External Review of the Librarians’ Research Institute
Prepared by Vicki Whitmell
October 2015
This review of the Librarians’ Research Institute (LRI) was completed at the invitation of the CARL
Research Libraries Committee at their May 2015 Toronto meeting. The goal of the review is to consider
the impact, viability and sustainability of LRI and it continued role within CARL.
This report outlines the results of telephone interviews with LRI participants and peer mentors and with
CARL Directors in August and September of 2015 and makes recommendations to ensure the
sustainability of LRI and the better realization of its benefits.
Background
Expectations are changing around academic
libraries and the skills and knowledge that they
bring to the academic community. One of these
changes is the interest in, need for and, in some
cases, the requirement that librarians
contribute to the building of evidence-based
library research. CARL recognized this by
accepting the recommendations made by the
Libraries Education Working Group in its Final
Report to the CARL Board of Directorsi in 2008.
In particular, recommendation six called for the
development of a training program in research
methods for academic libraries.
The move to develop a training program by
CARL coincided with separate activities being
undertaken by individuals interested in bringing
together librarians to build their knowledge and
skills in research methods and to build capacity
and networks across the country to support
academic library research. Selinda Berg and
Heidi Jacobs at the University of Windsor, in
particular, were leading such initiatives. They
coordinated with CARL Director Gwendolyn
Ebbett and the CARL Research Libraries
Committee and in 2011, under the leadership of
Heidi and Selinda, with the support of
consultant Gloria Leckie and the Institute’s first
peer mentor cohort, the CARL Librarians’
Research Institute was created. The five
1|Page
objectives of the first Institute held in 2012
were:





To provide practicing academic libraries
in Canada opportunities to immerse
themselves in sustained conversations
and activities related to scholarly
research, inquiry and publishing;
To provide librarians with an intensive
workshop experience intended to take
their current research projects to the
next level as well as provide librarians
with the opportunity to meet other
researching librarians from across
Canada;
To provide Institute peer mentors an
opportunity to connect with other
Canadian librarians with active,
sustained research agendas;
To allow each CARL library an
opportunity to send at least one
librarian to the inaugural offering of the
Institute so that they may return to
their home institution to share their
knowledge and enthusiasm about
research with their peers and
colleagues;
To
work
toward
building
an
infrastructure for librarian research
across Canada and to develop a
community of our own researchers in
CARL libraries.ii
The first Institute was held in 2012 at the
University of Windsor. Institutes followed in
2013 at the University of Regina, in 2014 at
Carleton University and in 2015 at Simon Fraser
University. The LRI is well attended and attracts
a solid group of peer mentors and plenary
speakers each year.
The Review
In conducting this review, I undertook
telephone interviews with 43 individuals which
included CARL Directors, peer mentors and LRI
participants. In addition I reviewed written
comments from participants either directly to,
or through, a CARL Director.
Overwhelmingly the comments were very
positive about the delivery of the LRI curriculum
and program and the enthusiasm and
inspiration shown by participants upon their
return to their institutions following the
program. Interviewees identified important
benefits to many of the participants and peer
mentors, including building their confidence
and research skills and developing a network of
contacts. There was anecdotal evidence of
benefits to the libraries, although the long-term
impacts have yet to be determined or
measured.
Almost everyone felt very strongly that the
Institute is the proper role for CARL and that it
fits with its mandate. The words ‘absolutely’
and ‘definitely’ were often used in response to
the question about CARL’s connection with LRI.
Many wondered who else would provide such
training and development if CARL didn’t and felt
that LRI fit closely with CARL’s Core
Competencies profileiii and its strategic planiv
goal to build the capacity of Canadian Research
Libraries and develop expertise for new and
emerging roles. Many described it as highly
successful and put forward the hope that it
continue.
A few questioned CARL’s continuing support for
LRI, since CARL’s role is primarily to be an
advocate for CARL libraries. Instead, they felt
that this kind of training and development is the
responsibility of library schools and that it is this
group that should provide the needed training
and development either through the Masters
level curriculum or through professional
development courses following graduation.v
Some concern was expressed about the longterm sustainability of LRI given the small
number of Canadian academic libraries which
limits the number of possible participants and,
most importantly, peer mentors and program
chairs. However, most CARL Directors spoken to
had staff ready and interested in attending LRI
2|Page
and they expect that with demographic change
and new hires that more would be available to
attend in the future. Some of the larger CARL
libraries would be pleased to send more than
the allotted one attendee to each Institute.
Non-CARL libraries have already been invited to
attend LRI, but this has been limited. Generally
many felt that this is a proper approach to
expand the market for LRI but it would need to
be limited with first choice for registration given
to CARL libraries. Overall it was felt that only
academic non-CARL libraries should be invited
and that they be charged an additional fee to
cover any associated costs.
Concern
was
expressed
about
the
administrative burden on CARL staff to organize
LRI and the financial cost of the Institute to
CARL. There was little support for having a
dedicated paid staff for LRI feeling that it was
not needed or required.
CARL Directors were divided on whether CARL
should subsidize LRI beyond administrative
support or whether sponsorships could be
approached to help support LRI. Two CARL
libraries offered to financially sponsor the
Institute. Almost all CARL Directors were in
favour of paying a higher registration fee to
attend the Institute as long as it was a
reasonable amount.
The main concern that emerged again and again
with participants, peer mentors and CARL
Directors was the difficulty for individuals to
maintain momentum and enthusiasm and to
move forward on their research initiatives
following LRI. Some CARL libraries provide time
for conducting research and publishing activities
but many do not. While some individuals are
motivated by tenure requirements or personal
goals, many find it difficult to find the time to
carry their projects forward in the months and
years following their attendance at LRI. Peer
mentors, participants and CARL Directors
suggested that more follow-up is needed
immediately and over the long-term for LRI
alumni.
A few libraries reported that bringing peer
mentors to their libraries following the LRI was
an excellent way to encourage research and to
provide good follow-up.
Peer mentors reported on the large amount of
time needed to participate actively in the
Institute and to provide follow-up to
participants, especially during the years when
the program is revised. Some said that the
amount of time needed means that they are not
able to participate as often as they would like.
The Institute has inspired research communities
of practice at individual libraries (a number of
CARL libraries reported this) and in cities or
regions (one has been formed by the Montreal
area academic libraries). A provincial group was
formed in Nova Scotiavi following a visit by
Kristin Hoffman, a LRI Program Chair. It brings
together more than one hundred librarians
interested in conducting research from different
types of libraries across the province. It appears
likely that such communities of practice can
help to supplement and sustain the energy
coming from LRI.
While there was not a specific question around
the governance of LRI a number of those
interviewed had concerns about how decisions
are made about the Institute and the
uncertainty around if and when it will be
offered each year. Practice has been that a
decision about holding the Institute is often
made only a few short months before it is to be
held. This makes it difficult for the program
chairs and mentors to make needed changes to
the curriculum and for participants to plan to
attend in advance. It also hinders the
development of a long-term plan for the
Institute and assurance that qualified peer
mentors will be available in the future.
3|Page
Recommendations
Response to the LRI from the people
interviewed and from comments received was
overwhelmingly positive. It is obviously a
program that CARL should be proud of. It has
met its goals to develop needed research skills
for academic librarians.
While CARL could leave the development of
such important skills to the individual library or
to regional groups or associations, the
beneficial holistic approach of the LRI and the
gains that come from gathering academic
librarians together from across the country
cannot be replicated.
If CARL decides to continue LRI, and this is
recommended, there are changes that could be
made to ensure that it is sustainable and that
the benefits are better realized.
1. Institute a formal LRI mentorship
program
To continue the momentum gained from
attending LRI a formal mentorship program
should be initiated to pair LRI alumni with
mentors at the local level. These mentors
could be librarians with knowledge and
skills in conducting research (perhaps from
a local library school) or could be faculty
members from the participant’s home
university. If possible, the mentor for each
participant should be identified prior to
Institute to ensure that proper support is in
place for the Institute participant’s return to
the workplace.
In addition, each participant should be
required to set specific goals and timelines
to move their research forward. These
should be specific to each individual and
attainable and measurable. Regular
reporting on progress to a peer mentor
from the Institute should also be required.
2. Sponsor a regular CARL-hosted forum or
workshop to hear from LRI alumni on their
research.
A number of interviewees mentioned the
value of finding a way to share research
being done with others. At the time of
writing it is unclear if the CLA annual
conference will continue but a CARLsponsored
forum
at
the
OLA
Superconference or other provincial or
regional library or scholarly association
conferences should be considered to share
research and build networks.
An advanced LRI was of interest to a
number of interviewees. It could be held in
conjunction with a CARL research forum.
3. Open up and publicize the portal of
research projects and encourage LRI
alumni to contribute to it.
A portal of research projects was developed
but has not be fully utilized by the LRI
alumni and it has not been open to the
wider library community. The portal should
be made public and expectations put in
place that alumni will contribute their
research work to it. It will take time to grow
but could be a wealth of information in the
future.
4. Link the CARL Research in Librarianship
Grant to LRI.
The Research in Librarianship Grant
supports librarians’ active engagement in
research activities. It is currently given to
established librarians working in a CARL
member library or to a current library and
information student and newly appointed
librarians working in a CARL member
library. Further qualifying the grant for
those who have attended LRI would
demonstrate CARL’s support for LRI and
could increase participation and attendance
4|Page
at the Institute. Awardees should be
required to contribute their research to the
CARL portal of research projects.
5. Develop a five-year plan for the Institute
A five-year plan is required that will
determine and outline dates and locations
for the Institute, identify the key individuals
to be involved and establish timelines for
the next five years. The plan should include
a budget forecast that will consider all costs
and the proper revenue streams needed to
break even. The plan should be written in
consultation with past program chairs, peer
mentors, participants and hosts. This plan
will allow proper planning to ensure
sustainability and to ensure that there is a
qualified cadre of program chairs and peer
mentors for future Institutes.
Consideration should be given to holding
the Institute in a central location in order to
reduce transportation costs for participants
and peer mentors.
6. Determine the Proper Governance for
the Institute
The Institute should be formally recognized
as a part of CARL and policies approved on
how and when decisions will be made and
who will make them. There should be clear
expectations laid out as to how the Institute
will be accountable to the CARL Directors.
7. Open up the Institute to non-CARL
Academic Libraries
When space is available CARL should open
up registration to non-CARL academic
libraries. This should increase the long-term
viability of the Institute by increasing the
pool of possible participants. Non-CARL
participants should pay a higher fee than
CARL participants in recognition of CARL’s
contributions to the Institute.
8. Outsource the Administration and
Marketing of the Institute.
Outsourcing the administration and
marketing of the Institute would reduce the
administrative burden on the CARL office to
organize and maintain the Institute and
should increase its reach.
One possible group to outsource the
Institute to is the Education Institute, a
project of The Partnership, “Canada’s
national network of provincial and
territorial libraries.” This Institute has a
solid brand among Canada’s library
community and experience in marketing
and organizing conferences and workshops.
A clear memorandum of agreement
between CARL and the outsourcing group
would have to formalized to determine
ownership of the curriculum and overall
governance of the Institute. CARL’s logo and
name should be incorporated into the name
of the Institute and should be prominent on
all marketing.
9. Offer the Institute in the French
Language
French language CARL libraries have been
unable to participate in LRI in the same way
as English speaking CARL libraries. To meet
the needs of this smaller group CARL should
consider offering a French language
institute every three or four years. The
English language Institute would be offered
the other years.
10. Measure the Impact of LRI
Formal measures need to be established
and research undertaken to determine the
real impact of LRI, especially on individual
careers and on the building of a research
culture within CARL libraries. While there is
anecdotal evidence that the impact has
already been felt, this needs to be properly
measured and studied and report back to
CARL.
5|Page
Conclusion
There is strong support for the continuance of the CARL Librarians’ Research Institute by CARL Directors,
peer mentors, program chairs and participants. Changing demographics and the growth and interest in
conducting research indicate that there is a solid market for the Institute among CARL libraries over the
next few years if proper planning and policies are in place. There are opportunities to increase the
market to non-CARL academic libraries.
The benefits of the Institute are not just to the participating individuals and their libraries and
universities. CARL benefits by ensuring the development of the competencies required of academic
librarians and raising its profile among staff in CARL libraries. This in turn will continue support and
understanding for CARL and its activities and advocacy work.
Footnotes
i
Canadian Association of Research Libraries. Libraries Education Working Group: Final Report to the CARL Board of Directors.
Ottawa: CARL, 2008.
ii
Berg, Selinda and Jacobs, Heidi LM. “Beyond the Four Days: Looking to the Future of the Librarians’ Research Institute: A
Librarians’ Research Institute Self Study Submitted to the Canadian Association of Research Libraries,” March 2015.
iii
CARL Core Competencies for 21st Century CARL Librarians. http://www.carlabrc.ca/uploads/pdfs/core_comp_profile-e.pdf
iv
CARL Strategic Directions May 2013 to May 2016. http://www.carl-abrc.ca/uploads/Publications/2012-1115%20CARL%20Strategic%20Directions.pdf
v
Although all of Canada’s library schools offer basic research courses, few students take advantage of advanced courses in
research methods or choose available thesis writing options. At the University of Toronto where I teach many students enter
with the idea of becoming academic librarians. However there is no ‘stream’ for this area of specialization and little guidance
given to students as to the importance of developing research skills. Students make individual choices for their courses and it is
unlikely that many students will graduate with a high level of research knowledge. Leaving the teaching of research skills to
library school would also not have the benefit of developing a network of research contacts across the country, a benefit of LRI.
vi
Duggan, Lou. Proposal to Start a Libraries NS Research ‘Work in Progress’ Support Group. [Halifax, NS]: Libraries NS, April
2015. https://librariesns.ca/sites/default/files/work_in_progress_group_proposal_apr2015.pdf. A discussion with Mr. Duggan
on October 5, 2015 indicated that much progress is being made. For more information he can be reached at St. Mary’s
University at 902-420-5174.
6|Page
Appendix A
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
Summary of Responses from Peer Mentors
Q. What do you see as the role of the peer mentor in LRI?









Developing and delivering content
Being there for discussion and ideas
Build capacity for other librarians
Provide guidance and facilitation
There is learning for mentors as well as participants
Curriculum planning/facilitation/maintenance and checking in after LRI. Follow-ups need to
happen
This is a librarian-driven institute. The role of mentors is to facilitate this
Help academic librarians realize their research potential
Original intent was to develop longer term connections with participants. This hasn’t been
realized.
Q. How much time/effort did you spend preparing for LRI? How much time did you spend in follow up
with the participants? Was this more or less than you expected?







About what I expected
Used feedback from previous year to modify curriculum
Didn’t do a good job in keep up with mentoring group
Given lots of leeway to develop content
Hours and hours, but time well spent. It was really fun
1 ½ hour every 1 to 2 weeks for 4 months. It varies each year
Time has decreased over the years. More time needed in 2015 with the changes in curriculum
made
7|Page

Didn’t feel I really mentored any particular group. Moved around between modules. Met a
couple of times with them.

Q. How were you supported by your university to be a peer mentor?



Very supportive
No release from regular duties. Did on my own
Seen as part of my role and service to the profession.
Q. Has being a peer mentor helped you with your research/publishing?









No necessarily. I think of it as helping others
It should have
Made me want to learn more
My productivity with faculty increased
Made me think differently about research
A motivation to do research
Felt isolated and alone as a researcher, but now I am more connected. I now advocate for the
importance of research by librarians
Helped to see things in a different way
Gained expertise in providing constructive feedback
Q. Have you brought back what you learned/were exposed to at LRI to your university?




No forum for this where I am
Indirectly through presentations/sharing/talking about my experience
Involved in projects with others
The culture is changing at our library because of LRI. More new librarians are interested in
research.
Q. During the planning did you find it easy to keep up with arrangements, plans, curriculum
development and changes?



Yes. Used email and Skype
Exciting to help produce something different
Responsibilities were divided up. It worked well.
8|Page
Q: Is LRI a good role for CARL?











Definitely
This needs to be done
Its about “research, not just research support.” It is a shift from just supporting the research of
others to doing research. The focus is on learning, not just output. Learning about how to be a
researcher and why. Understanding how long it takes to learn to do it well
LRI is peer-to-peer collegial, but an organization of the CARL Directors who often don’t do
research
Connects non-directors with CARL
No one else to do it
However, some frustration with CARL. Insufficient communication between CARL and the
organizing group
Needs to be a national platform
Brings together groups from across Canada
Can there be a presence at the regional level, e.g. at OLA to share progress and keep it going?
Perhaps an LRI alumni: changing culture and developing network
Q. If you could change anything about LRI and how it is planned, organized and taught what would it
be?















Need a long term vision and approach. It is still looked at one year at a time, with little notice
Need to revisit peer mentor/program chair for long term
Succession planning is important and needed
It is unclear who is making the decisions as to its future and its curriculum. This hampers
planning
Need continuity with mentors. Each year we start from scratch
Uncertainty makes it difficult
What is the continued role of the founders?
Should meet in person ahead of time to plan the institute
Need more continuity between mentors and groups
Important to have good representation in all areas of expertise
What happens after LRI is important
How are peer mentors chosen?
The role of chair needs to be clarified
Need for succession planning
Make better use of alumni. They are now large enough for an interest group to be developed
and created. It should be self driven
9|Page






LRI needs to be packaged to the audience. People have different expectations for attending
Find a way for librarians interested in research to not feel isolated
Improve communication between organizing group and CARL Directors. There needs to be
proper acknowledgement of work being done
How are decisions made? Who makes them?
Not enough notice that an institute will be held
Have more one-on-one sessions
Q. Should non-CARL libraries be able to send their staff to LRI?








Must be a baseline for participation to demonstrate interest and commitment to research
Could they be mentors?
Fantastic idea
LRI must decide what it wants to be. May need to expand because Canada has a small market
Would expand pool.
Research culture needs to be inclusive, not exclusive
Would have to change how to advertise since it is now done through CARL Directors
Would assist with funding
Q. What advice would you give to new peer mentors?






To focus on their areas of expertise
Be willing to learn from everybody
No one is an expert. I was impressed with the participants
Look for cross-institutional partnerships
‘Go for it’: You will get a lot out of it
Takes lots of preparation and follow-up consultations
Q. Would you encourage the development of a more advanced LRI?





Good idea, but not sure what it would look like
There is lots to cover
Focus on knowledge translation: how to take what you have done and change practice. Libraries
are not good at this
LRI has a holistic approach. It is not focused on methodologies
More group work, e.g. data visualization, methodologies
10 | P a g e










There is value in bringing people together. There is no national forum to discuss library research
in Canada
People are looking for deeper connections and reconnections to move their research forward
Could this be done online?
Very useful. Follow-up individually or with group, e.g visit to a library
Might want to hold in conjunction with a provincial or regional conference
Would have to be very focused. Open to people at a particular spot in their research
There is lots to learn
Would reinvigorate skills and interest
There is a broad spectrum of those who attend. An advanced LRI would work for some but not
all. Suggest teaching in specific methods
Who would teach it? Would need experts at an advanced level
Q. What advice would you give to CARL Directors re LRI?


















Maintain it. Support it. Keep it going
Add a French language Institute
Keep funding LRI
We can take instruction from our faculty, but we are different from them. Important for
librarians to understand why they should be at the table and what they bring to it
Address administrative and succession planning issues
There is much interest in it and it is generating attention from outside. There is an opportunity
to go bigger
A worthwhile institute with positive experiences for everyone (mentors, participants)
Determine who ultimately has the decision-making power. Perhaps a comparable set up to NELI
with group overseeing with authority to make decisions. Roles need to be defined
Those involved previously could act as advisors
Structure within CARL needs to be formalized with formal communication
Important because it supports the rank and file of CARL libraries
There is interest outside of Canada
Needs established timelines
It is an uphill battle to get the research culture spread throughout libraries
Be clear as a group what want LRI to be and to do for academic libraries
CARL should be commended for taking on LRI. Better and ongoing communication is needed
between CARL committee and mentors.
Geographic location is very important. It must be accessible
At SFU conference used hotels instead of dorms. This was liked. Impacts how people can
function and perform. Being well rested
11 | P a g e

Would have more strength in instruction and teaching if peer mentors dedicated to several
years. When change each year lose momentum and content must be reworked. Would help to
develop confidence of mentors.
Q. Any final comments?












Very positive
Would like to participate in the future
Cross-institutional research is very important. LRI is key to helping identify colleagues and
partnerships
LRI is making a change in the long run
Keep it
More collaboration with CAIS?
How can we more properly acknowledge the work of the peer mentors? Being asked to
‘reapply’ can be demoralizing
Would like to speak directly to CARL Directors. “Want a voice.”
Many of those involved must do planning and mentorship on top of their regular duties. For this
reason peer mentors unable to commitment to ongoing participation. Succession planning is
important.
Consistency from year to year is important
Would like to see librarians attend academic conferences. It is important to talk to faculty in the
disciplines. E.g. Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
Participants are often unsure of what to expect, but feedback was that the Institute exceeded
expectations. Gave them a stimulating environment and networks were developed.
Summary of Reponses from Participants
Q. What were your goals in attending LRI?








Become more comfortable with research and to develop my competencies
To get help and develop partnerships.
See and hear the level of conversation around research
Increase my knowledge and skills and strategies for making time to do research.
Get research going. Get skills and advice.
Build confidence as a researcher.
I wanted to be part of a research community.
To get feedback on my project
12 | P a g e











Had a research idea but didn’t know how to move it forward
Get a handle on how to fit research into the flow of work
Network with others
Get high level guidance on how to choose topic and follow through. Build sustainable
research
Get ideas on how to research and publish. How to keep it in the forefront. How to build a
research culture.
Learn from others.
Give me a chance to focus and get support.
I needed some help.
Become more comfortable.
I wanted to know about social science research
How to develop a research proposal. How to run overlap analysis. How to set research
questions.
Q. Were your goals met?
YES: 10


















In Part: 3
No: 0
A great confidence builder.
Had hoped for time to do research
Learned a bit about methodologies and strategies. How to make things happen and get research
done. Good networking
Hard to maintain networks
Felt invigorated but hard to keep momentum going. Day to day work comes first
Found people to connect with
Got specific approaches to use
Great networking
Had expected more methodology
Broadened my understanding of what research means. It is not just quantifiable
Put me in a research mindset. It is not ‘one off’. Need to continue to grow and build
Made me more aware of the research process
Came away enthusiastic but found it hard to find time to implement
Fleshed out my research idea
Left me inspired to do research
Good tips and ways to do research
My first time with a national group. Great experience.
Found a mentor that I could reach out to.
13 | P a g e



Good variety of exercises.
Really impressed. Helped me immensely
Not a lot in common with others attending but found help with a mentor.
Q. What stage of your career were you in when you attended?









Just started tenure work
Third year out of school
Working toward tenure
Had done some small scale: ‘how we did it good’. Wanted to be more vigorous
Mid-career
Had done some publishing
Half way in tenure process
Later stage of career
‘Newish’. Working toward tenure
Q. Has that changed as a result of attending LRI?

















Now more confident in my ability to carry out research. Have a structure and framework to
develop a research proposal. Gave me the tools I needed to be successful.
Now have confidence to build on my research ideas.
Partnered with a co-worker at another library in the same city. Resulted in a librarian
partnership group created in Montreal.
Helped to reinforce my interested in research
Made me feel my university is behind me.
Fit into the image of what I want to project as a professional
Have had five articles published since attending in 2012. Also presented at conferences.
Have done poster sessions and looking to publish two papers.
Allowed me to connect with larger issues of academic freedom and research
Have made good progress
Yes, but need the continued support of the institution to find time
Asked by faculty member to help with their research.
Conducted a study that was published as part of a book coauthored with faculty.
Asked by a faculty member to help with their research
Gave me the confidence to pursue a multi-institution research project.
Thinking about it but nothing formal
Research enriches my day to day work
14 | P a g e



Have make good progress since attending
Made me more aware of the process. Made good contacts. Great mentors.
Need support of the institution to move forward after returning.
Q. Would you be at this stage if you had not attended LRI?















I would not have found a partner
Attending helped me realize my goal
Unsure. I know that I could do it.
No. I could not have taken it to the next level.
I would be less sold and enthusiastic about the idea of library research
Don’t think so
No. I would have taken much longer to find the right approach and pull the pieces together
No. The projects would not be the same
No. I would be struggling.
I don’t think so
I was lost until attending. It was laid out step-by-step
No. I would have spent time trying to find an approach.
I would not have knowledge of what needs to be done
Unsure. It gave me an extra books and confidence
I wouldn’t have knowledge of what I need to be doing for research.
Q. What support are you getting from instructors/peer mentors/other participants are you
begin/complete your research?













Not much conversation with mentor but created a partnership with another participant
Haven’t tapped into support
Listserv has little traffic
Not much in common with others so difficult to keep network going. Appreciated the attempt
Connect with others but not necessarily peer mentor
Mentors came to my university last year
Keep in some contact
Little communication since LRI. No follow-up
None
Connect with others through a Facebook group
No contact with mentor
Don’t keep in touch. Don’t feel the need
Would like to see an active listserv
15 | P a g e




Sort of kept in touch for a couple of months but not much since
My research is very niche. Hard to get support but found it elsewhere
I have yet called upon the network
Less effort is spent by mentors in building and creating an ongoing community than on the
curriculum. One idea would be to pair participants to provide support for one another.
Q. Is this level of support useful? Is there more that others could be helping you with?






A listserv or forum would be great
“there is a lot that we could be talking about together”
I am looking for mentors in my area of research
I needed to be reminded to connect with others
Not a strong research community in Canada. We don’t have a place to meet up.
I am not good at keeping connected with others.
Q. How have you brought back what you learned/experienced at LRI to your university?

















Developed a research interest group in NS
I chair the research advisory group in my library
Spoke very positively to others
Presentation to other staff
Encouraged others to attend
Not much
Presentation on what happened
Talked with others. Others not taking study leave
Helped develop a research group. Now more informal group
Tried to create a community of practice but it didn’t materialize
Reported back on my experience.
Came back as a ‘preacher’. Encouraged others to attend. Gave presentations. Started a
community of practice.
Gave presentation and talked to others informally.
Make presentations to staff
Gave session on barriers and enablers.
Presented my research at research day.
Presented and talked with colleagues.
16 | P a g e
Q. If you could change anything about LRI what would it be?






















Screen people ahead of the Institute for what they need and customize the curriculum for that
Teach more specifics
Wish there was a way to create a community
It is constantly made better
Have more theory
More in-depth on methodologies
More time spent on hard research skills, e.g. analysis of case studies
Meet from time to time based on research
Prefer it local
Some peer mentors better than others
Too long: Preparing ahead of time would have helped to get more out of it.
Nothing. A great chance to consult with more experienced researchers
Do pre-work before going
Discussions can be uneven because people are a various stages of research
More follow-up needed
Too much time spend on forming research questions. Wanted the ‘meat’ of research, e.g. how
to get published
Logistics may not be great
Wasn’t clear who LRI was geared to. What criteria for choosing participants?
Mentor to stay connected following LRI and ask for updates
The best value is to send someone who has research project ongoing or in mind. Will help to
clarify thoughts and move forward.
Felt rushed for time. Bring in more reflection, more breaks. Take time for informal learning and
sharing.
Assign peer mentor to community building.
Q. What advice would you give others attending?









Go with an open mind
You get out of it what you put in
Keep an open mind about transferable skills. Things can always be applicable to you
Go with an open mind. Soak up as much as you can
Be open-minded
Be willing to share
You are going to get lots of value out of it
The ‘penny will drop’. Perhaps later
Lots of intangibles come from it
17 | P a g e









It is different for everyone
Be open-minded. Think about all the different aspect of research: high level and the low level
(baby steps) that can be done
Make good use of the written materials
Make a commitment to check in with others
Try to make the most of your time there. Get to know others.
You will get a lot out of it
A really good way to steep yourself in research and have conversations you are not likely to have
in your library
It is so worthwhile. Take advantage of the mentors. They know their stuff. Pick their brains. Ask
questions of everyone there.
Be open-minded and willing to share
Q. Would you find it useful to attend a more advanced LRI 2?
YES: 10







No: 1
Not now: 1
If an applied workshop
Review of steps in the research process. Methodologies. Dissemination
Perhaps. Depending on what taught
Specific research methods
Not sure what it would entail
Great idea
More information on doing analysis, learning statistics, data management plans.
Q. Do you have any final comments?











Need a program for Francophone/Bilingual version
Mentors were fabulous, approachable, excellent resources
Hope it continues. A great initiative
Great experience
Our research culture is growing. LRI is needed
It was extremely useful
Extremely helpful
Happy to see CARL part of it
Helped me to focus, see the value, put in the effort
Raises Canada’s visibility in the research field
Helps to build the research culture
18 | P a g e


















How do we build the culture of dissemination when it is often not a strict requirement for
tenure?
Really enjoyed it. ARL leadership program could be a model: spread out, meet 5 times in 18
months. More focused. Mentors are deans of libraries. Called each month for an update. Made
me feel connected
Our research culture is growing
I came out of LRI thinking I could do it
Very thorough program. Peer mentors amazing
Provides a great opportunity to network with librarians from other CARL libraries and to learn
about their research practice and cultures
Enjoyed it but it hasn’t had a lasting impact on my work or research habits.
I would have found it useful to have case studies.
Really excellent for Canadian librarians
Congratulate CARL
Collaborations happen: Connect and work together
Made my job more interesting.
Very important in developing a research culture.
Very glad I attended.
Hope it continues. Very valuable.
A wonderful thing
Received amazing feedback from others who attended
Great experience. It is needed
19 | P a g e
Summary of Responses from CARL Directors
Three part question:
1. Impact to the individuals/to the library by having staff attend LRI?
2. Do staff return to your library after attending LRI prepared and interested in conducting
research/publishing?
3. Do they return ready/willing to support and teach others about conducting research?
























Allows them to develop a formal approach to their research: no longer ‘playing by ear.”
Individuals have found it beneficial to getting started
Seeming subtle changes in creating a research culture in the library
Some participants have accomplished more than others
LRI is highly successful
Increased general competency, but didn’t “change the world”
Different for different individuals
The peer experience is very important
Has had tremendous impact: participants come back raving: have created communities of
practice
Participants can see what they need to do to identify gaps and where more learning is needed
Gave staff the confidence to do research and apply methodologies in an academic setting
It ‘inspired’ staff
Only a handful of libraries are interested in research
The overall impact is unknown but lots of our librarians are carrying out research
An excellent opportunity for our librarians: provided useful information and advice from
experienced librarians. A great opportunity for networking and developing new ideas for future
projects
Provides momentum to continue to develop new projects and keeps librarians informed about
emerging trends in libraries
Raised research profile
Sends message for need to keep current
Impresses upon staff that academic librarians need to do research
Helps to focus attention and increase research activity
Follow-up hasn’t happened: participants are very energetic and enthusiastic when they return
from LRI but is it hard to keep the momentum going
Another very valuable avenue to connect with academic librarians. These connections are very
important
Importance of building connections with others
Gain confidence in their ability to do research and refine their research projects
20 | P a g e







Come away with a strong sense of research
Varies per individual, but enhanced and increased confidence
We lack research readiness in our profession: not given in the library schools
LRI is very worthwhile: has supported and encouraged those interested in research
Institute should be considered the beginning. Need to follow up with mentoring
How to continue the networking.
Building confidence and are publishing.
Q. What has been the overall impact on your library of staff attending LRI?










Big impact especially on new librarians who often see research as a fundamental part of
their role.
See librarians being asked to sign on to SHRCC grants
Haven’t seen an impact yet
Very positive
Very valuable
Come away with a strong sense of the value of research
Not sure if it benefits the institution yet, but certainly benefits the individual.
Provides an avenue for those who want to do research
Need a follow-through/continuum to get to the publishing stage
Our culture is shifting
Q. Do you have a need for your staff attending LRI over the next 2 to 3 years?
YES: 17








NO: 2
SOMEWHAT: 2
Going through demographic changes: retirements/turnover. Younger staff is being hired who
are/will be encouraged to attend
Lots of interest to attend. Split with interest in attending NELI.
Lots of staff at retirement age
Young librarians don’t come with knowledge of how to do research but many are eager to learn.
CARL should coach potential mentors
Would love to send more each year if we could
We are hiring quite a few librarians, filling positions that have been vacant for awhile. Want
young librarians to attend.
Would like to be able to send two per year.
21 | P a g e
Q. Is the LRI the proper role for CARL? i.e. does it fit with its mandate/goals?
YES: 17






















LIKELY, but UNSURE: 3
As research libraries we should “walk the talk” to be positive partners in the academic research
process
Definitely. No one else is doing it. It is unique to research libraries
Fits squarely in CARL’s mandate
Provides a connection to CARL for younger, non-directors.
It is no one else’s role: CARL is the appropriate body to expand the research ability of our
profession.
We would be skeptical if it was organized by another group
When first created I was concerned about the assumption that research would become a
requirement for academic librarians, as I am okay as long as it made clear that it is not.
Ties with the library competencies document
Definitely
Absolutely
Who else would do it?
Is it CARL’s role to develop skills? We are a national voice for research libraries and about policy,
not service delivery.
Does LRI help us to build a national network?
Capacity building is a critical tool in the arsenal of moving us more to an evidence-based
approach in academic librarianship
My commitment to LRI is not as strong as research is not required for tenure at my university. I
see it as the role of library schools, not CARL, especially since many attendees are young
librarians.
The core of CARL’s strategic plan is to intensify capacity and capability of our workforce
CARL is bigger than its individual library members. We are more powerful as a group.
Provides ROI for being a CARL member.
Yes, but are there other ways to do it?
Support professional development/academic libraries/professional growth and builds on core
competencies. It develops expertise for new and emerging roles and brings the cohort together.
Give participants time to reflect and keeps them focused for the four days.
It is a great networking opportunity.
Q. Should LRI be continued even if it is not cost recovery?
22 | P a g e
YES: 12













NO: 5
Those benefitting should pay the full cost
Those not participating should not have to subsidize other who do.
Should be cost recovery with CARL paying for the administrative overhead.
We are getting value for the money spent
($5,000) is a reasonable amount for something of this magnitude for something making so much
change.
We should not subsidize. We should be able to identify if/when LRI has run its course
Look closely at how the money is spent, e.g. food
No problem that some of our membership fee supports LRI
It is a service to the academic community
Sponsorship can come from individual CARL members. (U of S has sponsored in the past and has
offered again.)
It should be cost recovery for the ‘common good’
Depends on the amount
It is necessary to cover costs.
Q. Is your university willing to pay more to attend LRI?
YES: 13



DEPENDS: 1
If reasonable
Consider a central location so travel costs can be reduced
Willing to sponsor and contribute funds (2 libraries)
Q. How would you develop needed research skills without LRI?










Ad hoc at individual level. This is hard because the training needs to be tailored to librarians.
Through regional consortia such as COPAL
Faculty at the university
The real value to LRI is bringing librarians together.
Need the networks found at LRI even though some training can be done in house. Library
schools can’t provide this.
US boot camps
Support groups inside the library
LRI supplements local training and brings in an outside perspective
Work closely with the local iSchool
Bring in someone to the library so that everyone is trained at once
23 | P a g e





Mentorships
It is important to bring CARL librarians together
Have local research centre with workshops/seminars
There is a benefit to learn how others are doing research and to connect people together
nationally
A research methodologies course.
Q. Should CARL consider sponsorships to support LRI?
YES: 9










NO: 6
MAYBE: 3
Risky
Only if no strings are attached. Must reflect CARL values
CARL libraries should step up to the place to support LRI
Would depend on the sponsor
CARL is an advocacy association so have to be careful about sponsorships
Need a CARL policy on sponsorships
Must be clear that sponsors get no say
Twitchy about sponsorships: nothing comes for free
Sponsorship can come from CARL members
Don’t want to promote products or lose any control.
Q. Should non-CARL libraries be able to send their staff to LRI?
YES: 17








MAYBE: 2
NO: 1
Could dilute quality of the program. There is a commonality among CARL libraries
Non-CARL libraries should pay more to attend
When space is available
Individuals must be vetted and have a research project or interest. LRI is for people who are
serious about research
Not sure how much of a market there is
Take care of our own first, but welcome them later
Should not subside non-CARL attendees
We have a quality product that we should offer to others
24 | P a g e

Only if research is part of their mandate.
Q. Should LRI be formally structured within CARL with dedicated paid staff to organize/support it?
YES: 3











NO: 9
MAYBE: 2
Results in trade-offs: What else has to be done.
Not needed
Documentation needed for hosting libraries
Not a full-time role. Little activity between LRIs
Not yet. Need measurable outcomes first
Need clarity around governance. Find ways to use the CARL structure. Keep it lean.
Need to watch the growth of CARL
LRI is not a high a priority as other activities
Not the way it stands now
Proper infrastructure is needed to support LRI
Institutionalize LRI within CARL.
Q. Do you see a need within your library of an advanced LRI?
YES: 10















NOT YET: 3
NO: 5
Sends message that research must be ongoing. It is not just one shot
Shape around partnership opportunities and making connections.
A fantastic idea
May have to make a choice between sending people to one or the other
Doesn’t replace the need for LRI
Want more depth
Beyond basics training should be done locally, e.g. training in specific methodologies
Need for participants to be supported after LRI
Might use webinars instead of face to face
Might be more useful to have such a session at the Superconference (for e.g.) to showcase
research done
Would like to see more collaborations
Most people still in very early stages of research. The demand is for the basics
Finding a way to keep people connected might work as well
The profession is changing. There is increased expectations for research
Grow the alumni. Build sustainability and capacity.
25 | P a g e



Can’t do it all in 3 ½ days
Internal sharing more important than an advanced course
Important for it to be cost recovery and affordable.
Q. If you could change anything about LRI what would it be?




Provide broader access to peer mentors and continued support
Have peer mentors visit CARL libraries (they are seen as successful researchers. Allows
individuals to compare themselves with others)
Follow-up from the LRI is needed for alumni
Guarantee that everyone who attends gets something out of it
 Strong mentors are important
 I would like to see the curriculum
 Don’t make it any longer
 Add LRI2 or a post LRI session
 Should be a broad philosophical discussion about research needs to happen within the
profession
 More follow-up is needed and the creation of an ongoing community to ensure that
people act on what they learned
 Make branding more obvious
 Tie LRI to the CARL Research Grant and CARL Research Award
 Build a repository of library research
 Review the curriculum each year
 Need a long term plan for LRI
 The cohorts need to communicate with one another to work together and provide
support
 Need to track research projects
 Have participants report back and say what they have done
 Give participants more focused next steps
 More one-on-one time is needed for peer mentors.
 Offer LRI in the French language (maybe every third year?)
Q: Do you have any final comments?



LRI is a good thing
Consider cooperation with regional groups such as COPPUL
Librarians return from LRI with expectations for increased research time or leave based
on the policies of other university
26 | P a g e
























Research must be placed in a context: Research must be done well, not done for the
sake of doing it
The Institute must bring a better understanding of what the university sees as research
and meet that need. Research shouldn’t be done just to accommodate what librarians
want to do as research. “We talk too much to ourselves.”
A good program. Hope we keep it. It takes years of intense research to do research well
The library schools should prepare students to do research
Those who get the most of the LRI go with a research project in mind or already
underway
Librarians are more clearly being seen as ‘academic partners’
Need for more open access
Need to build a body of evidence to support LRI
Important that it is cost-effective
Shorten the program
This is great and I hope it continues
Partnerships are developing at the local level, e.g. McGill/Concordia/Laval and in Nova
Scotia
Important for collaborating and meeting with colleagues
Allows attendees to develop a formal approach to their research
A great program. Admired by people around the world. We should be proud of it
Very good initiative. Should continue
Get CARL Directors more involved in choosing mentors
Is there a distance education model that makes sense?
Could library schools offer it as continuing education?
When is the best stage in one’s career to attend LRI? Can this be examined?
It is important to think about tomorrow rather than strengthening what we know today:
plan LRI to meet future needs. Choose mentors who are creative thinkers about the
future of libraries
It is critical that people get the kind of encouragement they get at LRI
LRI recognizes the need for new skills as libraries change
The right people need to get the right things from LRI.
27 | P a g e
Appendix B
Interviewees
Participants













Jeanne An, McMaster
Trish Chatterley, University of Alberta
DeDe Dawson, U of Saskatchewan
Anne Fullerton, U of Waterloo
Vera Keown, U of Manitoba
Michelle Lake, Concordia
Aaron Lupton, York University
Jo-Anne Naslund, UBC
Robin Parker, Dalhousie
Monica Rettig, Brock
Donald Taylor, SFU
Amanda Tiller-Hackett, Memorial
Courtney Waugh, UWO
Peer Mentors/Program Chairs/Organizers








Selinda Berg, U of Windsor
Cara Bradley, U of Regina
Alix Hayden, U of Calgary
Kristen Hoffman, UWO
Heidi Jacobs, U of Windsor
Gloria Leckie, Consultant
Pascal Lupien, U of Guelph
Kevin Manuel, Ryerson
CARL Directors




















Gerald Beasley, U of Alberta
Guylaine Beaudry, Concordia
Lesley Beckett Balcom, UNB
Sylvie Belzile, Sherbrooke
Jonathan Bengtson, U of Victoria
Gwen Bird, SFU
Donna Bourne-Tyson, Dalhousie
Lorraine Busby, Memorial
Colleen Cook, McGill
Julie Hannaford, U of Toronto (for Larry Alford)
Mark Haslett, U of Waterloo
Tom Hickerson, U of Calgary
Wayne Jones, Carleton
Joy Kirchner, York
Vivian Lewis, McMaster
Madeleine Lefebvre, Ryerson
Ingrid Parent, UBC
Martha Whitehead, Queen’s
Leslie Weir, U of Ottawa
Vicki Williamson, U of Saskatchewan
28 | P a g e