Similar to the findings in the case of research activities, more than 90 percent of librarians who disseminated their research report having done so only one to five times during the period under study (89 of 98/90.82%) (see figure 2). Those with six to ten years of librarian experience are most likely to have published/presented in the past five years (32/57.14%), while those in the categories one to five years, eleven to twenty years, and >twenty years all fall in the mid- to high thirties, percentagewise (see table 2). The authors speculate that the jump in activity among those with six-ten years in the profession may be linked to the typical timeframe for the tenure-track, in which tenure is customarily awarded after seven years of service. Another possible explanation is that emphasis on research and dissemination activity may wax and wane over time, and these individuals may have entered the profession at a time when this sort of activity was highly valued, thereby setting a pattern for continued activity during their careers.

The findings also indicate that community college librarians are doing more research than they are publishing; while 58.97 percent of the 234 respondents (138 individuals) report serving as a researcher/investigator on at least one project, only 41.88 percent (98 individuals) report having engaged in publication or presentation related to their research.21 This means that 58.12 percent of total respondents (136 of 234) have not published or presented during that time period, which translates to 98 or just over 71.01 percent of our 138 researchers.

When it comes to publication or presentation venues, conference presentations were most frequently reported (63 of 98/64.29%), followed by peer-reviewed articles or books (43/43.88%), editorially reviewed publications (36/36.73%), blogs or websites (22/22.45%), and trade publications (15/15.3%) (see table 3).

The finding of a preference for conference presentations accords with findings from Ackerman, Hunter, and Wilkinson, who had determined that conference papers and posters were the most common form of research dissemination among academic librarians overall.22 Gary W. White discussed the importance of research and dissemination practices on reference librarians’ professional growth, describing the specific advantages of conference presentations, since these present opportunities to hear about the most recent research and also provide a venue for immediate feedback for the researcher.23 Publication practices across the arc of community college librarians’ careers could be a fruitful area for future research.

When asked about research topics, survey participants were able to select any number of responses that seemed relevant to their work. It is no surprise that, for the 138 respondents who conducted research in the preceding five years, 119 said they have researched in the LIS discipline (86.23%), while all other disciplines together were only selected by 59 individuals (42.75%). In considering specific areas of LIS, public service was reported to be the focus of research by the largest number of participants (48 of 119/40.34%), with library management a distant second (21/17.65%). The focus on public service topics may be because, in many community colleges, librarians from all areas of library work provide reference and instruction services. In addition, student learning—that is to say, instruction, a component of public services in libraries—is a popular focus for research in higher education overall, not just in libraries. This dominance of public services as a research topic is very interesting considering that the demographic data indicate that librarians who work in technology are most likely to have engaged in research (43 of 65/66.15%), followed by those in management (51 of 83/61.45%) or technical services (35 of 57/61.40%). Public services come in fourth out of five (114 of 196/58.16%) (see table 4).

Collaboration emerged as an important theme in this study. More than half of the 138 researchers had done solo research during the previous five years (87/63.04%), but even more had worked collaboratively on one or more projects (103/74.64%). Just over one quarter of them had only worked on solo research projects (35/25.36%). This may be attributable to the collaborative nature of much of the work that librarians do. Most reported collaborations involved librarians working with individuals from their own institution (78 of 103/75.73%), followed by those who reported collaboration with individuals from other institutions of higher education (40 of 103/38.83%), and just over 10 percent with individuals from organizations beyond higher education (11 of 103/10.68%). The survey also asked participants whether their collaborative partners came from “within the library,” “non-library academic departments,” or “other.”24 Some of the most interesting data to emerge from this area of inquiry came from the open-ended descriptions related to “other” types of units within the organization. Counseling, human resources, financial aid, and facilities were all mentioned by respondents who collaborated with other higher ed partners, while two respondents reported they had done collaborative research with architects from non-academic institutions. Through comments, the author’s learned that some community college librarians find it easier to collaborate with classroom faculty than with their own library colleagues, for a variety of reasons. Others mentioned that they are only allowed to carry out this work during compensated working hours when it involves work with non-library colleagues as part of a campus-wide committee.

Motivation to Research and Publish (or Not)

Some respondents discussed the reasons why they do not engage in research or publication. One common response was the lack of external motivation in cases where this kind of activity is not required of them as a part of their job, nor as a factor in tenure or promotion decisions. One individual described a distinct lessening of motivation for scholarship activity after transitioning from a four-year institution with a strict mandate to research and publish. Another worried about taking away valuable presentation opportunities from others for whom this area of work is required. Another librarian reported that they did not believe that anyone from their institution would take their research findings seriously. Finally, one participant described “being told community college librarians aren’t supposed to publish.”

Barriers and Supports

When asked what barriers they had experienced related to research or research-related publication, lack of time was by far the most common response from participants (224/95.73%). The second and third most-often selected barriers were insecurity about their own research skills (207/88.46%) and an unmet need for funding (203/86.75%). Participants were also asked how impactful they felt these obstacles have been, on a scale of one (minimal impact) to five (completely insurmountable). Looking at the higher end of that scale—librarians who rated a given barrier four or five—well over half of individuals surveyed are really struggling with the issue of time (135/57.69%), followed at a distance by lack of money (90/38.46%) and a general lack of support from the institution (89/38.03%) (see Figure 3).

When asked about types of institutional supports that may have been available for those wishing to research or publish, participants reported that the supports most often available are professional development opportunities (183/78.21%) and distribution of information about professional development opportunities (170/72.65%). Potential institutional supports that might address the two most impactful barriers (lack of time and lack of money) fall way below. Time set aside specifically for research activities was available for only 28.63 percent of respondents (67); only research design support was less often available (64/27.35%). Funding-related categories include distribution of information related to funding sources, at sixth place for availability out of twelve potential supports (101/43.16%), and funding itself, in eighth place (92/39.32%). The authors also asked respondents to tell them how useful these supports were for their research and publication activities, on a scale of one (not useful at all) to five (extremely useful), and specifically examined the responses that fell at the higher end of that scale, from librarians who rated a given support a score of four or five for usefulness (see figure 4).

Mirroring the findings regarding the most impactful barriers, when the forms of institutional support that are considered most useful by those who have access to them are considered, the leading answer, again, is time. As mentioned earlier, lack of time was both the most reported and the most impactful barrier for librarians who might want to research or publish. In addition, of the ninety-one open-ended survey comments related to barriers, forty-six concern lack of time (50.55%). When asked about institutional supports, only a relatively small number of survey respondents reported that compensated time for research or publication was made available to them (67/28.63%). Just a little over half of those who were offered research time have taken advantage of it (38 of 67/56.72%). And yet, this type of support is most appreciated by those who have taken the opportunity to use it (20 of 38/52.63%). A number of participants talked about the need to do research and writing for publication “on their own time.” While faculty in non-library departments often have significant control over how they spend their non-classroom work hours, librarians are typically scheduled to work full-time in the library, for the most part focusing on tasks related to library operations. Understandably, respondents worry that work-life balance will suffer if they use evenings and weekends to research and write. This situation causes “a lot of frustration.” Discussion of lack of time is often paired with mention of inadequate staffing in libraries, whether a funding issue or a matter of institutional policy. Multiple respondents mentioned the strict prioritization of library operations as a barrier.

This lack of time to devote to research and publication is also by far the most apparent barrier mentioned in the literature, regardless of type of institution.25 For example, Smigielski, Laning, and Daniels reported that, while over 86 percent of the research library directors they surveyed believe that dedicated time for research and publication activities has a positive impact on librarian researchers’ success, only just over 70 percent of libraries offering tenure and under 67 percent of those without tenure offer this kind of support.26 Fox surveyed Canadian research librarians, reporting that these full-time professionals spent approximately forty-seven hours per week on all job responsibilities, dedicating less than five of those to scholarly activities. While these librarians would like to be able to spend about 15 percent of their time on scholarly pursuits, they are able to dedicate just 7–8 percent.27 Many academic librarians have complex jobs, with both overlapping and competing responsibilities. Still, there is an anecdotal understanding that lack of time and competing responsibilities may impact community college librarians to a greater extent, as evidenced in a number of comments from survey participants describing the rationale that community colleges are, by definition, focused more on teaching than research. This would be an interesting question for future research.

According to survey results, funding, the third most common and second most impactful barrier, ranks fourth for usefulness as a form of support (25 of 78/32.05%) (see figure 4). In addition to funding for research-focused release time and adequate staffing, more direct costs may include access to specialized software or equipment, which came in fifth on our list of useful supports (13 of 50/26%). Lack of funding may also impact librarians’ ability to participate in professional organizations, or to attend conferences and symposia. When librarians are encouraged to become active beyond their own institution, and afforded the time and funding to do so, they can keep abreast of trends and best practices and connect with potential research collaborators. As mentioned earlier, some associations also provide professional development opportunities related to research, either free with membership or through more formal fee-based programs such as the LRI mentioned earlier and the Assessment in Action program of ACRL.28 However, participation requires an investment of time and funding that may be difficult for librarians to cover on their own.

A good portion of survey participants indicated they were severely challenged by their own insecurity about research skills (43/18.38%). This finding accords with those of Crampsie, Neville, and Henry; Kennedy and Brancolini; and Burdick et al., who each described lack of research confidence as an issue in the populations they studied.29 Although Ackerman, Hunter, and Wilkinson report that 65 percent of their survey respondents had at least one research methodology course under their belt, they heard from many of their respondents that they had not received this type of training, whether in their MLIS programs or via other initiatives.30 Survey participants in the present study talked about lacking confidence or feeling “out of my element even considering being a contributor.” A lack of access to the research literature registered as the least impactful barrier (21/8.97%), tied with a lack of personal interest in doing research. Community colleges are not research institutions, as has been mentioned previously, and they may not be set up to provide access to the research literature in any given discipline, not just in librarianship. The low level of impact for this barrier is most likely due to the ability of individuals to circumvent this situation by use of interlibrary loan, but this was still seen as a challenge, adding a layer of effort to an already difficult task.

Institutions and Organizational Cultures

Close to two-thirds of the 234 community college librarians who responded to the survey have faculty status (147/62.82%), but less than half are tenured or on the tenure track (108/46.15%). Being in a position with faculty status did not have a large impact on whether survey respondents had done research in the past five years, but being tenured or on the tenure track did make a noticeable difference. Just over two percentage points separate those with faculty status who had completed research during the past five years from those without faculty status, while just over 14 percentage points separate those tenured or on the tenure track who had conducted research versus those not on the tenure track (see table 5). When it comes to research publication/presentation, these differences are slightly less important. Just over four percentage points separate faculty members who have published or presented from non-faculty author/presenters, and there is more than a 11.5 percentage point gap separating those tenure-track or tenured individuals who published or presented from those not tenured or on the tenure-track.

Several survey participants mentioned in comments that they are not considered faculty and therefore are not expected to pursue research or publication. As alluded to earlier, in some community colleges the traditional emphasis on teaching effectively devalues scholarship activities. Relevant comments from participants included that “institutional supports for research and publication are simply not in the DNA of community colleges,” or, in a library where the respondent is the first, historically, to show an interest in research, “it feels like as a new librarian I’m trying to figure this out completely on my own.” A few respondents reported that tenure or promotion requirements for librarians in their institutions focus solely on library operations and services to students. In fact, in several institutions that do have a tenure track, no one—librarian or teaching faculty—is required or encouraged to conduct research. Reported negative institutional responses range from silence, apathy, or a lack of encouragement/expectation for research on one side, to antipathy or direct restrictions on participation in such activities on the other. Of course, all of this adds to a problem the current study aims to address: a lack of representation of community college library concerns in the scholarly literature. One way to think about research is that when we study our problems, practices, and the interactions our constituents have with us and with our libraries, we develop professionally, make evidence-based decisions about practice, and help members of our college community improve their teaching and learning. In other words, it helps librarians do their jobs more effectively. This suggests a certain shortsightedness in some of these institutional policies. Not only do these organizations not value research as a way to contribute to the field, they also do not value it as a means of development for their professional staff, nor as a means to improve services, thereby improving teaching and learning.

Education and Preparedness to Conduct Research

As mentioned earlier, fewer than half of our 234 survey respondents hold any advanced degree beyond an ALA accredited master’s degree in LIS. For those 98 individuals, there is an apparent correlation between having a second master’s degree and a 12 percent increased likelihood of having both conducted research (65 of 98/66.33%) and engaged in publication or presentation tied to research (48 of 98/48.99%). Reflecting on their own preparedness to do this kind of work, the authors of the present study recognize that the research and publication activities required or encouraged for their second or third advanced degrees has helped provide them with some of the skills and confidence that makes the leap into research and publication in LIS a more natural stretch. In addition, one survey respondent reported pursuing a PhD specifically in order to increase their research skills.

Conclusion

This project seeks to increase understanding of community college librarians’ current research and publication behaviors and of their perceptions of research and publication in their libraries. The authors explore questions such as how much and what types of research and publication community college librarians do currently, what barriers and supports they encounter, and what motivates them to do this kind of work. The ultimate goal of this study is to support an increase in research activity and the representation of the experiences of community college librarians and their student patrons in the LIS literature.

Close to 60 percent of the community college librarians the authors surveyed have been active researchers during the past five years, most often investigating LIS-related topics, primarily in public services. Collaborating on research projects and focusing on areas related to the regular responsibilities of the job can be valuable strategies. Many participants attribute their success to the collaborative nature of their projects, and new initiatives aimed at making connections and building teams could prove valuable. Librarians who participate in committee or task-force work on campus may find ready collaborators in their colleagues from different areas of campus, and any shared project could become a focus for research. Networking and cohort-based professional development could help bring together researchers with complementary experience and skills and foster potential mentoring relationships. Participation in regional and national professional organizations should be recognized as valuable, both for networking opportunities and professional development.

Less than 30 percent of those who report research activity have done any research-related publication or presentation during the past five years. If some community college librarians are conducting research but not necessarily publishing or presenting their results, perhaps support initiatives aimed at demystifying the publication process and emphasizing the value of shared research findings could be a first step toward increasing representation. Respondents with six to ten years of experience are most likely to have researched or shared their findings. Support programming that targets community college librarians in their first five years of practice could prove particularly useful for those who are on a typical seven-year tenure clock and might also help instill in early-career librarians a lasting appreciation for this area of work. This may also contribute to the development of a corps of veteran, post-tenure researchers, who would be in an excellent position to mentor those who follow. For respondents in this study, conference presentations are the most popular type of venue for sharing their research, and it might be useful to begin to popularize the concept of conference presentation as just a first step in dissemination of research findings, encouraging eventual follow-up publication of a more complete analysis in other venues.

Considering perceived barriers and supports, time to devote to research and publication and funding for a range of resources seem to be most impactful for study participants, and external motivation in terms of requirements and formal expectations for scholarship are also very important. Shifting industry-wide workload issues or institutional policy seems daunting in the near term, but perhaps over time better representation in the literature of best practices for community college libraries can lead to higher valuation of librarians’ research and publication work. In the meantime, however, respondents’ insecurities about their research skills yields a more promising area for direct intervention. For example, innovative library leaders and organizations such as CJCLS could support advances in research by providing opportunities for librarians to gain experience and increase skill levels through professional development or mentoring. Several respondents mentioned the need to learn more about research design, qualitative and quantitative analysis, or how to use data processing software.

Increasing representation of the experiences of community college librarians and their students will expand knowledge related to issues that arise in that context, contribute to librarians’ professional development, and ultimately support improved services for community college students. In the near term, the Scholarly Research Committee of CJCLS will be able to base their program of professional development and other types of support on this new understanding, and library and institutional leaders who are interested in increasing professional development for librarians or in contributing to a greater representation of community college librarians’ concerns in the literature may also find this new information valuable.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the CJCLS Scholarly Research Committee for the impetus for this research project and for continued support. They are grateful, as well, to all of the study participants who leant their time and attention to this endeavor and generously shared their experiences and perceptions.

Appendix A.

Survey Instrument

Eligibility to Participate

Are you an academic librarian who has been employed within the past five years as a librarian at one or more community or junior colleges? (By “community or junior college,” we mean any two-year, post-secondary educational institution that offers an associate’s degree and/or certifications.)

Yes/No

Research Activity

In the past five years, for how many research projects have you served as a researcher/investigator? (By “research project,” we mean any project that involves gathering data and analyzing it either to improve practices or better understand the world. This may or may not involve publication of findings.)

• □ 0 projects
• □ 1–5 projects
• □ 6–10 projects
• □ 11–15 projects
• □ 16–0 projects
• □ 21 projects or more

In the past five years, in what disciplines have you done research? (select all that apply)

• □ LIS (Library and Information Science)
• □ Social Sciences
• □ Natural Sciences
• □ Humanities
• □ Mathematics
• □ Business
• □ Other (please describe)

Which library-related activities would you describe as closely related to your LIS research topic(s)? (select all that apply)

• □ Public Services
• □ Access Services
• □ Technical Services
• □ Technology
• □ Library Management
• □ Other (please describe)

For how many research projects in the past five years have you been designated as Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator? (By “Principal Investigator” we mean the researcher/investigator who takes primary responsibility for the project.)

• □ 0 projects
• □ 1–5 projects
• □ 6–10 projects
• □ 11–15 projects
• □ 16–20 projects
• □ 21 projects or more

How many solo research projects have you conducted in the past five years? (By “solo research,” we mean research where you have been the sole investigator, although your project may have involved research assistants or the help of other individuals).

• □ 0 projects
• □ 1–5 projects
• □ 6–10 projects
• □ 11–15 projects
• □ 16–20 projects
• □ 21 projects or more

In the past five years, how many collaborative research projects have you been a part of? (By “collaborative research,” we mean those projects where you served as a researcher/investigator in collaboration with one or more additional researchers/investigators.)

• □ 0 projects
• □ 1–5 projects
• □ 6–10 projects
• □ 11–15 projects
• □ 16–20 projects
• □ 21 projects or more

In the past 5 years, have you collaborated on research projects with other researchers/investigators from your own institution? (By “your own institution,” we mean the community or junior college you were working for at the time.)

• □ Yes □ No

For those collaborations with researchers/investigators from your own institution, how would you describe their position within the institution? (select all that apply)

• □ From within the Library department/staff
• □ From non-library academic department(s)
• □ From other entities within the institution (please describe)

In the past five years, have you collaborated on research projects with researchers/investigators who were employed at other higher education institutions?

• □ Yes □ No

For those collaborations with researchers/investigators from other higher education institutions, how would you describe their position within the institution? (select all that apply)

• □ From within the Library department/staff
• □ From non-library academic department(s)
• □ From other entities within the institution (please describe)

In the past five years, have you collaborated on research projects with researchers/investigators from other, non-higher-education institutions? (By “non-higher-education institutions” we mean any institution or organization that is not a post-secondary educational institution.)

• □ Yes □ No

For those collaborations with researchers/investigators from non-higher-education institutions, how would you describe their position within the institution? (select all that apply)

• □ From within the Library department/staff (if there is a library)
• □ From other entities within the institution (please describe)

Publication Tied to Research

How many times in the past five years have you engaged in publication activity tied to research? (By “publication activity tied to research,” we mean sharing research results or narratives about research processes in any kind of publication or live/virtual presentation.)

• □ 0 projects
• □ 1–5 projects
• □ 6–10 projects
• □ 11–15 projects
• □ 16–20 projects
• □ 21 projects or more

What types of venues have you used for publication tied to research activity? (select all that apply)

• □ LIS-related, peer-reviewed academic/scholarly journals or books
• □ LIS-related, editorially reviewed (but not peer-reviewed) academic/scholarly journals or books
• □ LIS-related trade publication
• □ LIS-related blogs or websites
• □ LIS-related conferences, symposia, institutes, etc. (virtual or face-to-face)
• □ Non-LIS-related peer-reviewed academic/scholarly journals or books
• □ Non-LIS-related, editorially reviewed (but not peer-reviewed) academic/scholarly journals or books
• □ Non-LIS-related trade publication
• □ Non-LIS-related blogs or websites
• □ Non-LIS-related conferences, symposia, institutes, etc. (virtual or face-to-face)
• □ Other (please describe)

Barriers and Supports

In the past five years, have you experienced any of these potential barriers to conducting research or engaging in publication tied to research (indicate whether you’ve experienced these or not, and indicate for each how impactful that obstacle has been for your ability to conduct research and/or engage in publication tied to research)

Are there any comments you’d like to add related to potential barriers to research or publication tied to research?

[open]

In the past five years, which of these institutional supports for conducting research or engaging in publication tied to research have been available to you? (indicate whether these have been available to you or not, and indicate for each how useful that support has been for your ability to conduct research and/or engage in publication tied to research)

Are there any comments you’d like to add related to institutional supports for research or publication tied to research?

[open]

Demographics

What is your age?

• □ Less than 20 years old
• □ Between 20–30 years
• □ Between 31–40 years
• □ Between 41–50 years
• □ Between 51–60 years
• □ 61 years old or older

For a total of how many years have you served in a professional librarian position? (include part- or full-time; subtract any gaps in non-sequential employment)

• □ Less than 1 year
• □ 1–5 years
• □ 6–10 years
• □ 11–20 years
• □ Over 20 years

During the past five years have you served in any of the following

Capacities?

• □ As a full-time librarian
• □ As a part-time librarian
• □ In both full-and part-time librarian positions

In the past five years, in what areas of librarianship have you worked? (select all that apply)

• □ Public Services
• □ Access Services
• □ Technical Services
• □ Technology
• □ Library Management
• □ Other (please describe)

Do you hold a Master’s degree from a program accredited by the American Library Association?

• □ Yes □ No

Do you hold any advanced degrees other than a Master’s degree from a program accredited by the American Library Association?

• □ Yes □ No

Besides a Master’s degree program accredited by the American Library Association, what additional advanced degree(s) do you hold and from what discipline(s)?

[open]

During the past five years, have you served in a librarian position with faculty status?

• □ Yes
• □ No – my institution(s) provide faculty status for librarians, but I did not serve in that role
• □ No – my institution(s) do not provide faculty status for librarians

During the past five years, have you served in a librarian position with tenure or on the tenure track?

• □ Yes
• □ No – my institution(s) employ tenure-track librarians, but I did not serve in that role
• □ No – my institution(s) does not employ tenure-track librarians

Was librarianship your first career?

• □ Yes □ No

What are/were your previous career(s)? (please describe)

[open]

How is your current two-year, post-secondary institution funded?

• □ Publicly funded
• □ Privately funded
• □ Some other funding model (please describe)

What is the FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) for your current two-year, post-secondary institution?

• □ 1,000 FTE or less
• □ 1,001–5,000 FTE
• □ 5,001–10,000 FTE
• □ 10,001–15,000 FTE
• □ 15,001–20,000 FTE
• □ 20,001 or more
• □ Unsure

Is your current two-year, post-secondary organization part of a larger district or institution? (By “larger district or institution,” we mean a community college district, a multi-campus university, or any other umbrella institution).

• □ Yes/No

Please name the larger district or institution that organizationally includes your current two-year, post-secondary institution.

[open]

Which of the following best describes the context of your current two-year, post-secondary institution?

• □ Urban
• □ Suburban
• □ Rural
• □ Other (please describe)

Additional Comments

Is there anything else you’d like us to know about your research and publication practices?

[open]

Appendix B.

Code Book

Barriers and Comments

Supports: Comments

Additional Comments

Notes

1. “Fast Facts 2021,” American Association of Community Colleges, https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/fast-facts/

2. Kim Leeder Reed, “Square Peg in a Round Hole? The Framework for Information Literacy in the Community College Environment,” Journal of Library Administration 55, no. 3 (2015): 235.

3. Jennifer Arnold, “The Community College Conundrum: Workforce Issues in Community College Libraries,” Library Trends 59, no. 1 (2010): 233.

4. Carolyn E. Poole, “Importance of Research and Publication by Community College Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 61, no. 6 (2000): 488.

5. See, for example, Selinda Adelle Berg, Heidi L. M. Jacobs, and Dayna Cornwall, “Academic Librarians and Research: A Study of Canadian Library Administrator Perspectives,” College & Research Libraries 74, no. 6 (2013): 560–72; Joseph Fennewald, “Research Productivity among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publications at Penn State,” College & Research Libraries 69, no. 2 (2008): 104–16; David Fox, “Finding Time for Scholarship: A Survey of Canadian Research University Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 7, no. 4 (2007): 451–62; W. Bede Mitchell and Mary Reichel, “Publish or Perish: A Dilemma for Academic Librarians?,” College and Research Libraries 60, no. 3 (1999): 232–43; Richard Sapon-White, Valery King, and Anne Christie, “Supporting a Culture of Scholarship for Academic Librarians,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 4, no. 3 (2004): 407–21; 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): 147–63; Elizabeth M. Smigielski, Melissa A. Laning, and Caroline M. Daniels, “Funding, Time, and Mentoring: A Study of Research and Publication Support Practices of ARL Member Libraries,” Journal of Library Administration 54, no. 4 (2014): 261–76; Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Andrew Tsou, Sara Naslund, Alexandra Hauser, Melissa Brandon, Danielle Winter, Cody Behles, and S. Craig Finlay, “Beyond Gatekeepers of Knowledge: Scholarly Communication Practices of Academic Librarians and Archivists at ARL Institutions,” College & Research Libraries 75, no. 2 (2014): 145–61; Vicki Whitmell, “Building Research Competencies in Canadian Academic Libraries: The CARL Librarians’ Research Institute,” International Information & Library Review 49, no. 3 (2017): 230–36.

6. See, for example, Erin Ackerman, Jennifer Hunter, and Zara T. Wilkinson, “The Availability and Effectiveness of Research Supports for Early Career Academic Librarians,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 44, no. 5 (2018): 553–68; Camielle Crampsie, Tina Neville, and Deborah Henry, “Academic Librarian Publishing Productivity: An Analysis of Skills and Behaviors Leading to Success,” College & Research Libraries 81, no. 2 (2020): 248–271; Kristin Hoffmann, Selinda Berg, and Denise Koufogiannakis, “Understanding Factors That Encourage Research Productivity in Academic Librarians,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 12, no. 4 (2017): 102–29.

7. Deborah B. Henry and Tina M. Neville, “Research, Publication, and Service Patterns of Florida Academic Librarians,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 30, no. 6 (2004): 435–51.

8. Christopher V. Hollister, “An Exploratory Study of Post-Tenure Research Productivity among Academic Librarians,” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 42, no. 4 (2016): 368–81.

9. Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: A Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities,” College & Research Libraries 73, no. 5 (2012): 431–48.

10. Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: An Update to a Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities,” College & Research Libraries 79, no. 6 (2018): 822.

11. See, for example: Kristine R. Brancolini and Marie R. Kennedy, “The Development and Use of a Research Self-efficacy Scale to Assess the Effectiveness of a Research Training Program for Academic Librarians,” Library and Information Research 41, no. 124 (2017): 44–84; Marie R. Kennedy, Kristine R. Brancolini, and David P. Kennedy, “An Exploratory Study of Accomplished Librarian-Researchers,” Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 15, no. 1 (2020): 179–217; and Selinda Adelle Berg, Kristin Hoffmann, Kristine R. Brancolini, and Marie R. Kennedy, “‘I mean, pandemic’: How COVID-19 Has Disrupted Librarians’ Research.” College & Research Libraries News 82, no. 6 (2021): 272–73.

12. William K. Black and Joan M. Leysen, “Scholarship and the Academic Librarian,” College & Research Libraries 55, no. 3 (1994): 229–41.

13. Fennewald, “Research Productivity,” 111.

14. Schrader, Shiri, and Williamson, “Assessment.”

15. Kristin Hoffmann, Selinda Adelle Berg, and Denise Koufogiannakis, “Examining Success: Identifying Factors That Contribute to Research Productivity across Librarianship and Other Disciplines,” Library and Information Research 38, no. 119 (2014): 13–28.

16. Hoffmann, Berg, and Koufogiannakis, “Understanding.”

17. Ackerman, Hunter, and Wilkinson, “The Availability,” 562.

18. “Librarians’ Research Institute,” Canadian Association of Research Libraries, https://www.carl-abrc.ca/strengthening-capacity/workshops-and-training/librarians-research-institute/

19. Whitmell, “Building,” 236.

20. For the purposes of this study, community colleges are defined as two-year, post-secondary educational institutions that offer associate’s degrees or certifications.

21. One weakness in the survey design became apparent in the initial review of data because seventeen respondents said they had done no research at all in the previous five years but had participated in “publication related to research” during that time. The authors assume that these individuals either published research during that time period (which had been carried out in prior years), or participated as coauthors of research reports for projects where they did not serve as researchers/investigators. The authors elected to retain the publication-related data for these respondents.

22. Ackerman, Hunter, and Wilkinson, “The Availability,” 556. Their research population was primarily made up of librarians working in doctoral, masters, or baccalaureate institutions, but may have included just a few community college librarians within the 3 percent “other” category.

23. Gary W. White, “The Professional Development of Reference Librarians: Implications of Research, Publication, and Service,” The Reference Librarian 35, no. 73 (2001): 345.

24. The “non-library academic departments” option was not offered in the question focused on collaborations with investigators from other, non-higher-education institutions. In that case the options were “within the library” or “other.”

25. For example, see Ackerman, Hunter, and Wilkinson, “The Availability and Effectiveness,” 556; Amrita J. Burdick, C. A. Doms, C. C. Doty, and L. A. Kinzie, “Research Activities among Health Sciences Librarians: A Survey,” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 78, no. 4 (1990): 400; Beth Clewis, “Scholarship and the Community College Librarian,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 17, no. 4 (1991): 222; Fennewald, “Research Productivity,” 110; Theophilus Fiawotoafor, Perpetua S. Dadzie, and Musah Adams, “Publication Output of Professional Librarians in Public University Libraries in Ghana,” Library Philosophy and Practice (2019): 14; Terry O’Brien and Kieran Cronin, “Research Output of Academic Librarians from Irish Higher Education Institutions 2000–15: Findings from a Review, Analysis, and Survey,” New Review of Academic Librarianship 22, no. 2–3 (2016): 215; Gay Helen Perkins and Amy J. W. Slowik, “The Value of Research in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 74, no. 2 (2013): 151; Catherine Sassen and Diane Wahl, “Fostering Research and Publication in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 75, no. 4 (2014): 459.

26. Smigielski, Laning, and Daniels, “Funding,” 268.

27. Fox, “Finding Time,” 451. At the same time, Fox found that few of these participants reported taking advantage of the leave or sabbatical benefits that were made available to them.

28. The Assessment in Action program (AiA) was a three-year, grant-funded program from ACRL, established to prepare academic librarians to carry out assessment projects at their campuses, with extended professional development for approximately 300 librarians taking place between 2013–16 (see https://www.ala.org/acrl/AiA).

29. Crampsie, Neville, and Henry, “Academic Librarian Publishing”; Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: A Survey”; Kennedy and Brancolini, “Academic Librarian Research: An Update”; Burdick, Doms, Doty, and Kinzie, “Research Activities.”

30. Ackerman, Hunter, and Wilkinson, “The Availability,” 556.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Article Views (By Year/Month)

2026

January: 104

2025

January: 34

February: 49

March: 47

April: 50

May: 50

June: 47

July: 61

August: 46

September: 65

October: 88

November: 65

December: 73

2024

January: 84

February: 149

March: 86

April: 50

May: 47

June: 38

July: 27

August: 33

September: 32

October: 32

November: 29

December: 33

2023

January: 0

February: 0

March: 0

April: 0

May: 0

June: 0

July: 0

August: 0

September: 0

October: 9

November: 527

December: 149

ISSN: 2150-6701