EN:

Objective – This article reports the survey findings from a mixed-methods assessment of the six-year Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL). The Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provided funding for IRDL from 2014-2019; during this time, 124 academic and research librarians participated in a year-long continuing education program for novice researchers. This article assesses the effectiveness of IRDL in meeting short-term and long-term goals related to research productivity, job performance, and identity as a researcher. Beyond the assessment of IRDL itself, the study addresses the implications of IRDL for creating effective research continuing education programs and institutional support for librarian research.

Methods – In the first part of a two-phase study, we surveyed all 124 librarians who completed the in-person summer research workshop and year-long online follow-up program. The lead researcher invited those who completed the survey to participate in the study's second phase, a focus group or an in-depth interview.

Results – Eighty-nine participants responded to the survey, for a 72% response rate. The results show that IRDL was successful in helping a majority of participants complete their IRDL project and conduct new research. Participants reported work-related benefits of participating in the program, including tenure, rank promotion, merit-based salary increases, and new employment opportunities. IRDL contributed to developing personal learning networks, research collaborations, and a sense of identity as a researcher. IRDL increased the research confidence of the participants by providing them with research methods instruction, coupled with an opportunity to practice what they have learned during a year-long support program.

Conclusion – This assessment study confirms that IRDL is an effective program for novice librarian-researchers who want to improve their research skills, develop new research relationships among their peers, and advance in their careers. It also provides insight into the conditions for a successful continuing education and research support program. Many librarians experience anxiety about conducting and disseminating their research; IRDL demonstrates the importance of placing novice researchers in a supportive environment, where research is viewed as a positive experience that is directly related to professional success. These experiences lead to increased confidence and identity as a researcher, which contributes to increased research productivity.

EN:

Objective – As a follow-up to the first 2013 survey, the Visible Minority Librarians of Canada (ViMLoC) network conducted its second comprehensive survey in 2021. The 2021 survey gathered detailed information about the demography, education, and employment of visible minority librarians (VMLs) working in Canadian institutions. Data from the 2021 survey and the analysis presented in this paper help us better understand the current library landscape, presented alongside findings from the 2013 survey. The research results will be helpful for professional associations and library administrators to develop initiatives to support VMLs.

Methods – Researchers created online survey questionnaires using Qualtrics XM in English and translated them into French. We distributed the survey invitation through relevant library association electronic mail lists and posted on ViMLoC’s website, social networking platforms, and through their electronic mail list. The survey asked if the participant was a visible minority librarian. If the response was “No,” the survey closed. Respondents indicating "Yes" were asked 36 personal and professional questions of three types: multiple-choice, yes/no, and open-ended questions.

Results – One hundred and sixty-two VMLs completed the 2021 survey. Chinese remained the largest ethnic identity, but their proportion in the survey decreased from 36% in 2013 to 24% in 2021. 65% were aged between 26 and 45 years old. More than half received their library degree during the 2010s. 89% completed their library degree in Canada, a 5% increase from 2013. The majority of librarians had graduated from University of Toronto (25%), followed closely by University of British Columbia (23%), and Western University (22%). Only 3% received their library degree from a library school outside North America. 34% of librarians earned a second master’s degree and 5% had a PhD. 60% of librarians had less than 11 years of experience. Nearly half worked in academic libraries. Most were located in Ontario and British Columbia. 69% of librarians were in non-management positions with 5% being senior administrators. 25% reported a salary above $100,000. In terms of job categories, the largest group worked in Reference/Information Services (45%), followed by Instruction Services (32%), and as Liaison Librarians (31%). Those working in Acquisitions/Collection Development saw the biggest jump from 1% in 2013 to 28% in 2021. 58% of librarians sought mentoring support, of whom 54% participated in formal mentorship programs, and 48% had a visible minority mentor.

Conclusion – 35% more VMLs responded to the 2021 survey compared to the 2013 survey. Changes occurred in ethnic identity, generation, where VMLs earned a Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) or equivalent degree, library type, geographic location, and job responsibilities. The 2021 survey also explored other aspects of the VMLs not covered in the 2013 survey, such as librarian experience, salary, management positions, and mentorship experience. The findings suggested that the professional associations and library administrators would need collaborative efforts to support VMLs.

EN:

Objective – The authors sought to identify link language that is user-friendly and sufficiently disambiguates between a digital collection and digital exhibit platform for users from a R1 institution, or a university with high research activity and doctoral programs as classified in the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.

Methods – The authors distributed two online surveys using a modified open card sort and reverse-category test via university electronic mailing lists to undergraduate and graduate students to learn what language they would use to identify groups of items and to test their understanding of link labels that point to digitized cultural heritage items.

Results – Our study uncovered that the link terms utilized by cultural heritage institutions are not uniformly understood by our users. Terms that are frequently used interchangeably (i.e., Digital Collections, Digital Project, and Digital Exhibit) can be too generic to be meaningful for different user groups.

Conclusion – Because the link terms utilized by cultural heritage institutions were not uniformly understood by our users, the most user-friendly way to link to these resources is to use the term we—librarians, curators, and archivists—think is most accurate as the link text based on our professional knowledge and provide a brief description of what each site contains in order to provide necessary context.

EN:

Objective – The research was conducted to understand better how and what spaces are used in a mid-size academic library. Also, the authors were interested in their users' spatial likes and dislikes and why they gravitated to or avoided specific spaces or floors. The authors also found an opportunity to examine recent renovations that added a connector bridge to a first-year student dorm and the subsequent increase in foot traffic to evaluate its success in meeting users' needs for varied and productive study spaces across the building.

Methods – The study used a survey to gauge user satisfaction with the library's space and environment for research, study, and collaborative work. The authors hand-distributed a survey with five multiple-choice and three open-response questions to users over three days (Monday-Wednesday) between 10 am - 4 pm, the busiest days and times in a typical week. The collected surveys were sorted and coded in an Excel spreadsheet and uploaded and analyzed in JMP Pro.

Results – The 298 completed responses came from undergraduate students (n=281) who visited the first floor, identified as a collaborative study space (n=144). Respondents showed that they visit the library daily (58%, n=173) and weekly (34%, n=104). Most of the survey participants (98%, n=293) indicated that they pursued academic work in quiet spaces they occupied (75%, n=224). Interestingly enough, the noisiest and quietest floors are the areas most avoided, the first floor-collaborative, noisiest space (54%, n=161) and the third floor-designated as quiet space (18%, n=55). The final survey question invited the respondents to "sound off," with 135 responding; 107 (79%) of them opined on improvements to existing study spaces within the library.

Conclusion – This research demonstrated that students value the library as a place to study but are critical of excessive noise and overcrowding in the designated collaborative study areas. Academic libraries should consider balance when designing library study spaces. Librarians and space designers should strive to strike an appropriate balance between seating quality and quantity, acceptable noise levels in designated collaborative and quiet study spaces, and the impacts of environmental factors such as printers, food services, exhibits, art displays, restrooms, and walkways through library study spaces within the library.

EN:

Objective – The number of graduate nursing programs in the U.S. has increased significantly in recent years. This scoping review seeks to examine the range of literature discussing librarian instruction for graduate nursing students to identity the types of studies being published, the characteristics of instructional sessions, knowledge gaps which may exist, and the evidence available for a subsequent systematic review evaluating instructional effectiveness.

Methods – Guidelines established by the PRISMA statement for scoping reviews (PRISMA-Scr) were used to conduct this review. Concepts for library instruction and graduate nursing students were searched in six databases as well as Google Scholar. The two authors used titles/abstracts and when necessary, full-text to independently screen identified studies. Conflicting screening decisions were resolved by discussion.

Results – Data was extracted from 20 sources. Thirteen of the sources were descriptions of classes or programs, one was a program evaluation, two were mixed methods studies that looked at library use and program support respectively but did not assess instruction, two were surveys of students’ feelings and attitudes about instruction, and two were quasi-experimental studies which included pre-post instruction quizzes. The most popular format for library instruction was online (synchronous or asynchronous) instruction. Most sources did not include information about the timing or duration of instruction. In addition, most sources did not reference instructional theory although a few mentioned aspects of instructional theory such as active learning. Only one source mentioned using a specific model to develop instructional content. While several sources mentioned assessment of student learning, only four studies included the results of assessment.

Conclusions – Sources reporting on instruction for graduate nursing students consisted primarily of descriptions of programs or instructional sessions. Many of the descriptive studies lacked essential information such as specifics of format, timing, and duration which would aid replication at other institutions. Only four sources were research studies that evaluated instructional effectiveness.