ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries June 1989 / 487 Research report from California By Jeff Sełth Humanities Bibliographer University of California, Riverside and Heidi Hutchinson Catalog Librarian University of California, Riverside In an attempt to learn about California aca­ demic librarians’ research activities—specifically their success in obtaining funds and publishing findings, their attitudes toward research, and the factors which either inhibit or encourage such activity— 967 questionnaires were sent to every li­ brarian on each campus o f the University o f Cali­ fornia and the California State University. “ Re­ search” was defined as a project, done or applied for while employed by one of these university sys­ tems, which qualified or might have qualified for funding. Response rate was 57.4% with 555 ques­ tionnaires completed. Findings Fifty-nine percent (59 %) of the respondents said they have done research as defined in the survey. O f these, 32% have applied for one or more re­ search grants, and 27 % have asked for professional tim e. 63% o f the requests for fun din g w ere granted, 10% partially granted, and 27% denied. 83% o f the requests for professional time were granted, 4% partially granted, 12% denied. And yet, of those who said they had conducted research, 81 % have on at least one occasion done it with nei­ ther funding nor professional time (release time, leave with pay, sabbaticals, etc.) allocated to them. The vast majority of the research projects under­ taken by these librarians resulted in either a publi­ cation or a presentation. Of the 326 who had done research, 83 books, 292 articles, 124 bibliographies and over 190 papers were identified. Other publi­ cation types include dissertations, research guides, exhibit catalogs and media. Unpublished formats not included in the above totals were poster ses­ sions, internal reports, and slide-tape presenta­ tions. Problems encountered One set of questions was directed at the problem of starting and not finishing projects, or not finish­ ing them in the time planned. The reasons given for not completing projects include: still in progress, expect to complete (47 % ); took more time than an­ ticipated (17 % ); could not give as much time as ex­ pected (18% ); cost too much of my own money (4% ); other reasons (14%). Respondents who had completed a project were asked whether they had managed to do so in the time originally planned. Only 30 % said they were always able to; 42 % said they had sometimes done so; and 28% admitted they had never finished a project on time. The reasons given for not finishing on time were largely the same as those described above for not completing a project at all, as well as such reasons as publisher delays, difficulty in re­ cruiting a research assistant, and loss of interest due to change of position. R E S E A R C H F O R U M 4 8 8 / C‹bRL News Encouraging and deterring factors Respondents who had done research were asked which factors made the research easier to accom­ plish, which factors made it harder, and w hat changes they would recom m end to encourage more and better research within their university system. The favorable conditions most frequently cited are (number of responses in parentheses): profes­ sional time granted (27); encouragement from ad­ ministrators (27); and cooperation, mentorship, or encouragement of colleagues (21). Other favorable conditions identified, in order of frequency of re­ sponse, are: access to books, periodicals, and data­ bases; access to a microcomputer; a flexible work schedule; clerical or student assistant help; travel support; a ten-month-year option; the ability to do a project jointly w ith a colleague; an in-house graphics department; and the contiguity of a li­ brary school. O f the unfavorable conditions, one stood out in particular— lack of tim e, especially a shortage of large blocks of tim e, which was claimed by 78 re­ spondents. The second most frequently mentioned factor was lack of adm inistrative support (15). Other non-favorable conditions identified include lack of funding; work overload (or understaffing); interruptions; poor com puter access; inflexible work week; lack of peer support; not enough space; stress; research inexperience; no local expertise in grantsmanship accounting; and ignorance of sta­ tistics. Those who had never applied for a research grant were asked w hat had deterred them. Again, the most common responses provided are lack of tim e (36) and inability to think of a suitable topic (13). Other responses offered are lack of experi­ ence, training, and confidence; lack of administra­ tive encouragement; fear of rejection; and fear of arousing resentment of colleagues. Suggestions for improving the research environment W e invited recommendations which could im­ prove the conditions of research. Some responded with suggestions to those in authority by such re­ sponses as: “A definite statement from systemwide providing for release tim e”; “one supervisor ought not be able to reject a proposal” ; “less red tape”; “direction and accountability”; “a system for criti­ cal guidance and analysis”; “a P h .D .-level statistics requirement in library schools”; “training on re­ search techniques”; and “Harvard and New York Public Library should lend at lower rates.” Others took the opportunity to advise fellow re­ searchers with comments like these: “W e should spread ourselves less thinly, do research in fewer areas”; “know the grants officer, sit on a grants or sabbatical committee, learn how to complete ap­ plications”; “adequate training”; “work with a col­ league: provides stimulation, broadened perspec­ tive, critiquing, and practical division of labor”; “choose a subject th at w ill contribute”; “don’t be afraid: research is not scary”; and “find a mentor to help set your goals and advise as you progress.” Managers vs. non-managers A m ajority of librarians believed th at manage­ ment status is not a significant factor in the decision or ability to conduct research. Those who thought it does play a role were split equally between the two positions that follow. Respondents who thought it easier for librarians with management status to do research felt that managers have more flexible schedules or more control of their time; have fewer assigned duties and responsibilities; can delegate their duties; are more likely to get administration support or fund­ ing; and they have a wider range of contacts and more involvement with major projects. However, many of the same reasons were of­ fered by those who thought it easier for non­ management librarians to conduct research. For example, respondents said that non-managers have more flexibility or more control of their tim e; have fewer job responsibilities; have more tim e; are more dispensable or replaceable; and have better access to leaves, release time, and funds. Other ar­ guments mentioned once include the following: “I t ’s easier to get release tim e, easier to see reasons why research would help in advancement, easier to feel less guilty about being away from the depart­ ment for a length of time”; “research can be incor­ porated, somewhat, into primary responsibilities”; and “as a former manager, I can attest to the physi­ cal and psychic drains that management demands, leaving little strength for non-management activi­ ties.” But over half the respondents thought that man­ agement or non-management status was not a sig­ nificant factor in doing research, arguing that nei­ ther group has sufficient time; it depends on the individual, not the position; it depends on whether the system encourages you; and one’s job assign­ ment is the decisive factor. Differences between university systems One reason for wanting to compare the Univer­ sity of California (UC) and California State Uni­ versity (CSU) systems is the fact that CSU librari­ ans have faculty status while those at UC do not, and as a result might have significantly different attitudes toward doing research. Another factor is a difference in funding sources; for some years funds have been provided specifically for UC li­ brarians’ research, but there is no counterpart to these monies in the CSU system. CSU librarians complained more frequently of lack of money for their research. They apply for and receive funds less often than their UC counter­ June 1989 / 489 parts. This is especially notable in regard to multi­ ple grants: 24% of the UC respondents have re­ ceived more than one grant, and half of these more than two; only 10% of the CSU librarians have garnered more than one. The latter have to com­ pete with teaching staff for faculty monies. They often have to bankroll projects from their own pockets, and a frequent reason for not finishing is that they could not afford the expense. From both groups the overriding complaint is lack of time, especially the large blocks of time es­ sential to most projects. But CSU librarians apply for and are granted time away from their jobs more often; and several said, as their UC counterparts al­ most never did, that time for research is automatic or always available. Proportionately more CSU li­ brarians have done research, and more have done it on their own time and without funding. Regarding the sources of funding, CSU librari­ ans, having faculty status, applied much more fre­ quently to the same bodies as did teaching faculty. Among 58 different sources named, local non­ library campus monies accounted for half of all re­ ported funding for CSU librarians’ research. Ex­ amples of this were CSU Facu lty Development G rants and F a cu lty Research M inigrants, the Campus Foundation, State of California and dis­ cretionary lottery funds. Nine respondents listed local library-related sources. The only grants ema­ nating from national organizations were two from the National Endowment for the Humanities, one from the Real Estate Foundation, and one partly from the Irvine Foundation. In contrast, about 50 % of the University of C ali­ fornia respondents, 74 out of 141, listed as the source for their research funding the Librarians As­ sociation of the University of California (LA U C ). This body has a statewide research committee as well as corresponding local committees on the nine campuses, with budgets aimed solely at awarding grants for librarians’ research projects. Among the national sources named most often by U .S. librarians were the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Council on Library Re­ sources, the National Library of Medicine, and the American Library Association. Various local cam ­ pus sources were frequently mentioned, e.g. Chan­ cellor’s, affirmative action, and instructional im­ provement funds. I t appears that UC librarians apply for and re­ ceive funding more readily than do those at CSU because they have access to library research grants. CSU librarians have done more research (and have done it more often with their own money) because they are influenced in that direction by the de­ mands of faculty status. Though most CSU librarians agreed that faculty status has encouraged research, we noted striking differences between the individual campuses on this question, from 100 % down to 21 % . These fig­ ures and the responses of the librarians led us to the conclusion that faculty status for librarians is inter­ preted very differently from campus to campus. Conclusions Perhaps most striking are the tangible outcomes of research by academic librarians in California, both in quantity and variety. More than eight books and a b o u t 7 0 0 o th e r p u b lica tio n s or presentations— from papers to videotapes— are claimed by more than 300 respondents as a result of research, funded or unfunded, prepared while em­ ployed in an academic library. By contrast, only 33 completed projects have not yet found a publisher or forum for presentation, and 120 were not com­ pleted at all. Hardly less impressive is the variety and prestige of the funding sources. Repeated mention of the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the occasional funding from such agencies as National Institute of Mental Health, National Science Foun­ dation and the Institute of American Cultures, be­ speak a gratifying endorsement of our profession. Finally, the same two factors which have most encouraged research have also most inhibited it. Tim e, when provided, is one of the chief positive factors; lack of tim e, especially large blocks of time, is far and away the most obvious barrier. The support of administrators (and colleagues) is the other chief positive factor; its lack ranks second only to lack of time as a deterrent. The attitude of library and campus administration, as perceived by librarians, runs the gamut from very positive to very negative, as does the effect of faculty status. Management status does not seem to be a relevant factor. A full report of the project, with detailed tables, is available from the authors, Rivera Library, Uni­ versity of California, P .O . B o x 5900, Riverside, CA 92517. ■ ■ R esearch request In order to keep information flowing on the important issue of fostering research activity and scholarly productivity for academic librar­ ians, I would like to receive copies of statements from your governance documents, copies of handouts, professional development committee documents, or other materials that describe the institutional types of support (release tim e, project time, funding, etc.) for librarian re­ search and publication activities. I will review these and extract pertinent sec­ tions for a future column. Such information may be useful for libraries in the process of re­ thinking options for improved support. Send to: Bonnie G ratch, “Research Forum ” Editor, W illiam T . Jerom e Library, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403.