaware, and the University of Kansas.28 Although many mentoring programs are designed to serve the needs of new or tenure-track librarians, the programs at the University of Delaware and the University of Kansas are intended to assist librarians at all levels of experience.29 A variation on the traditional mentoring model is found at California State University Long Beach, where three senior librarians offer assistance to a new librarian during the first six months of employment.30 The literature on mentoring suggests that programs are more likely to be successful if plans are well-defined, feedback is sought from participants, and programs are modified in response to feedback.31 Many case studies have described the activities of library research committees. These groups are organized to support the research and writing activities of librarians and have a variety of names, such as “Academic Writing Group,” “Peer Mentoring Group,” “Professional Advancement Group,” “Research Work Group,” or “Tenure Support Group.” Some of these groups concentrate on meeting the needs of junior or tenure-track librarians, such as those at the City University of New York, Texas A&M University, and the University at Buffalo.32 Other groups are open to any interested participants, such as the community of practice group at the University of Idaho.33 Library research committees may offer a variety of support measures for partici- pants. They may share calls for papers and presentations, as well as information about grant-funding opportunities.34 They also may disseminate information about research resources in the library collections and research methods courses offered on campus.35 The library research committee may provide instructional sessions about topics such as research methods, statistics, presentation skills, academic publishing, and the in- stitutional review board process.36 Some groups host discussions in which librarians have the opportunity to share updates on the progress of their research projects as well as findings from their research.37 The library research committee also may provide a working group environment in which librarians can get advice on various activities. For example, librarians may make presentations, display posters, and receive feedback on their work.38 They also may seek comments on research study ideas, grant applica- tions, and drafts of articles.39 Some library research committees focus primarily on writing. These groups meet periodically to identify and develop topics, write manuscripts, discuss their progress, and review the drafts of participants. Institutions with writing groups include the 462 College & Research Libraries May 2014 University of North Carolina at Greensboro, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the University of Memphis, and Oregon State University.40 A variation on the writing group is the critique group that reviews manuscripts upon request. For example, the Writers Group at Louisiana State University Libraries consists of four members who review and critique manuscripts submitted by other librarians.41 Another variation on the library research committee is the research funding commit- tee. These committees consist of only a few members, and their primary responsibilities are to allocate funds for research projects and organize events to promote research activities. For example, the Faculty Research Committee at Texas A&M University awards funds for research projects and organizes an annual research forum at which librarians present their research and receive feedback from their colleagues.42 The literature suggests that library research committee leaders should conduct periodic assessments of ongoing programs to determine if they are meeting the needs of partici- pants.43 Adjustments in programs may be required over time because the needs of the participants may vary, depending on the composition of the library faculty, their experience levels, and changing requirements for promotion and tenure or continuing appointment. The abundance of literature on librarian research support indicates widespread acknowledgement that new academic librarians need assistance in acclimating to the scholarly demands of their positions. The literature also suggests that academic libraries are offering professional development opportunities through a variety of strategies. Professional development is also a topic of perennial interest in the literature of higher education, and even is the focus of a peer-reviewed periodical entitled The Journal of Faculty Development. Although many professional development programs concentrate on instructional skills and educational technology, others concern support for research and publication activities. In The Research-Productive Department: Strategies from Departments That Excel, the authors review the professional literature on a variety of faculty development initiatives, including one-on-one mentoring, group mentoring, peer mentoring, support staff, research assistants, research funding, sabbaticals, and dedicated research time. 44 Professional development is a concern in higher education because faculty members face rising expectations concerning research and publication. In considerations regard- ing recruitment, promotion, and tenure, the emphasis on research and publication has increased over time.45 Schuster and Finkelstein compiled results from surveys of college and university faculty conducted from 1969 to 1997 by the Carnegie Commission, the Carnegie Council and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.46 In 1969, only 39.9 percent of full-time college and university faculty agreed that tenure is difficult to attain without research and publications, while 65 percent agreed in 1997. The trend is even clearer in universities, where 69.1 percent of faculty agreed with this statement in 1969, while 94.4 percent agreed with it in 1997. Methodology The objective of this study was to determine the extent of support provided by ARL libraries to encourage the research and publishing activities of librarians. This inves- tigation was designed to be a follow-up study to the research conducted by Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan in 1987.47 The following research questions were asked: 1. What types of support are provided by ARL academic libraries to foster the research and publishing activities of librarians? 2. What is the academic status of librarians at the responding libraries? 3. Is publication required for promotion and tenure or continuing contract at these libraries? Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 463 4. What counts as a publication at these libraries? 5. How do the results of this investigation compare to those of the 1987 study by Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan? The researchers expanded on the sixteen questions in the original survey by Cos- griff, Kenney, and McMillan and constructed an online survey consisting of thirty-five closed and open-ended questions (included in Appendix A).48 The survey was created with SurveyMonkey software.49 After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Texas, the survey was pilot-tested with a group of librarians in March 2011. The study population consisted of deans and directors of ARL academic libraries. ARL is a membership organization consisting of 125 North American research librar- ies, 115 of which are academic libraries.50 ARL academic libraries were chosen as the focus of the survey to be consistent with the previous study by Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan. ARL libraries are leaders in our profession and are recognized for the re- search and publication activities of their librarians. The Principles of Membership in the Association of Research Libraries indicate that a successful research library is known for “leadership and external contributions of the staff to the profession.”51 After the ARL website was used to identify the names of member libraries, the websites of member libraries were consulted to find the names and e-mail addresses of the deans and directors.52 During the summer of 2011, the researchers contacted the deans and directors of all of the 115 ARL academic libraries four times by e-mail and asked them to respond to the survey. The e-mail messages included a link to the anonymous survey, which was open from May 24 until September 13, 2011. Usable responses were received from 73 of 115 deans and directors, constituting a response rate of 63 percent. Although this figure is lower than the 87.6 percent response rate in the Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan study and the 72 percent response rate in the Ray- man and Goudy study, it nevertheless is adequate.53 An examination of the response rates in the ARL SPEC Kits consulted for this study indicated that this response rate is within the range of response rates for those publications.54 Limitations of This Study The population of this study was limited to deans and directors of ARL academic libraries. A response from the dean or director of an ARL academic library is a single response representing the entire library from an administrator’s perspective and may not reflect concerns of senior or junior librarians in that library. Another limitation of the study concerns the wording of a question about how many months librarians are expected to work in a given year. Most respondents (65, or 90.3%) reported a twelve-month work year, and the remaining libraries reported an eleven-month work year. However, since one comment indicated that the eleven- month work year did not include four weeks of vacation and another indicated that the twelve-month work year included twenty-two vacation days, it seems that the question may not have been interpreted the same way by all respondents. Respondents were dropped from the latter part of the survey if they indicated that they were opposed to requiring publication and were responding for institutions that do not require publication. They were not given the opportunity to respond to questions about what contributions count as publications at their libraries and how their libraries support research and publication. The decision was made to drop these libraries from the survey at this point because the goal of the survey was to determine the policies and support for librarian research and publication in ARL libraries that require it or have leadership that supports it. A limitation of this approach was that it excluded libraries that encourage publication without requiring it. 464 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Respondent Demographics Of the 73 ARL deans/directors who re- sponded, 49 (67.1%) represented public institutions; 24 (32.9%) were from private institutions. Forty (54.8%) respondents indicated that librarians at their institu- tions have faculty status; 18 (24.7%) clas- sify librarians as professional staff. The explanatory comments supplied by the remaining 15 libraries (20.5%) indicate that three of the institutions classify librar- ians as administrative staff, one classifies some librarians as faculty and others as staff, and the other eleven have some sort of hybrid faculty arrangement. A comparison of faculty status results with the data collected in the 1980 and 1987 studies suggests that classifying librarians as faculty is steadily increasing in ARL libraries. This comparison is displayed in figure 1.55 These results represent a 16.2 percent increase between 1987 and 2011 and a 19.5 percent increase between 1980 and 2011. Additionally, in 2011, the data clearly indicate that giving faculty status to librarians is primarily a public institution characteristic. This comparison is displayed in figure 2. Promotion to a higher rank is available at 66 (91.7%) of the responding libraries. The most frequently cited promotion criteria are job performance and service, both identified by 65 libraries (97%), followed closely by research, identified by 57 libraries (85.1%). Other criteria cited by individual respondents include collegiality, national prominence, teaching, professional development, impact on campus research and scholarship, and senior-level responsibility. The promotion decision is most frequently made by more than one individual, most commonly including the library dean/director, a library committee, and insti- tution administration such as the provost or president. “Other” was specified by 26 responding libraries. In their comments, five of these libraries indicated that the Board of Governors/Regents/Trustees has final approval of some or all promotions. Responses are displayed in order of frequency in figure 3. figure 1 faculty Status Over Time Year All Libraries Faculty Status Libraries Percent of Libraries with Faculty Status 1980 (n = 68) 68 24 35.3% 1987 (n = 83) 83 32 38.6% 2011 (n = 73) 73 40 54.8% 35.3% 38.6% 54.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1980 (n = 68) 1987 (n = 83) 2011 (n = 73) figure 2 Public vs. Private (n = 73) Private Public Private Count Public Count 6.8% 47.9% 5 35 32.9% 67.1% 24 49All responding libraries Faculty status libraries 6.8% 47.9% 32.9% 67.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Private Public All responding libraries Faculty status libraries Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 465 The most common employment agreement, identified by thirty-one (43.1%) responding libraries, is tenure, defined in the survey as a permanent employment contract awarded based on job performance, research, and service. It should be noted that, although tenure is the most common employment agreement, it is not used by a majority of libraries. Eleven libraries (15.3%) indicated that they use continuing con- tract, defined in the survey as a contract-based position that is periodically reviewed for renewal. Thirty libraries (41.7%) described use of a number of other agreement types. Fourteen of these indicated they have “tenure-like” employment agreements and seven of this fourteen indicate that they have both the “tenure-like” agreement and a contract renewal arrangement. The remaining libraries described a variety of contract and noncontract agreements, including two that indicate librarians are “at will” employees. As with promotions, the continuing contract/tenure decision is most frequently made by the library dean/director, a library committee, and institution administration such as the provost or president. “Other” was specified by 12 responding libraries. Half of the comments accompanying “Other” indicated that the promotion and employment processes are the same. A comparison of the decision-making data for these two processes indicates that this may be true across the board, with the same decision makers appearing with similar per- centages for each process. Fewer respondents answered this question when it was asked about the second process. They may have felt the question was redundant, whereas one reason the question was asked twice was to determine how similar the decision-making process is for promotion and continuing appointment. The small differences may be driven by which respondents decided not to answer the question for the second process. This comparison, with responses listed in order of frequency, is displayed in figure 3. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they believe that academic librarians should be required to publish. They also were asked whether the libraries they preside over have that requirement. Slightly more of the responding ARL library deans/directors believe there should be some type of publication requirement than actually preside over libraries with a publication requirement. Over two thirds (70.4%) indicated that they think that publication should be required for promotion, continuing appointment, or, in most cases, both. Slightly less than a third (29.6%) think it should be required for neither. When asked what was actually happening at their institutions, 60.2 percent indicated that publication figure 3 Promotion and Continuing Appointment Decision Makers Response Count Response Count Other (please specify) 30.0% 12 38.8% 26 Institution-wide committee 30.0% 12 26.9% 18 Library supervisor 40.0% 16 38.8% 26 Institution administration (Provost, President, etc.) 65.0% 26 62.7% 42 Library committee 75.0% 30 77.6% 52 Library dean/director 87.5% 35 82.1% 55 Total respondents to each question Decision Maker Role Promotion ( n = 67)Continuing appointment ( n = 40) 6740 30.0% 30.0% 40.0% 65.0% 75.0% 87.5% 38.8% 26.9% 38.8% 62.7% 77.6% 82.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other (Please Specify) Institutionwide Committee Library Supervisor Institution Administration (Provost, President, etc.) Library Committee Library Dean/Director Promotion (n = 67) Continuing appointment (n = 40) 466 College & Research Libraries May 2014 is required for promotion, continuing appointment, or both; and 39.7 percent indicated that it is not required. When looking only at the 40 libraries where librarians have faculty status, 72.5 percent have a publication requirement. These responses appear in figure 4. A comparison of data from 2011 with data from 1980 and 1987 reveals a significant increase in the number of libraries requiring publication. Between 1980 and 2011, the number of ARL libraries requiring publication for promotion increased 45.5 percent. At ARL libraries offering faculty status, the increase is 30.8 percent. This comparison is displayed in figure 5.56 During the same time period, the number of ARL libraries requiring publication for continuing appointment increased 34.7 percent. When considering only libraries offer- ing faculty status, the increase is 30 percent. This comparison is displayed in figure 6.57 figure 4 Publication requirement Publication Requirement Response Percent Response Count Response Percent Response Count Response Percent Response Count Should not be/is not required 27.5% 11 39.7% 29 29.6% 21 For continuing appointment 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.4% 1 For promotion 5.0% 2 12.3% 9 12.7% 9 For continuing appointment and promotion 67.5% 27 47.9% 35 56.3% 40 When should publication be required? All libraries ( n = 71) When is publication required? All libraries ( n = 73) When is publication required? Faculty status libraries ( n = 40) 27.5% 0.0% 5.0% 67.5% 39.7% 0.0% 12.3% 47.9% 29.6% 1.4% 12.7% 56.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Should Not Be/Is Not Required For Continuing Appointment For Promotion For Continuing Appointment and Promotion When should publication be required? All libraries (n = 71) When is publication required? All libraries (n = 73) When is publication required? Faculty status libraries (n = 40) figure 5 Publication requirement over Time—for Promotion 1980 1987 2011 Publication required for promotion All libraries [1980 ( n = 68), 1987 ( n 14.7% 30.9% 60.3% Faculty status libraries [1980 ( n = 2 41.7% 53.1% 72.5% 14.7% 30.9% 60.2% 41.7% 53.1% 72.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1980 1987 2011 All libraries [1980 (n= 68), 1987 (n = 81), 2011 (n = 73)] Faculty status libraries [1980 (n = 24), 1987 (n = 32), 2011 (n = 40)] Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 467 These comparisons indicate that the requirement for publication is growing and that, although libraries offering faculty status are more likely to require publication than those that do not, the requirement is growing for all librarians in ARL libraries. At this point in the survey, respondents who both were opposed to requiring publica- tion and were responding for institutions that do not require publication were dropped from the survey. These institutions were dropped because the goal of the survey was to determine the policies and support for librarian research and publication in ARL libraries that require it or have leadership that supports it. What Counts as a Publication? Respondents indicated that the most valued expressions of research are books and articles in refereed publications. The refereed publications include both library and nonlibrary publications. Conference presentations are also highly valued, followed closely by workshops, panels, and posters. All of these are accepted by at least 88 per- cent of ARL libraries requiring publication. Between 52 and 75 percent accept articles in nonrefeered library publications, book reviews, and articles in any publication, including in-house publications. Slightly fewer than half of respondent libraries accept art exhibitions and musical or dramatic performances. In comments, the responding deans/directors indicated a variety of other expressions that are accepted at individual libraries: internationally recognized websites and blogs, social media activity, external or sponsored funding obtained, multimedia development, and tutorial development. Results regarding what are considered acceptable forms of publication and presenta- tion appear in figure 7. Research Support: Time As noted in the introduction, unlike teaching faculty, most academic librarians work a twelve-month year. This is true for librarians from most of the responding libraries (65, or 90.3%). The remaining libraries reported an eleven-month work year. However, one comment indicated that the eleven-month work year did not figure 6 Publication requirement over Time—for Continuing Appointment 1980 1987 2011 Publishing required for continuing appointment All libraries [1980 ( n = 68), 1987 ( n = 8 13.2% 22.0% 47.9% Faculty status libraries [1980 ( n = 24), 37.5% 43.8% 67.5% 13.2% 22.0% 47.9% 37.5% 43.8% 67.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1980 1987 2011 All libraries [1980 (n = 68), 1987 (n = 82), 2011 (n = 73)] Faculty status libraries [1980 (n = 24), 1987 (n = 32), 2011 (n = 40)] 468 College & Research Libraries May 2014 figure 7 Acceptable forms of Publication/Presentation Research Results Do Count Should Count Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty 44.2% 36.7% Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty 48.8% 44.9% Books or articles in any publication, including in-house 52.3% 48.0% Book reviews 63.6% 62.0% Books or articles in any library publication 75.0% 68.0% Panel member or moderator at a conference 88.4% 89.8% Poster presentation at a conference 90.7% 85.7% Workshop presentation at a conference 90.7% 95.9% Books or articles in any refereed publication 90.9% 84.0% Books or articles in a refereed library publication 95.5% 94.0% Paper presentation at a conference 100.0% 100.0% 44.2% 48.8% 52.3% 63.6% 75.0% 88.4% 90.7% 90.7% 90.9% 95.5% 100.0% 36.7% 44.9% 48.0% 62.0% 68.0% 89.8% 85.7% 95.9% 84.0% 94.0% 100.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty Books or articles in any publication, including in-house Book reviews Books or articles in any library publication Panel member or moderator at a conference Poster presentation at a conference Workshop presentation at a conference Books or articles in any refereed publication Books or articles in a refereed library publication Paper presentation at a conference Should count Do count forms of Publishing/ Presenting research Should Count Total respondents Do Count Total respondents Paper presentation at a conference 100.0% 49 49 100.0% 43 43 Books or articles in a refereed library publication 94.0% 47 50 95.5% 42 44 Books or articles in any refereed publication 84.0% 42 50 90.9% 40 44 Poster presentation at a conference 85.7% 42 49 90.7% 39 43 Workshop presentation at a conference 95.9% 47 49 90.7% 39 43 Panel member or moderator at a conference 89.8% 44 49 88.4% 38 43 Books or articles in any library publication 68.0% 34 50 75.0% 33 44 Book reviews 62.0% 31 50 63.6% 28 44 Books or articles in any publication, including in-house 48.0% 24 50 52.3% 23 44 Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty 44.9% 22 49 48.8% 21 43 Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty 36.7% 18 49 44.2% 19 43 Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 469 include four weeks of vacation, and another indicated that the twelve-month work year included twenty-two vacation days, suggesting that most ARL libraries have a twelve-month work year. Most librarians at the responding ARL libraries that require publication are allowed to use work time for research and publication. Ninety-eight percent of the responding deans/directors in libraries that require publication preside over libraries that allow library work time to be used for research and publication, although only 89.6 percent of them support providing library work time for research and publication. With respect to responding libraries that offer faculty status, all allow librarians to use work time for research and publication and all of the deans/directors support this practice. These results differ significantly from previous studies. The 1990 Arlen study, which was limited to librarians with faculty status, reported that 30.2 percent of responding librarians are al- lowed to request work time for research. However, it surveyed two librarians from each institution, so the results are not directly comparable to the current study.58 The 1993 Switzer study reported that 57 percent of ARL libraries allow librarians to request work time for research, while the 2009 study by Martyniak found that 27 percent of ARL librar- ians are allowed to request work time for research.59 Looking at the Arlen and Switzer data in relation to the results of the current study suggests that the use of work time for research has increased over the last two decades. The Martyniak data does not seem to fit. It may be a result of the way the question was asked. Many librarians today would not say that they have regularly scheduled work time for research. However, they can schedule research time at work, as their work load varies during the year. Additionally, none of these studies addresses whether the research being conducted is related to the librarian’s responsibilities and whether this factor affects librarian time allocated to re- search. This contradiction suggests that a more in-depth study may be useful. Half of all responding libraries that require publication allow librarians to use one to five hours each week for research and publication. The same time allocation is also available to librarians at half of responding libraries where librarians have faculty status. Most of the remaining responding libraries allow six to ten hours per week. The number of hours allowed per week reported in the Arlen, Switzer, and Martyniak studies are consistent with these findings and suggest that this factor has remained static over time.60 Detailed results from the current study regarding use of work time appear in figure 8. figure 8 Work Hours for research Work Hours for Research Do allow - faculty status ( n = 22) Do allow - all ( n = 40) Should allow - all ( n = 37) 11-15 4.5% 2.5% 2.7% 6-10 45.5% 40.0% 29.7% 1-5 50.0% 50.0% 64.9% 0 0.0% 7.5% 2.7% 4.5% 45.5% 50.0% 0.0% 2.5% 40.0% 50.0% 7.5% 2.7% 29.7% 64.9% 2.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 11–15 6–10 1–5 0 Should allow: all (n = 37) Do allow: all (n = 40) Do allow: faculty status (n = 22) 470 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Although approximately three fourths of responding libraries allow the work to be done at home or another off-campus location, even more support it. The numbers from libraries offering faculty status follow the same pattern. Detailed results regarding research activities to be done at home or another off-campus location appear in figure 9. This difference is also present in the results for sabbaticals. Although sabbaticals are widely available to librarians in responding libraries, the practice is favored by a greater number of respondents. At libraries offering faculty status, the practice is both allowed and favored by 100 percent of the deans/directors. Detailed results regarding sabbaticals appear in figure 10. A comparison of libraries allowing sabbaticals in 1987 with those in 2011 reveals a slight decline among all libraries, regardless of whether publication is required. However, this decline does not hold true for those libraries that offer faculty status. This comparison is displayed in figure 11.61 The Martyniak study, conducted in 2009, is consistent with our findings regarding sabbaticals, reporting that librarians at 87 percent of responding libraries are eligible to figure 9 research Off Campus during Work Hours Do Allow Should Allow Faculty status libraries [Should ( n = 28), Do ( n = 29)] 79.3% 92.8% All libraries [Should ( n = 42), Do ( n = 47)] 79.3% 92.8% 74.5% 83.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Do Allow Should Allow All libraries [Should (n = 42), Do (n = 47)] Faculty status libraries [Should (n = 28), Do (n = 29)] figure 10 Sabbaticals Sabbaticals Do Allow Should Allow Faculty status libraries ( n = 29) 100.0% 100.0% All libraries ( n = 49) 83.7% 89.8% 100.0% 100.0% 83.7% 89.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Do Allow Should Allow All libraries (n = 49) Faculty status libraries (n = 29) Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 471 apply for sabbaticals or professional development leave.62 However, the 1993 Switzer study reports that only 38 percent of responding institutions allow librarians to take sabbaticals.63 This number is very different from the findings in the current study, the Martyniak study, and the Cosgriff study.64 In a 2009 study that was not limited to ARL libraries, Flaspohler reported that librar- ians were eligible for sabbaticals at 52 percent of responding institutions. However, at 49 percent of the institutions that allowed sabbaticals, no librarians had taken a sabbatical in the last five years.65 These results are more in line with Switzer’s study.66 The contradictions among the findings suggest the need for more study in this area. Sabbatical pay also declined during this period, and this decline is larger, with the provision of full pay down by more than half and the provision of half pay down by slightly less than half. These declines are similar whether looking at all libraries or those that offer faculty status. It should be noted that the 1987 data include libraries that do and libraries that do not favor or require publication. The 2011 data include only libraries that favor or require publication. This comparison is displayed in figure 12. The one salary area that showed an increase was partial pay, which increased to almost twice its 1987 value. Respondents were asked to explain what they meant by partial pay. A number of responses indicated that partial pay varies based on length of leave. An approach that was described in several comments indicated that a librar- ian on sabbatical would receive full pay for a one-semester or six-month sabbatical and half pay for a two-semester or full-year sabbatical. Other responses indicated that the librarian would receive 75, 80, or 90 percent of full pay. These responses may provide an indication of what is really going on with sabbatical pay policies figure 11 Sabbaticals over Time 1987 All 2011 All 2011 Faculty All [ 1987 ( n = 76), 2011 ( n = 49) 86.8% 83.7% 100.0% Publication required [1987 ( n = 2 96.0% 86.0% 100.0% Publication not required [1987 ( n 82.4% 66.6% 100.0% 86.8% 83.7% 100.0% 96.0% 86.0% 100.0% 82.4% 66.6% 100.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1987 All Libraries 2011 All libraries 2011 Faculty status libraries All [1987 (n = 76), 2011 (n = 49), 2011 faculty status (n = 29)] Publication required [1987 (n = 25), 2011 (n = 43), 2011 faculty status (n = 28)] Publication not required [1987 (n = 51), 2011 (n = 6), 2011 faculty status (n = 1)] Note: Data from 1987 includes all responding libraries. Data from 2011 includes only responses from libraries that favor and/or require research and publication. 472 College & Research Libraries May 2014 at the libraries that formerly marked full or half pay. They are also consistent with what Switzer reported: nineteen libraries (27 percent) allowed a sabbatical of up to 6 months at full pay, while sixteen libraries (23 percent) allowed a sabbatical of 12 months at half pay.67 Research Support: Funding Internal funding is widely available at the responding ARL Libraries, although the discrepancy between favoring and providing again manifests itself, with 93.8 percent of deans and directors favoring internal funding and 83.3 percent providing it. And again, at libraries offering faculty status, the practice is both allowed and favored by 100 percent of the deans and directors. Looking at funding from 1980 to 2011, there have been significant increases: 56.8 percent for all libraries and 54.2 percent for libraries offering faculty status. It should be noted that the 1980 and 1987 data include libraries that do and libraries that do not favor or require publication. The 2011 data include only libraries that favor or require publication. This comparison is displayed in figure 13.68 The most frequently used source of internal research funding is library discretionary budget funds. The next most frequently cited source was “other.” The comments that accompanied this choice indicated that many of these respondents think that all three of the specific options—library discretionary budget funds, institutional seed grants, and a direct line from the library budget—should be used. Detailed results regarding internal funding sources appear in figure 14. Over the last twenty years, several studies provide examples of how library funding is administered. A 1990 report indicated that the administration at Auraria Library at the University of Colorado, Denver, allocated $200 per year for each faculty member for resources such as word processing, statistical analysis, graphics, online searching, and document delivery.69 At the University of Saskatchewan, the Dean’s Research and Innovation Fund was established “to provide financial support to librarians to conduct research that advances a defined program of research and scholarship, or to pilot and implement innovative projects that link to the library’s strategic priorities.”70 The University of Saskatchewan Library also provides support for librarians who want to pursue graduate education, especially at the doctoral level.71 The University of Alberta provides librarians with an annual professional expense account, research travel support, and research funding.72 figure 12 Sabbatical Pay over Time 1987 ( n = 74) 2011 All libraries ( n = 40) 2011 Faculty status libraries ( n With full pay 63.5% 30.0% 27.6% With half pay 37.8% 20.0% 20.7% With partial pay 27.0% 50.0% 51.7% Without pay 35.1% 0.0% 0.0% 63.5% 30.0% 27.6% 37.8% 20.0% 20.7% 27.0% 50.0% 51.7% 35.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1987 (n = 74) 2011 All libraries (n = 40) 2011 Faculty status libraries (n = 29) With full pay With half pay With partial pay Without pay Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 473 At Auburn University, the elected Library Research Advisory Committee is given an annual budget. The committee reviews research proposals and makes recommendations for funding.73 A research committee at Texas A&M University Libraries also allocates funds on the basis of librarians’ research proposals. Funds have been requested most frequently for student worker salaries. Other requests have addressed travel, software, hardware, and office supplies.74 External funding requires completing often complex grant applications. The most commonly available support is a position funded by university administration to provide campuswide grant writing support. The percentage of libraries whose librar- figure 14 funding Sources for research Other Direct line from library budget Institutional seed grants Library discretionary budget funds Do use: faculty status libraries ( n = 29) 31.0% 17.2% 20.7% 31.0% Do use: all libraries ( n = 41) 31.7% 12.2% 17.1% 39.0% Should use: all libraries ( n = 44) 27.3% 15.9% 22.7% 34.1% Should use: faculty status libraries 27.6% 20.7% 24.1% 27.6% 31.0% 17.2% 20.7% 31.0% 31.7% 12.2% 17.1% 39.0% 27.3% 15.9% 22.7% 34.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Direct Line from Library Budget Institutional Seed Grants Library Discretionary Budget Funds Should use: all libraries (n = 44) Do use: all libraries (n = 41) Do use: faculty status libraries (n = 29) figure 13 internal funding over Time 1980 1987 2011 All libraries [1980 ( n = 68), 1987 ( n 26.5% 43.4% 83.3% Faculty status libraries [1980 ( n = 2 45.8% 43.8% 100.0% 26.5% 43.4% 83.3% 45.8% 43.8% 100.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1980 1987 2011 All libraries [1980 (n = 68), 1987 (n = 76), 2011 (n = 48)] Faculty status libraries [1980 (n = 24), 1987 (n = 32), 2011 (n = 29)] 474 College & Research Libraries May 2014 ians have no in-library access to a grant specialist is very close to the percentage that have a campuswide position available to them. In the comments supporting the choice “other,” several of the deans and directors indicated that their librarians have access to both a library-funded and a university administration–funded grant specialist. Detailed results regarding availability of grant specialists appear in figure 15. Research Support: Training and Mentoring Respondents were asked to indicate the types of training and mentoring activities that should be provided by libraries. They also were asked if any of these activities are pro- vided by their libraries. Their responses are displayed in order of frequency in figure 16. Informal mentoring was the activity mentioned most often by deans and directors. Forty-three respondents (89.6%) specified that informal mentoring should be provided by libraries, while 44 (91.7%) indicated that it is provided in their libraries. Support of external training came in second place, with 36 respondents (75%) indicating that it should be provided, and 34 (70.8%) indicating that it is provided. Formal mentoring came in third place, with 35 respondents (72.9%) indicating that such programs should be offered. However, only 25 libraries (52.1%) reported that they have these programs in their libraries. This number represents a slight increase when compared to previous studies. Wittkopf published a survey of mentoring programs in ARL libraries in 1999.75 Of 122 libraries queried, responses were received from 81 (66%). Of that number, 21 libraries (26%) indicated that they provided formal mentoring programs. Ladenson, Mayers, and Hyslop published another survey about mentor- ing in ARL libraries in 2011.76 Responses were received from 65 (52%) of 126 member libraries. Fifty percent of the respondents reported having formal mentoring programs. The prevalence of formal mentoring programs in only 52.1 percent of the respond- ing libraries in this study is a concern, especially since 72.9 percent of the deans and directors indicated that this type of support should be provided. Perhaps informal mentoring is meeting the needs of some new librarians, but it is unclear if this sup- port is available to all who need it and if such spontaneous arrangements are effective and sustainable. In the present study, library research committees came in fourth place, as 28 re- spondents (58.3%) indicated that they should be offered. However, only 17 deans and directors (35.4%) reported the existence of such committees in their libraries. The prevalence of library research committees has varied over time. In their 1980 study of ARL academic libraries, Rayman and Goudy reported that 31 percent of all figure 15 Availability of grant Specialists Other A grant specialist is not available to librarians Library funded position Administra tion funded position providing campus- wide support Do use: faculty status libraries ( n = 27) 14.8% 33.3% 18.5% 33.3% Do use: all libraries ( n = 46) 17.4% 28.3% 23.9% 30.4% Should use: all libraries ( n = 47) 14.9% 10.6% 27.7% 46.8% 14.8% 33.3% 18.5% 33.3% 17.4% 28.3% 23.9% 30.4% 14.9% 10.6% 27.7% 46.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other A Grant Specialist is Not Available to Librarians Library Funded Position Administration-funded Position Providing Campuswide Support Should use: all libraries (n = 47) Do use: all libraries (n = 46) Do use: faculty status libraries (n = 27) Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 475 of the responding libraries had library research committees, as opposed to 67 percent of the libraries with faculty status.77 In the 1987 study by Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMil- lan, 17.3 percent of respondents indicated that their libraries provided “a committee or special staff to aid librarians in publishing.”78 In the present study, the three initiatives offered least often were personnel with the expertise to assist with institutional review board certification, personnel with the expertise to help with submission of manuscripts, and formal training programs. It is possible that some of these activities are offered through library research committees or mentoring arrangements in various libraries. In considering the entire range of training and mentoring activities, the number of “should be provided” responses was usually greater than the number of “is provided” responses. The exception was for informal mentoring, as 43 respondents (89.6%) in- dicated that it should be provided, while 44 (91.7%) indicated that it is provided. Ap- parently, one dean or director was at odds with the current practice. The gap between the “should be provided” and “is provided” responses was largest for library research committees, formal mentoring programs, and formal training programs. Because these measures require the strategic deployment of library resources as well as the leadership of librarians knowledgeable about scholarly publishing, they may be challenging to organize and sustain, especially during times of economic hardship. When asked for their comments on the topics in this category, respondents wrote about the importance of administrative support for research. “Line supervisors from bottom to top of the org[anization] should explicitly support faculty research,” wrote one respondent. Another stated, “Critical is supervisor support. Administrators (start- ing with the dean or director) must show that they take scholarship seriously and that research is part of a faculty member’s work.” Research Support: Project Support Measures Respondents were asked to indicate the types of project support measures that should be provided by libraries. They also were asked if any of these activities are provided by their libraries. Their responses are displayed in order of frequency in figure 17. figure 16 Training and Mentoring Activities (n = 48) 0.0% 12.5% 29.2% 33.3% 39.6% 35.4% 52.1% 70.8% 91.7% 0.0% 10.4% 47.9% 50.0% 54.2% 58.3% 72.9% 75.0% 89.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No Speci�c Guidance Other Formal Training Program Help with Manuscript Submission Personnel to Assist with IRB Certi�cation Library Research Committee to Brainstorm Ideas,… Formal Mentoring Support for External Training Informal Mentoring Should be Provided Is Provided 476 College & Research Libraries May 2014 The greatest number of respondents (44 deans and directors; 91.7%) indicated that computer hardware and hardware support should be provided, while 43 respondents (89.6%) indicated that they are provided. Support was also high for photocopying and office supplies, with 44 respondents (91.7%) indicating that they should be provided and 40 (83.3%) indicating that they are provided. Other support measures that were endorsed by over half of the respondents in- cluded mailing supplies and postage, software and software support, equipment other than computers (such as audio and video recorders and cameras), money for buying incentives for survey respondents or focus group participants, and statistical analysis support. Only two measures were endorsed by fewer than half of the respondents, namely clerical support and student or graduate assistants. When asked for their comments on this topic, respondents mentioned mechanisms for funding project support. One respondent wrote, “A travel and research committee allocates funds for rese[a]rch—and a research schedule is determined annually with scholarly outcomes expected.” Another responded, “All of the above are available IF the librarian applies for funding and is approved by the committee. None of it is formally available through budgeted funds or FTE.” Comparisons of project support responses from the 2011 and 1987 surveys are displayed in figure 18.79 Comparisons are presented in figure 19 for libraries in which publication is required for promotion. While the number of libraries providing photocopying, office supplies, computer time, and statistical analysis has increased, the number providing secretarial and word processing support has declined. The changes in the provision of computer time, statistical analysis, and secretarial and word processing support reflect the growth in personal computing technology between 1987 and 2011. Most libraries do not provide student assistants to help with the research of librar- ians. In 1987, 32.9 percent of all libraries provided student help, as compared to the figure 17 Project Support (n = 48) 6.3% 12.5% 31.3% 37.5% 50.0% 58.3% 70.8% 72.9% 77.1% 83.3% 89.6% 4.2% 10.4% 37.5% 41.7% 60.4% 66.7% 79.2% 79.2% 81.3% 91.7% 91.7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No Project Speci�c Support Other Student or Graduate Assistants Clerical Suport Statistical Analysis Support Money for Buying Survey Incentives Equipment Other than Computers (Audio and … Software and Software Support Mailing Supplies/Postage Photocopying and O�ce Supplies Computer Hardware and Hardware Support Should be Provided Is Provided Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 477 2011 figures of 31.3 percent of all libraries, and 41.4 percent of faculty status libraries. The figures are also low in libraries where publication is required for promotion. In 1987, 45.8 percent of such libraries provided student assistant help, as opposed to the 2011 figures of 32.5 percent of all libraries and 42.9 percent of faculty status libraries. Perhaps the lack of support in this area is related to the economic recession. Discussion The objective of this study was to determine the extent of support provided by ARL libraries to encourage the research and publishing activities of librarians, with a focus on libraries where research and publication are required. Information also was sought about the academic status of librarians as well as the publication requirements in their institutions. The findings were compared with those in the 1987 study by Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan.80 The results suggest an increase in the number of libraries at which the librarians have faculty status and an increase in publication requirements. They also indicate that faculty status is primarily a public institution phenomenon. figure 18 Services and Supplies over Time None 6.9% 2 6.3% 3 22.4% 17 Student Help 41.4% 12 31.3% 15 32.9% 25 Computer Time/Statistics 89.7% 26 91.6% 44 59.2% 45 Photocopying/O�ce Supplies 86.2% 25 83.3% 40 67.1% 51 Secretarial/Word Processing 41.4% 12 37.5% 18 68.4% 52 1987 ( n = 76)2011 all libraries ( n = 48)2011 faculty status 6.9% 41.4% 89.7% 86.2% 41.4% 6.3% 31.3% 91.6% 83.3% 37.5% 22.4% 32.9% 59.2% 67.1% 68.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% None Student Help Computer Time/Statistics Photocopying/O�ce Supplies Secretarial/Word Processing 1987 (n = 76) 2011 All Libraries (n = 48) 2011 Faculty Status Libraries (n = 29) figure 19 Services and Supplies over Time (Where Publication is required for Promotion) 0.0% 42.9% 85.7% 89.3% 42.9% 6.9% 32.5% 86.0% 90.7% 37.2% 4.2% 45.8% 75.0% 79.2% 91.7% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 None Student Help Photocopying/Office Supplies Computer Time/Sta�s�cs Secretarial/Word Processing 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1987 (n = 24) 2011 All Libraries (n = 43) 2011 Faculty Status Libraries (n = 28) 478 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Most support measures have grown over time. In particular, there have been in- creases of over 50 percent in internal funding of research activities whether the results are for all libraries or only those that give librarians faculty status. There have been decreases in secretarial and word processing assistance, which reflect the growth in personal computing technology between 1987 and 2011. There also have been declines in sabbatical pay as well as in the provision of student or graduate assistants. When the increase in internal funding of librarian research activities is taken into consideration, these declines may not be indicators of less funding for librarians conducting research but rather indicators that the funding is being provided differently. The results of this study indicate that academic libraries do provide a variety of research support measures and that opinions vary about whether such measures should be provided. In most cases, the deans and directors indicated that more research sup- port should be provided than currently is being offered. The preference for increased support was greatest for the initiatives of formal mentoring programs, library research committees, and formal training programs. The studies of support for research and publication at the Penn State and Uni- versity of Saskatchewan libraries, both with strong records of research productivity, provide some indication of which support strategies lead to success. Fennewald notes that Penn State is frequently identified as one of the top five institutions for research productivity.81 He concludes that “Possibly the most significant factor at Penn State was the collegial support conveyed in formal and informal mentoring.”82 Hart’s study of collaborative publishing at Penn State suggests that senior librarians may use that approach for mentoring junior librarians. He also notes that collaboration results in publication in higher quality journals.83 Similarly, the study of the learning needs of librarians at the University of Saskatch- ewan, where “more than half [of the librarians] had published an article or presented at a conference” in the two years prior to the study, identified “in-person workshops and seminars, one-on-one consultation, mentoring and coaching, and reading” as preferred approaches for delivering training in research methods.84 Librarian responses empha- sized the importance of active learning and access to support at point of need. As was the case at Penn State, they also see benefits in working on collaborative research projects.85 The findings of these studies call for collaborative research relationships, mentoring, and other approaches that involve personalized, one-on-one contact. These approaches are supported by Jacobs, Berg, and Cornwall in their discussion of factors supporting the development of a strong research culture: “…the collective experience of highly experienced librarians ought to be sought and engaged with for the enrichment of newer librarians. Research can only benefit from conversation, collaboration and the development of intellectual communities between generations of diverse and unique academic librarians.” 86 However, these studies and others also point out the issue of time. Fennewald noted that “Given the demands of their positions, almost all librarians interviewed identified time as the major hindrance to accomplishing research.”87 The Saskatchewan study also notes time issues, even though these librarians are allocated 15–20 percent of their time for scholarly work and can take sabbaticals.88 Additionally, in their 2010 study, Kennedy and Brancolini noted that time was the “the largest stated barrier to reading [research-based] literature.”89 Fox included ques- tions about time in his 2006 survey of Canadian research university librarians. Fourteen of the twenty-seven libraries included in the survey are ARL libraries.90 In his analysis of the responses to his questions about time, he similarly noted that “time conflict is a major obstacle to greater participation in scholarly activity for some librarians.”91 They are reporting 45- to 55-hour work weeks, with 7–8 percent of time spent on scholarly Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 479 activities and a goal of 15 percent spent on scholarly activities.92 He compares librar- ian time commitments with those of university professors and finds the work hours to be similar. However, he notes that his sources “suggest that university professors typically spend 40–60 percent of their time on teaching and related activities, 20–30 percent on research, and the remainder on administration, community service, and other activities.”93 These numbers may not be true for all faculty. A 2011 study of factors affecting faculty research productivity in research-extensive universities found that time has a significant impact on their research productivity: Faculty members invest hugely different amounts of time on research seasonally based on the other demands on their time, and they are clear on the influential nature of lack of time. One faculty member reported time for research as “5 hours/ week on research during the semester if I’m lucky. 40 hrs/week during the summer when I’m technically unemployed.” Others reported similarly, “50 hours a week when the semester is not in session” and “40–60 hours in summer.” Still another underscoring the contrast with some frustration wrote, “very rough averaging out hours over the year. It’s more like 50 hours a week in vacations and 4 desperate hours per week during the semester.” What was very clear is that when faculty members do have time they work overtime on research, for all kinds of personal reasons. It was also clear that faculty members on 9- or 10-month contracts devote their off-contract time to research, despite the lack of pay for those time periods. However, they are frustrated by the lack of time for research when they are also fulfilling their teaching, service and administrative responsibilities.94 Along with workplace factors, this study looks at family and life commitments such as children under eighteen living at home, children with medical issues, and elderly parents.95 The study notes that “The two strongest predictors of productivity are research effort (positively) and teaching load (negatively).”96 Librarians have the disadvantage of working 12-month contracts rather than the 9- or 10-month contracts most faculty have, and, typically, a smaller percentage of their work time is allocated to research and publication. The issue of time is not lost on academic library administrators. In their 2010 study, which included twenty-three administrators from a variety of university and college libraries, Perkins and Slowik noted that “Nearly all interviewees felt that time was the greatest obstacle academic librarians faced in keeping up with research in the field.”97 However, they also noted many benefits, including “fulfilling tenure-track requirements, enriching relationship with teaching faculty, library faculty recognition, improved services and programs, collaboration with others, research result application to daily issues, development as librarians, and improved knowledge of the research field.”98 Suggestions for Further Research More research is needed to understand the nature of support for librarian research in academic libraries. Librarians should be asked if they believe that the current level of support provided in academic libraries is effective. While the present study focused on ARL deans and directors, a similar study should focus on ARL librarians. Research also is needed about the differences between ARL libraries and non-ARL libraries regarding support for research and publication. A study of the differences between public and private institution libraries would also be useful. Attention also should be given to the educational backgrounds of academic librar- 480 College & Research Libraries May 2014 ians. Graduate library program requirements in research methods, statistical analysis, and scholarly writing should be studied. Academic librarians should be asked about the adequacy of their library school education in these areas. In addition to looking at the practices, opinions, and educational backgrounds of these various populations, researchers should investigate both the work environment and educational backgrounds of librarians who are successfully producing both valu- able research and effective, practical results in the libraries where they serve. Although this has been done at several institutions, it should be done for more, and the results should be analyzed as a group to allow identification of common themes and best practices. Finally, a motivational model study of librarian motivation for research, similar to the 2011 study of teaching faculty, would be useful. These issues should be examined because they are important to the future of academic librarianship. Conclusion When considering the current economic climate and the resulting reductions in library budgets and staff, the potential for more time for research appears bleak. However, two other areas of librarianship that are also increasing in importance may offer sup- port: instructional improvement and assessment. Improving learning outcomes and assessment are hot-button issues at campuses across the country. Implementing them effectively requires training in methods that are also used for research.99 What librarians may need to consider is operating as practitioner-researchers, using research methods to inform their problem solving and assessments to confirm them. In her article about this approach, Watson-Boone indicates that this approach doesn’t have to be followed by publication. And it doesn’t. However, when librarians operate in an environment that requires research and publication but is unable to provide enough time to conduct research that is independent of the workplace, this option provides an opportunity.100 Additionally, it may be time for university administrators to consider the applica- bility of research being done at their institutions on the impact of long work hours on workers, their families, their employers, and their communities with respect to their librarians and faculty. In 2006, Caruso reviewed the literature in this area, identifying potential issues in the areas of health, family issues such as parenting and responsibil- ity for aging parents, productivity, workplace errors, and community involvement.101 Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 481 Appendix: Survey Instrument The following copy of the survey does not indicate where skip logic occurs. In several sections of the survey, the respondent is directed to a subsequent page depending on how the previous question was answered. Page 1 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. Is your institution public or private? 2. How are librarians at your institution classified? (All references to librarians in this survey are intended to refer to individuals who hold an advanced degree in library and information science and who hold a position that requires that degree.) 3. How many months are librarians expected to work in a given year? (Check all that apply.) 4. Are your librarians eligible for promotion to a higher rank? 1. Demographic Questions 2. Demographics (cont.) Private nmlkj Public nmlkj Faculty nmlkj Professional staff nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 12 months gfedc 11 months gfedc 10 months gfedc 9 months gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Partial Other Page 2 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What are the requirements for promotion at your library? (Check all that apply.) 2. Who makes the promotion decisions for your library? (Check all that apply.) 1. What type of employment agreements are used for librarians at your library? 3. Demographics (cont.) 4. Demographics (cont.) Job performance gfedc Research gfedc Service gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Library supervisor gfedc Library committee gfedc Library dean/director gfedc Institution­wide committee gfedc Institution administration (Provost, President, etc.) gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Tenure (defined as a permanent employment contract awarded based on job performance, research and service) nmlkj Continuing contract (defined as a contract based position that is periodically reviewed for renewal) nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Other Other 482 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Page 2 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What are the requirements for promotion at your library? (Check all that apply.) 2. Who makes the promotion decisions for your library? (Check all that apply.) 1. What type of employment agreements are used for librarians at your library? 3. Demographics (cont.) 4. Demographics (cont.) Job performance gfedc Research gfedc Service gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Library supervisor gfedc Library committee gfedc Library dean/director gfedc Institution­wide committee gfedc Institution administration (Provost, President, etc.) gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Tenure (defined as a permanent employment contract awarded based on job performance, research and service) nmlkj Continuing contract (defined as a contract based position that is periodically reviewed for renewal) nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Other Other Page 3 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. If librarians at your institution are eligible for continuing contract/tenure, who makes the continuing contract/tenure decisions? (Check all that apply.) 1. When should publication be required? 1. When is publication required at your library? 5. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion 6. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion (cont.) 7. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion (cont.) Library supervisor gfedc Library committee gfedc Library dean/director gfedc Institution­wide committee gfedc Institution administration (Provost, President, etc.) gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 For continuing appointment (Refers to both continuing contract and tenure) nmlkj For promotion nmlkj For continuing appointment and promotion nmlkj Should not be required nmlkj For continuing appointment nmlkj For promotion nmlkj For continuing appointment and promotion nmlkj Not required nmlkj Other Other Other Page 4 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What should count as a publication? (Check all that apply.) 2. Should any of the following contributions count towards continuing appointment and/or promotion? (Check all that apply.) 3. When is publication required at your library? 8. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion (cont.) Books or articles in a refereed library publication gfedc Books or articles in any library publication gfedc Books or articles in any refereed publication gfedc Books or articles in any publication, including in­house gfedc Book reviews gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Paper presentation at a conference gfedc Panel member or moderator at a conference gfedc Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Poster presentation at a conference gfedc Workshop presentation at a conference gfedc Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 For continuing appointment nmlkj For promotion nmlkj For continuing appointment and promotion nmlkj Not required nmlkj Other Other Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 483 Page 3 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. If librarians at your institution are eligible for continuing contract/tenure, who makes the continuing contract/tenure decisions? (Check all that apply.) 1. When should publication be required? 1. When is publication required at your library? 5. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion 6. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion (cont.) 7. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion (cont.) Library supervisor gfedc Library committee gfedc Library dean/director gfedc Institution­wide committee gfedc Institution administration (Provost, President, etc.) gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 For continuing appointment (Refers to both continuing contract and tenure) nmlkj For promotion nmlkj For continuing appointment and promotion nmlkj Should not be required nmlkj For continuing appointment nmlkj For promotion nmlkj For continuing appointment and promotion nmlkj Not required nmlkj Other Other Other Page 4 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What should count as a publication? (Check all that apply.) 2. Should any of the following contributions count towards continuing appointment and/or promotion? (Check all that apply.) 3. When is publication required at your library? 8. Publication and Continuing Appointment/Promotion (cont.) Books or articles in a refereed library publication gfedc Books or articles in any library publication gfedc Books or articles in any refereed publication gfedc Books or articles in any publication, including in­house gfedc Book reviews gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Paper presentation at a conference gfedc Panel member or moderator at a conference gfedc Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Poster presentation at a conference gfedc Workshop presentation at a conference gfedc Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 For continuing appointment nmlkj For promotion nmlkj For continuing appointment and promotion nmlkj Not required nmlkj Other Other Page 5 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What counts as a publication at your library? (Check all that apply.) 2. Do any of the following contributions count towards continuing appointment and/or promotion at your library? (Check all that apply.) 1. Should the library provide work time for research and publication activities? 1. How many hours during the work week should librarians be allowed to perform non­job specific research and publishing activities? 9. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Time 10. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Time (cont.) Books or articles in a refereed library publication gfedc Books or articles in any library publication gfedc Books or articles in any refereed publication gfedc Books or articles in any publication, including in­house gfedc Book reviews gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Paper presentation at a conference gfedc Panel member or moderator at a conference gfedc Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Poster presentation at a conference gfedc Workshop presentation at a conference gfedc Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Yes nmlkj No nmlkj 0 nmlkj 1­5 nmlkj 6­10 nmlkj 11­15 nmlkj 16­20 nmlkj 21­25 nmlkj 26­30 nmlkj More than 30 nmlkj 484 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Page 5 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What counts as a publication at your library? (Check all that apply.) 2. Do any of the following contributions count towards continuing appointment and/or promotion at your library? (Check all that apply.) 1. Should the library provide work time for research and publication activities? 1. How many hours during the work week should librarians be allowed to perform non­job specific research and publishing activities? 9. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Time 10. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Time (cont.) Books or articles in a refereed library publication gfedc Books or articles in any library publication gfedc Books or articles in any refereed publication gfedc Books or articles in any publication, including in­house gfedc Book reviews gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Paper presentation at a conference gfedc Panel member or moderator at a conference gfedc Musical or dramatic performance if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Poster presentation at a conference gfedc Workshop presentation at a conference gfedc Exhibition of art work if related to librarian's specialty gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Yes nmlkj No nmlkj 0 nmlkj 1­5 nmlkj 6­10 nmlkj 11­15 nmlkj 16­20 nmlkj 21­25 nmlkj 26­30 nmlkj More than 30 nmlkj Page 6 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 2. Should librarians be allowed to work at home or at an off­campus location as part of a normal work week so they can devote uninterrupted time to research? 1. Should the library support publishing by giving library professionals leave, i.e., a sabbatical, for research and writing? 1. How should librarians on sabbatical be paid? 1. Does your library provide work time for research and publication activities? 11. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Time (cont.) 12. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Time (cont.) 13. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Time (cont.) 14. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Time (cont.) Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Full pay nmlkj Half pay nmlkj No pay nmlkj Partial pay (please describe) nmlkj 55 66 Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Page 7 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. How many hours during the work week are librarians at your library allowed to perform non­job specific research and publishing activities? 2. Are librarians at your library allowed to work at home or at an off­campus location as part of a normal work week so they can devote uninterrupted time to research? 1. Does your library support publishing by giving library professionals leave, i.e., a sabbatical, for research and writing? 1. How are librarians on sabbatical paid? 15. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Time (cont.) 16. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Time (cont.) 17. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Funding 0 nmlkj 1­5 nmlkj 6­10 nmlkj 11­15 nmlkj 16­20 nmlkj 21­25 nmlkj 26­30 nmlkj More than 30 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Full pay nmlkj Half pay nmlkj No pay nmlkj Partial pay (please describe) nmlkj 55 66 Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 485 Page 8 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. Should internal research funds in addition to travel funds be available to librarians? 1. What source should be used for internal funding of research? 1. Should a grant specialist be available to librarian researchers? 2. Are internal research funds in addition to travel funds available to librarians at your library? 18. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Funding (cont.) 19. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Funding (cont.) 20. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Funding (cont.) Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Direct line for research in library budget nmlkj Discretionary funds from library budget nmlkj Institutional internal research/seed grants nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Library funded position nmlkj Administration funded position providing campus­wide support nmlkj A grant specialist should not be available to librarians nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Page 7 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. How many hours during the work week are librarians at your library allowed to perform non­job specific research and publishing activities? 2. Are librarians at your library allowed to work at home or at an off­campus location as part of a normal work week so they can devote uninterrupted time to research? 1. Does your library support publishing by giving library professionals leave, i.e., a sabbatical, for research and writing? 1. How are librarians on sabbatical paid? 15. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Time (cont.) 16. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Time (cont.) 17. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Funding 0 nmlkj 1­5 nmlkj 6­10 nmlkj 11­15 nmlkj 16­20 nmlkj 21­25 nmlkj 26­30 nmlkj More than 30 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Full pay nmlkj Half pay nmlkj No pay nmlkj Partial pay (please describe) nmlkj 55 66 486 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Page 8 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. Should internal research funds in addition to travel funds be available to librarians? 1. What source should be used for internal funding of research? 1. Should a grant specialist be available to librarian researchers? 2. Are internal research funds in addition to travel funds available to librarians at your library? 18. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Funding (cont.) 19. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Funding (cont.) 20. Library Support for Research and Publishing – Funding (cont.) Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Direct line for research in library budget nmlkj Discretionary funds from library budget nmlkj Institutional internal research/seed grants nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Library funded position nmlkj Administration funded position providing campus­wide support nmlkj A grant specialist should not be available to librarians nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Page 9 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 1. What source is used for internal funding of research? 1. Is a grant specialist available to librarian researchers at your library? 1. What kind of training and/or mentoring on research and publication should libraries provide to librarians? (Check all that apply.) 21. Library Support for Research and Publishing ­ Funding (cont.) 22. Other Support for Research and Publishing Direct line for research in library budget nmlkj Discretionary funds from library budget nmlkj Institutional internal research/seed grants nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Library funded position nmlkj Administration funded position providing campus­wide support nmlkj A grant specialist is not available to librarians nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj 55 66 Formal mentoring gfedc Formal training program gfedc Personnel with the expertise to assist with IRB certification gfedc Library research committee to brainstorm ideas, share expertise, etc. gfedc Informal mentoring gfedc Support for external training gfedc Personnel with the expertise to help with submission of manuscripts gfedc No specific guidance should be provided gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Page 10 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 2. What kind of training and/or mentoring on research and publication does your library provide to librarians? (Check all that apply.) 1. What kind of project support for research and publication activities should libraries provide to librarians? (Check all that apply.) 23. Other Support for Research and Publishing (cont.) Formal mentoring gfedc Formal training program gfedc Personnel with the expertise to assist with IRB certification gfedc Library research committee to brainstorm ideas, share expertise, etc. gfedc Informal mentoring gfedc Support for external training gfedc Personnel with the expertise to help with submission of manuscripts gfedc No specific guidance is provided gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Clerical support gfedc Photocopying and office supplies gfedc Computer hardware and hardware support gfedc Equipment other than computers (audio and video recorders, cameras, etc.) gfedc Student or graduate assistants gfedc Mailing supplies/postage gfedc Statistical analysis support gfedc Software and software support gfedc Money for buying survey/focus group/etc. incentives gfedc No project specific support should be provided gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 487 Page 10 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 2. What kind of training and/or mentoring on research and publication does your library provide to librarians? (Check all that apply.) 1. What kind of project support for research and publication activities should libraries provide to librarians? (Check all that apply.) 23. Other Support for Research and Publishing (cont.) Formal mentoring gfedc Formal training program gfedc Personnel with the expertise to assist with IRB certification gfedc Library research committee to brainstorm ideas, share expertise, etc. gfedc Informal mentoring gfedc Support for external training gfedc Personnel with the expertise to help with submission of manuscripts gfedc No specific guidance is provided gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Clerical support gfedc Photocopying and office supplies gfedc Computer hardware and hardware support gfedc Equipment other than computers (audio and video recorders, cameras, etc.) gfedc Student or graduate assistants gfedc Mailing supplies/postage gfedc Statistical analysis support gfedc Software and software support gfedc Money for buying survey/focus group/etc. incentives gfedc No project specific support should be provided gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 Page 11 Survey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and PublishingSurvey on Research and Publishing 2. What kind of support for research and publication activities does your library provide to librarians? (Check all that apply.) 1. Please add any additional comments you have on this topic. 24. Comments on Librarian Research and Publishing 55 66 25. Thank you for taking our survey Clerical support gfedc Photocopying and office supplies gfedc Computer hardware and hardware support gfedc Equipment other than computers (audio and video recorders, cameras, etc.) gfedc Student or graduate assistants gfedc Mailing supplies/postage gfedc Statistical analysis support gfedc Software and software support gfedc Money for buying survey/focus group/etc. incentives gfedc No project specific support is provided gfedc Other (please specify) gfedc 55 66 488 College & Research Libraries May 2014 Notes 1. Jeannie P. Miller and Candace R. Benefiel, “Academic Libraries and the Pursuit of Tenure: The Support Group as a Strategy for Success,” College & Research Libraries 59, no. 3 (1998): 261. 2. Lili Luo, “Fusing Research into Practice: The Role of Research Methods Education,” Library & Information Science Research 33, no. 3 (July 2011): 191–201. 3. Ibid., 94. 4. W. Bede Mitchell and Bruce Morton, “On Becoming Faculty Librarians: Acculturation Problems and Remedies,” College & Research Libraries 53, no. 5 (1992): 379–92. 5. Ibid., 383. 6. Laura Sare, Stephen Bales, and Bruce Neville, “New Academic Librarians and Their Per- ceptions of the Profession,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 12, no. 2 (2012):179–203. 7. Ibid., 197. 8. Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: A Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities,” College & Research Libraries 73, no. 5 (Sept. 2012): 437. 9. Janet Swan Hill, “Wearing Our Own Clothes: Librarians as Faculty,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 20 (May 1994): 74. 10. Emily Forrest Cataldi, Ellen M. Bradburn, and Mansour Fahimi, “2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF 04): Background Characteristics, Work Activities, and Compensa- tion of Instructional Faculty and Staff: Fall 2003,” U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available online at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006176.pdf [accessed 20 February 2013]. 11. Robert Boice, Jordan M. Scepanski, and Wayne Wilson, “Librarians and Faculty Members: Coping with Pressures to Publish,” College & Research Libraries 48 (Nov. 1987): 494–503. 12. Ibid., 502. 13. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, “Scholarship and the Academic Librarian,” College & Research Libraries 55, no. 3 (1994): 230–31. 14. Ronald Rayman and Frank W. Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements in Uni- versity Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 41, no. 1 (1980): 43–48. 15. John Cosgriff, Donald Kenney, and Gail McMillan, “Support for Publishing at Academic Libraries: How Much Exists?” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16, no. 2 (1990): 94–97. 16. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, “Fostering Success: The Socialization of Entry-Level Librarians in ARL Libraries,” Journal of Library Administration 36, no. 4 (2002): 3–26. 17. Kelly Blessinger and Gina Costello, “The Effect of Economic Recession on Institutional Support for Tenure-Track Librarians in ARL Institutions,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 37, no. 4 (2011): 307–11. 18. Jefferson P. Selth and Heidi L. Hutchinson, “Research Report from California,” College & Research Libraries News 50, no. 6 (1989): 487–89; Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville, “Research, Publication, and Service Patterns of Florida Academic Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarian- ship 30, no. 6 (2004): 435–51; Tina M. Neville and Deborah B. Henry, “Support for Research and Service in Florida Academic Libraries,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 1 (2007): 76–93; Linda Newman Cox, Abbie Landry, and Gail Stern Kwak, “Less Terror in Tenure: The Professional Advancement Group,” LLA Bulletin 61, no. 4 (1999): 233–38; W. Michael Havener and Wilbur A. Stolt, “The Professional Development Activities of Academic Librarians: Does Institutional Sup- port Make a Difference?” College & Research Libraries 55, no. 1 (1994): 25–36; W. Michael Havener and Philip Worrell, “Environmental Factors in Professional Development Activities: Does Type of Academic Library Affiliation Make a Difference?” Library & Information Science Research 16 (Summer 1994): 219–39; Steven E. Rogers, “Support for Research and Publishing in Tennessee’s Academic Libraries: A Survey of College and University Librarians,” Tennessee Librarian 48, no. 2 (1996): 35–43; Donald J. Kenney and Gail McMillan, “Librarians in Academic Limbo: Support for Scholarship,” Southeastern Librarian 39 (Winter 1989):139–41; David Fox, “A Demographic and Career Profile of Canadian Research University Librarians,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 33, no. 5 (2007): 540–50; David Fox, “Finding Time for Scholarship: A Survey of Canadian Research University Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7, no. 4 (2007): 451–62; David Fox, “The Scholarship of Canadian Research University Librarians,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 2, no. 2 (2007): 1–25. 19. Joan M. Leysen and William K. Black, “Peer Review in Carnegie Research Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 59, no. 6 (1998): 511–21; Carolyn Gaskell and Allen S. Morrill, Travel, Sabbatical, and Study Leave Policies in College Libraries, CLIP note, vol. 30 (Chicago: College Library Information Packet Committee, College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, 2001); Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 489 Librarians, CLIP note, no. 26 (Chicago: College Library Information Packet Committee, College Libraries Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, 1997). 20. Leysen and Black, “Peer Review.” 21. Ibid., 516. 22. Ibid., 517. 23. Havener and Worrell, “Environmental Factors”; Neville and Henry, “Support for Research and Service.” 24. Mary M. Nofsinger and Angela S.W. Lee, “Beyond Orientation: The Roles of Senior Librar- ians in Training Entry-Level Reference Colleagues,” College & Research Libraries 55, no. 2 (1994): 168; Bonnie A. Osif, “Successful Mentoring Programs: Examples from Within and Without the Academy,” Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship 13, no. 3 (2008): 338. 25. Peggy Johnson, “Mentoring,” Technicalities 17, no. 8 (1997): 6; Joanne Colley and Connie Capers Thorson, “Mentoring along the Tenure Track,” College & Research Libraries News 51, no. 4 (1990): 299; Diana Farmer, Marcia Stockham, and Alice Trussell, “Revitalizing a Mentoring Program for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 70, no. 1 (2009): 19; Catherine Wojewodzki, Linda Lawrence Stein, and Tommy Richardson, “Formalizing an Informal Process: Developing a Mentoring Program in a University Library,” Technical Services Quarterly 15, no. 3 (1998): 15. 26. Linda Marie Golian and Michael W. Galbraith, “Effective Mentoring Programs for Profes- sional Library Development,” Advances in Library Administration and Organization 14 (1996): 111; Joseph Fennewald, “Research Productivity among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publications at Penn State,” College & Research Libraries 69, no. 2 (2008): 111. 27. Johnson, “Mentoring,” 6; Colley and Thorson, “Mentoring along the Tenure Track,” 299; Farmer, Stockham, and Trussell, “Revitalizing a Mentoring Program,” 22; Marta K. Lee, Mentor- ing in the Library: Building for the Future, ALA Guides for the Busy Librarian (Chicago: American Library Association. 2011): 53–54. 28. Lois Kuyper-Rushing, “A Formal Mentoring Program in a University Library: Compo- nents of a Successful Experiment,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 27, no. 6 (Nov. 2001): 440–46; Wojewodzki, Stein, and Richardson, “Formalizing an Informal Process”; Nikhat Ghouse and Jennifer Church-Duran, “And Mentoring for All: The KU Libraries’ Experience,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 8, no. 4 (Oct. 2008): 373–86. 29. Wojewodzki, Stein and Richardson, “Formalizing an Informal Process”; Ghouse and Church-Duran, “And Mentoring for All.” 30. Eileen K. Bosch, Hema Ramachandran, Susan Luevano, and Eileen Wakiji, “The Resource Team Model: An Innovative Mentoring Program for Academic Librarians,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 16 (2010): 57–74. 31. Kuyper-Rushing, “A Formal Mentoring Program,” 445. 32. Jill Cirasella and Maura A. Smale, “Peers Don’t Let Peers Perish: Encouraging Research and Scholarship among Junior Library Faculty,” Collaborative Librarianship 3, no. 2 (2011): 98–109; Miller and Benefiel, “Academic Libraries and the Pursuit of Tenure”; Jane Stephens, Laura Sare, Rusty Kimball, Margaret Foster, and Joel Kitchens, “Tenure Support Mechanisms Provided by the Faculty Research Committee at Texas A&M University Libraries: A Model for Academic Li- braries,” Library Management 32, no. 8 (2011): 531–39; Cynthia Tysick and Nancy Babb, “Writing Support for Junior Faculty Librarians: A Case Study,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 32, no. 1 (Jan. 2006): 94–100. 33. Kristin J. Henrich and Ramirose Attebury, “Communities of Practice at an Academic Library: A New Approach to Mentoring at the University of Idaho,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 36, no. 2 (Mar. 2010): 158–65. 34. Cirasella and Smale, “Peers Don’t Let Peers Perish,” 102; Tamera P. Lee, “The Library Research Committee: It Has the Money and the Time,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 21, no. 2 (1995): 112; Allison V. Level and Michelle Mach, “Peer Mentoring: One Institution’s Approach to Mentoring Academic Librarians,” Library Management 26, no. 6/7 (2005): 306. 35. Deborah Lee, “Mentoring the Untenured Librarian: The Research Committee,” College & Research Libraries News 66, no. 10 (2005): 713. 36. Molly Keener, Vicki Johnson, and Bobbie L. Collins, “In-House Collaborative Mentoring: Programs That Capitalize on Campus Community Strengths,” College & Research Libraries News 73, no. 3 (2012): 134–35; Lee, “Mentoring the Untenured Librarian,” 711–12; Miller and Benefiel, “Academic Libraries and the Pursuit of Tenure,” 263; Tysick and Babb, “Writing Support for Junior Faculty Librarians,” 98; Phillip M. Edwards, Elaine Z. Jennerich, and Jennifer L. Ward, “Support- ing a Culture of Library Research at the University of Washington at Seattle,” in An Introduction to Staff Development in Academic Libraries, ed. Elizabeth Connor (New York: Routledge, 2009), 84–85; Alvin M. Schrader, Ali Shiri, and Vicki Williamson, “Assessment of the Research Learning Needs of University of Saskatchewan Librarians: A Case Study,” College & Research Libraries 73, no. 2 (2012): 157. 490 College & Research Libraries May 2014 37. Margaret Foote, Jan Mayo, and Ali D. Abdulla, “Encouraging Research among Untenured Faculty: One Library’s Experience,” North Carolina Libraries 55, no. 3 (1997): 135; Kathleen Kenny, Linda D. Tietjen, and Rutherford W. Witthus, “Increasing Scholarly Productivity among Library Faculty: Strategies for a Medium-sized Library,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 16, no. 5 (1990): 278; Dana Keyse, Elizabeth W. Kraemer, and Julie Voelck, “Mentoring Untenured Librarians: All It Takes Is a Little Un-TLC,” College & Research Libraries News 64, no. 6 (2003): 380. 38. Richard Sapon-White, Valery King, and Anne Christie, “Supporting a Culture of Scholar- ship for Academic Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 3 (2004): 412; Stephens et al., “Tenure Support Mechanisms,” 535; Susan P. Lieberthal, “Perspectives on Peer Support for Tenure-Track Librarians: The Annual ‘Juniors’’ Retreat at Stony Brook University,” Collaborative Librarianship 1, no. 2(2009): 30–47. 39. Nina Exner and Amy Harris Houk, “Starting the Write Way: Comparing Two Library Scholarly Development Programs,” Library Leadership & Management 24, no. 4 (2010): 181; Level and Mach, “Peer Mentoring,” 306; Stephens et al., “Tenure Support Mechanisms,” 538; Tysick and Babb, “Writing Support for Junior Faculty Librarians,” 97. 40. Exner and Houk, “Starting the Write Way”; Pamela Palmer and Chris Matz, “Promoting Writing among Nontenured Faculty: Seven Up, Seven Down,” College & Research Libraries News 67, no. 6 (June 2006): 372–74; Sapon-White, King and Christie, “Supporting a Culture.” 41. Kelly Blessinger, Stephanie Braunstein, Alice Daugherty, and Paul Hrycaj, “Formation of an Academic Writing Group at Louisiana State University Libraries: Background, Guidelines and Lessons Learned,” Codex: The Journal of the Louisiana Chapter of the ACRL 1, no. 2 (2010):18–40. 42. Stephens et al., “Tenure Support Mechanisms.” 43. Cirasella and Smale, “Peers Don’t Let Peers Perish,” 103; Sapon-White, King and Christie, “Supporting a Culture,” 418; Stephens et al., “Tenure Support Mechanisms,” 538. 44. Carole J. Bland, Anne Marie Weber-Main, Sharon Marie Lund, and Deborah A. Finstad, The Research-Productive Department: Strategies from Departments that Excel (Bolton, Mass.: Wiley, 2005). 45. Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, 1st ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1997); David Damrosch, We Scholars: Changing the Culture of the University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995); Deborah L. Rhode, In Pursuit of Knowledge: Scholars, Status, and Academic Culture (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Law and Politics, 2006) ; Ted I.K. Youn and Tanya M. Price, “Learning from the Experience of Others: The Evolution of Faculty Tenure and Promotion Rules in Comprehensive Institutions,” Journal of Higher Education 80, no. 2 (Mar./Apr. 2009): 204–37. 46. Jack H. Schuster and Martin J. Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Aca- demic Work and Careers (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006): 490. 47. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 94–97. 48. John Cosgriff, Donald Kenney, and Gail McMillan, Research and Publication Questionnaire (Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech University Libraries, 1987). Photocopy. 49. SurveyMonkey, available online at www.surveymonkey.com [accessed 20 February 2013]. 50. Association of Research Libraries, “Member Libraries,” available online at www.arl.org/ arl/membership/members.shtml [accessed 20 February 2013]. 51. Association of Research Libraries, “Membership,” available online at www.arl.org/arl/ membership/qualprin.shtml [accessed 20 February 2013]. 52. Association of Research Libraries, “Member Libraries.” 53. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95; Rayman and Goudy, “Re- search and Publication Requirements,” 44. 54. Sharon Ladenson, Diane Mayers, and Colleen Hyslop. Socializing New Hires, SPEC Kit 323 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 2011), 11; Cathleen Martyniak and Brian Keith, Leave and Professional Development Benefits, SPEC Kit 315 (Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries, 2009), 9; Stephanie Wright and Lynda S. White, Library Assessment, SPEC Kit 303 (Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries, 2007), 11; Scott Walter and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Instructional Improvement Programs, SPEC Kit 287, (Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries, 2005), 12; Barbara Wittkopf, Mentoring Programs in ARL Libraries, SPEC Kit 239 (Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management Services, 1999), 4; Teri R. Switzer, “SPEC Flyer 197: Benefits for Professional Staff in ARL Librar- ies,” in Benefits for Professional Staff in ARL Libraries, SPEC Kit 197 (Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services, 1993). 55. Rayman and Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements,” 44–45; Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95. 56. Rayman and Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements,” 44–45; Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95–96. 57. Rayman and Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements,” 44–45; Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95–96. Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries 491 58. Shelley Arlen and Nedria A. Santizo, “Administrative Support for Research: A Survey of Library Faculty,” Library Administration & Management 4 (Fall 1990): 209–10. 59. Switzer, “SPEC Flyer 197”; Martyniak and Keith, Leave and Professional Development Benefits, 11. 60. Arlen and Santizo, “Administrative Support,” 209; Switzer, “SPEC Flyer 197;” Martyniak and Keith, Leave and Professional Development Benefits, 11. 61. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95–96. 62. Martyniak and Keith, Leave and Professional Development Benefits, 11. 63. Switzer, “SPEC Flyer 197.” 64. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95–96. 65. Molly R. Flaspohler, “Librarian Sabbatical Leaves: Do We Need to Get Out More?” Journal of Academic Librarianship 35, no. 2 (2009): 155. 66. Switzer, “SPEC Flyer 197.” 67. Ibid. 68. Rayman and Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements,” 45–46; Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 95–96. 69. Kenny, Tietjen, and Witthus, “Increasing Scholarly Productivity,” 277. 70. Schrader, Shiri, and Williamson, “Assessment of the Research Learning Needs,” 150. 71. Ibid. 72. Alvin M. Schrader, “Exploring the Research Knowledge Needs of Canadian Librarians,” in New Trends in Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries: Selected Papers Presented at the 2nd Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries: Proceedings of the International Conference on QQML2010, Chania, Crete, Greece, 25–28 May 2010, eds. Anthi Katsirikou and Christos Skiadas (Singapore: World Scientific, 2011), 299. 73. Lee, “The Library Research Committee,” 111–14. 74. Stephens et al., “Tenure Support Mechanisms,” 535–37. 75. Wittkopf, Mentoring Programs in ARL Libraries. 76. Ladenson, Mayers, and Hyslop, Socializing New Hires. 77. Rayman and Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements,” 45. 78. Cosgriff, Kenney, and McMillan, “Support for Publishing,” 94–97. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid. 81. Fennewald, “Research Productivity,” 104. 82. Ibid., 112. 83. Richard L. Hart, “Collaborative Publishing by University Librarians: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 2 (Mar. 2000): 97–98. 84. Schrader, Shiri, and Williamson, “Assessment of the Research Learning Needs,” 154, 156. 85. Ibid. 86. Heidi LM Jacobs, Selinda Berg, and Dayna Cornwall, “Something to Talk About: Re-thinking Conversations on Research Culture in Canadian Academic Libraries,” Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 5, no. 2 (July 2010): 5. 87. Fennewald, “Research Productivity,” 110. 88. Schrader, Shiri, and Williamson, “Assessment of the Research Learning Needs,” 157. 89. Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research,” 438. 90. Fox, “Finding Time for Scholarship,” 452. 91. Ibid.,454. 92. Ibid., 460–61. 93. Ibid., 456. 94. Patricia L. Hardre, Andre D. Beesley, Raymond L. Miller, and Terry M. Pace, “Faculty Motivation to Do Research: Across Disciplines in Research-Extensive Universities,” Journal of the Professoriate 5, no. 1 (2011): 54. 95. Ibid., 56. 96. Ibid., 58. 97. Gay Helen Perkins and Amy J.W. Slowik, “The Value of Research in Academic Libraries,” College and Research Libraries 74, no. 2 (Mar. 2013): 143–58. 98. Ibid., 17. 99. Wright and White, Library Assessment, 15; Walter and Hinchliffe, Instructional Improvement Programs, 14. 100. Rebecca Watson-Boone, “Academic Librarians as Practitioner-Researchers,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 26, no. 2 (Mar. 2000): 92. 101. Claire C. Caruso, “Possible Broad Impacts of Long Work Hours,” Industrial Health 44, no. 4 (2006): 531–36.