Article
Assessing the Library’s Grants Program
Beth Sandore Namachchivaya
Associate University
Librarian for Research,
Associate Dean of Libraries
and Professor
University of Illinois
Library
Urbana, Illinois, United
Stated of America
Email: sandore@illinois.edu
Jamie McGowan
Assistant Director, Global
Collaborations
Committee on Institutional
Cooperation (CIC)
Champaign, Illinois, United
States of America
Email: jmcgowan@staff.cic
Received: 17 Mar. 2015 Accepted:
13 May 2015
2015 Namachchivaya and McGowan. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective – The authors analyzed seven years of sponsored research projects at the
University of Illinois Library at Urbana–Champaign with the aim of
understanding the research trends and themes over that period. The analysis was
aimed at identifying areas of future research potential and corresponding
support opportunities. Goals included developing institutional research themes
that intersect with funding priorities, demystifying grant writing and project
management through professional development programs, increasing communication
about grant successes; and bringing new faculty and academic staff into these
processes. The review and analysis has proven valuable for the Library’s
institutional practices, and this assessment may also inform other
institutions’ initiatives with grant-writing.
Methods – The authors performed a combination of
quantitative and qualitative analyses of the University Library’s grant
activities that enabled us to accomplish several goals: 1) establish a baseline
of data on funded grants; 2) identify motivations for pursuing grants and the
obstacles that library professionals face in the process; 3) establish a
stronger support structure based on feedback gathered, and through
collaborations with other groups that support the research process; and 4)
identify strategic research themes that leverage local strengths and address
institutional priorities.
Conclusions – Analysis of Library data on externally funded grants from the
University’s Proposal Data System provided insight into the trends, themes, and
outliers. Informal interviews were carried out with investigators to identify
areas where the Library could more effectively support those who were pursuing
and administering grants in support of research. The assessment revealed the
need for the Library to support grant efforts as an integral component of the
research process
Introduction
For over a decade the University of Illinois Library
at Urbana-Champaign has sustained a track record of successful external grant
funding. Grants support many types of activities, including research by
librarians in library and information science and other fields, collection
acquisition and processing, preservation, new user service programs,
digitization, digital library development, assessment and evaluation, and
professional development and training programs. In difficult economic times,
libraries rely increasingly on grants to fund innovation and research. The
impetus for this assessment study stems from the Library’s desire to identify
ways to support librarians and professional staff who were successful at
garnering grant funds, and to provide incentives and an ongoing support
infrastructure that would encourage more librarians and staff to seek grants.
This paper describes an analysis of the grants “landscape” in the Library and
the resulting data helped the Library to better support librarians and other
professionals to develop successful grants. In conducting this work, we sought
answers to several core and thought-provoking questions:
·
What are the recent funding trends for the University
Library?
·
What can the University Library do to encourage
success and minimize obstacles to grant submission?
·
What can the institution do to support success after
the award?
·
In what strategic areas could the Library expand its
grant activities?
In today’s challenging economic climate, faculty and
researchers are both motivated and expected to pursue external funding as a
means of developing and sustaining institutional research and service
functions. As Cuillier and Stoffle (2011) note, university libraries are no
exception, with librarians seeking funding to support a variety of innovative
new programs and to perform research. Given
these professional and economic drivers, libraries are positioned either to
initiate or to be partners in grants and sponsored research. Beyond a climate
in which grant funding is good for the institution, grants support a number of
the University of Illinois Library’s innovations. Grant funds incubate
initiatives that extend the library’s core activities, projects and programs,
and this infusion of support is critical to their success. A 2004 ARL SPEC Kit
survey (Mook, 2004) on grant coordination reported that of 65 respondents, 62
libraries indicated that they pursued grants. Roughly half of those 65
libraries reported an increase in grant funding within the previous 5 year
period, and 40% reported that they had no change, and 10% reported a decrease
in grant funding. Further, nearly two thirds of the libraries reporting vested
the responsibility for managing grants in the librarians who were the grant’s
principal investigator (PI). To this scholarship we introduce a new thread --
assessment of grant programs. This study is unique from the standpoint
that it has not been represented in the current literature.
Method
In deciding to conduct a baseline evaluation, we were
mindful of the value of assessment to our organization and processes. Extending a “culture of assessment” to grant
funding is a signal of its importance in the broader scope of library work
(Lakos and Phipps, 2004). At the organizational level, this initial assessment also
signals a commitment within the institution and among its leadership to
prioritize external funding for evaluation. While it appears that libraries
seek grants increasingly to support programs, services and research, the
literature revealed scant analysis of grant funding programs in libraries. The
average number of grants and level of grant funding at the University of
Illinois Library has risen steadily over the past decade. This trend suggested
that grant funding is evolving into a mainstream program area for libraries,
which, like other library programs, should clearly be subject to assessment. As
Lakos and Phipps (2004) reiterate, “what gets measured gets managed.”
Quantitative and qualitative measures enable libraries to target support for
individuals in their grant-writing, through enhanced infrastructure, and the
development of a culture of institutional research support.
Three common themes emerged from the literature on
grant–writing and librarianship. First, there are works that are more or less
instructional, guiding one through the steps of writing a grant proposal
(Landau, 2011; Herkovic, 2004; Zambare, 2004;). A second grouping outlines
potential sources of funding (Cuillier and Stoffle, 2011; Taylor, 2010). The
third highlights the value of grants for career development (Herkovic, 2004).
The data analyzed were drawn from a University database that tracks grant
proposal information, and from interviews conducted with a librarians and
professional staff who are actively engaged in grants that support research and
service programs.
The first source of data, from the University’s
Division of Management Information Proposal Data System, provided current and
historic proposal data dating back to 1996. Using this database, we accessed
the University Library’s proposal data to provide the primary quantitative
data. The data maintained by this database are sponsored research processed by
the Office of Sponsored Programs and Research Administration, and they only
represent grants submitted to external entities rather than institutionally based
competitions. The database includes information about the status of grant
proposals (awarded, declined, and pending), the principal investigators names
and affiliations, the title of the proposals, the funder, and the amount of
money proposed, awarded, and spent, and the length of the awards.
We initially sought to represent 10 years of grant
data. However, the accuracy of the proposal database deteriorated with legacy
data from a system migration that occurred eight years ago. Hence, we focused
on seven years of data, presented here. In analyzing these data, we opted to
focus mostly on successful proposals, mapping between the award data, the
Library as an organization, and more nuanced data about each proposal’s focus
or intent.
The second source of data was informal interviews with
10 library faculty who have written and/or are actively writing external grant
proposals. The informational interviews offered rich qualitative data that
added depth to our quantitative assessment. For instance, interviewees
highlighted the professional and institutional value of grants, the context in
which such grants emerge, and suggested avenues for improving the grant-writing
process.
Combined proposal data and interviews provide insights
that guide institutional practices – such that the University Library is
well-placed to develop strategic research initiatives, support initiatives
underway, and cultivate grant-writing interests and skills across the library.
We present a summary of the quantitative data next followed by the qualitative
data. Following our analysis, we outline our responses to these findings.
Again, one of our core goals is to support the development and success of grant-funded
initiatives. These steps, assessments, and our initial responses are described
in greater detail below.
Results: Quantitative Analysis
At the summary level, librarians and other
professional staff in the University of Illinois Library submitted 146 grant
proposals during the past 7 years. There were 85 of these grants awarded,
yielding a success rate of 58.2%. The Library’s track record of garnering
external funding compares favorably with the University of Illinois campus,
which sustained a 48.4% success rate during the same period. For the Library,
new proposal success fluctuated from year to year (Figure 1). However, when
multi-year grants are factored in, the distribution of grants levels out by
comparison (Figure 2).
Figure 1
Number of Grants Awarded
Figure 2
Grants Reflecting Multi-Year Funding, 2004-2011
Figure 3
Number of Awarded Grants by Sponsor, 2004-2011
Figure 4
Grant Award Amounts by Sponsor, 2004-2011
On the whole, funding represents a well-balanced blend
of sources with the largest number of grants coming from associations (e.g.,
membership organizations such as the Digital Library Federation (DLF), and the
Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), and professional
associations such as the American Library Association (ALA)), followed by
federal agencies, philanthropic foundations, the State of Illinois, and other lesser
sources.
In contrast, looking at the breakdown of actual
funding dollars, foundations and federal monies accounted for the vast majority
of the grant monies generated (Figure 4). Associations, such as the ALA, DLF,
CRL, LAMA, and the State of Illinois offered many smaller grants that totaled
4% of the total amount. Special contracts, funding mostly archival initiatives,
accounted for a 7% portion of the total.
To get a sense of faculty participation in
grant-funded initiatives, we looked at the number of people serving as
principal investigators (PI) or co-principal investigators (co-PI) on grants.
Figure 5 represents these figures for the seven year period. On an annual
basis, approximately 10% of librarians and professional staff serve as either a
PI or co-PI on grants; however, over time, grant awards go to approximately 30%
of the total library professional staff. The data indicated that a small and
slowly growing number of librarians were repeatedly successful at getting
grants.
Through this analysis, we also sought to understand
how funder’s strategic agendas influenced programs and research that were
initiated with grant support, and how Illinois’ institutional strengths were
enhanced through programs that were consonant with the Library’s and the
institution’s strengths. To assess grant focus, we broke down the grant awards
into several key categories of interest detailed in Figure 6. The professional
development and training grants support the University Library’s Mortenson
Center for International Library Programs, which provides training to
librarians globally.
A further analysis of the Access, Management and
Preservation category reveals that grants were made across the board for
several sub-categories of activities related to access, management, and
preservation. These sub-categories included technology development,
digitization and microfilming, and the specific area of access, management, and
preservation. (Figure 7)
Figure 5
PIs and Co-PIs on Grants, 2004-2011
Figure 6
Funding Amounts by Grant Categories, 2004-2011
Figure 7
Access, Management, Preservation Grants: Funding by
Sub-Categories
To assess funding levels over time, we reviewed the
average funding level in each of four categories per year over each of the
seven years. The following graph represents average funding levels over time,
divided up by the grant focus (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Average Funding Levels from 2004-2011
These results illustrate the lower levels of funding
for collection development as compared to access, management, and preservation
or professional development and training. The external state-sponsored
collection acquisition grants dwindled to nil by 2009, which reflects the
reduction of funds from the LSTA (Library Services and Technology Act) federal
funding that is allocated to states. Also the dip in funding in 2010 is
striking across most areas of funding. This dip can signal multiple changes.
First, internally, several major grant initiatives
ended in 2009. This meant that faculty were actively engaged in wrapping up
their commitments to projects in 2009, and they were less involved in writing
and submitting new project proposals. Second, the global economic crises also
led to increased competition for funds, and University of Illinois Library was
one of many institutions competing for reduced federal and foundation dollars.
Library grant awards were smaller and the number of awards was also reduced.
For each of the three years prior to this study, the University Library faculty
was awarded upwards of ten grant proposals; whereas in 2010, five proposals
were funded. Last, the number of grant competitions and the size of awards may
have also been impacted by the economic crises, as funders had to react to the
crises.
Equally striking is the bounce-back in average funding
in 2011, where the level exceeds previous levels in three of the four
categories. The rebound in funding levels was due to a number of continuing
grants, as well as an award in 2011 of one substantial grant.
In addition to comparing grant foci and funding over
time, funding amounts were assessed from different types of funders over time
(Figure 9). The analysis revealed that higher funding levels came from federal
agencies and philanthropic sources. Also, state sources of funding were on the
increase, but they were largely curtailed by budget cuts until 2014.
Associations’ funding support disappeared from the Library’s portfolio during
this time period.
It appears from these data that philanthropic
foundations funded grants at consistently lower levels throughout the past few
years of the economic downturn. However funding levels have increased in the
past two years, with private foundations providing the Library’s highest
average funding. Also, federal funding fell sharply in 2009 and 2010, but it
has in recent years been on the increase. Certainly, the funding levels do not
reflect funding sources alone. Grants coming to a close, application success
rates, and levels of funding are primary contributors to funding fluctuations.
The variables that lead to these conditions may be internal to the
institutions, the competition, or the broader economic crises that led to a
contraction of funding opportunities.
Figure 9
Average Funding Levels by Source, 2004-2011
Qualitative Analysis
The baseline assessment also incorporated qualitative
data obtained from informal interviews conducted with ten librarians and one
academic professional at the University Library to learn more about their
perceptions of library grant-writing, the support provided, and processes. All
of these individuals had participated in externally-sponsored grant projects,
either as principal investigators, co-principal investigators, or as a part of
a team. Their comments can be classified into one of three categories –
opportunities, challenges and concerns, and needs or issues that were specific
to the context of a particular grant. In the cases where needs or issues
applied to specific grants, the Associate University Librarian for Research
worked with the faculty and staff who expressed concerns to address them.
Opportunities
Expanding Library Strategic Programs. One of the most frequently reinforced viewpoints articulated by the
interviewees was that grant funding provided the opportunity to carry out
research and to develop new services, technology, and training programs. In the
Mortenson Center for International Library Programs, grants support a high
percentage of the programs in that unit, supporting librarians world-wide.
External funding is essential to the Center’s programs, enabling librarians to
participate in international collaborations and professional development. In
other areas, several of the principal investigators pointed to the expansion of
collections, services, access, preservation, cataloging, and technological
innovations that resulted from grant funds. A specific example of this
development is the “EasySearch” locally-developed federated search system that
supports searches by title, author, or keyword in a broad selection of
freely-available as well as licensed e-resources. A healthy mix of private
foundation and federal agency funding has supported the development and use of
EasySearch as a research tool to increase understanding of user interactions
with federated search systems.
Sense of accomplishment. Another factor mentioned by librarians involved in sponsored research
was that they enjoyed the autonomy and the sense of accomplishment that came
with crafting and carrying out projects. Participants noted, in particular,
that faculty status of librarians is important to their role in securing grant
funds, and they cited the status in securing external support. The Library
supports librarians and academic professional staff to initiate research
projects that identify and build on institutional strengths. As a result, their
grant activities are an important component of their professional identity and
career trajectory. One librarian described her grant-funded projects as a
“career highlight.”
Professional Advancement. Those who participated in the interviews pointed to professional
advancement as another important outcome. Sponsored research contributed to
skills development, research and publications, and everyone interviewed noted
that they were recognized for their grant successes in their annual evaluations
and in promotion and tenure reviews. A number of librarians also indicated that
grant funding helped them to develop their research agendas in new directions,
ranging from new approaches to managing collections to launching projects that
resulted in new research findings. One interviewee described a situation where
he developed an unsuccessful grant proposal into a case study that resulted in
a publication.
Enhancing Reputation. Another positive perspective on grant writing is that funded projects
enhance the reputation of the Library, on campus, nationally, and
internationally. Grants can help build awareness and support within and across
professional networks, and the outcomes and services reach multiple audiences
within those networks as well. Grants can provide important services and
outreach on campus, and many funded initiatives reach constituencies at other
institutions. Several of the grantees noted that their grants supported diverse
communities including the university, academic, and public libraries, state and
local government, K-12 schools, and the media.
Positive Feedback and Community-Building. Most grants require an evaluation component, and periodic reports that
provide useful feedback for the individual as well as the library. In the
instance where the reports are publicly available, they increase awareness of
the project and enhance the visibility of the institution within and beyond the
library community. The data from the evaluation can generate informative
baseline information and new tools for ongoing assessment. The University
Library also benefits from the grants as the funds support positions for
visiting staff and students, who have the opportunity to build skills and experience, and to
contribute to research, publications and conference presentations. Many of the
librarians interviewed noted the growth of stronger communities that emerge
from the collaboration brought about through grant-supported projects.
Interviewees indicated that grant project collaborations with library and
campus professionals produced positive outcomes. Additionally, the processes involved
in proposal submission, reporting, and budgeting draws on the expertise of
support personnel as well. Involving a wider community of library staff in
proposal review and project implementation is an important avenue towards
building wider professional relationships within the library community.
Challenges and Concerns
While most of those who were interviewed emphasized
positive outcomes, a number of librarians expressed concerns. Analysis of these
concerns, and the suggestions to remedy them, can help to build successful
future outcomes.
Balancing grants with primary responsibilities. Some who were interviewed expressed the concern that the institutional
culture of the library does not promote grant-writing and the associated
research. They commented that the pressure of their primary responsibilities
detracts from the time available to pursue research. Librarians at the
University of Illinois are required to undergo campus review and evaluation for
tenure and promotion. Research and publication are required elements of a
librarian’s tenure and promotion review. For pre-tenure librarians, the
enthusiasm to pursue a grant in support of research is tempered by the high
initial effort required to prepare a grant proposal that may or may not be
funded.
Relationship to Library Strategic Plan. Some of the librarians interviewed expressed concern that the Library
should articulate areas that are priorities for institutional research in the
Library’s strategic plan. They suggested that the Library articulate synergies
between strategic directions and institutional research priorities so that
librarians and professional staff would have the opportunity to align
substantial efforts to obtain grants with strategic library research and
development priorities. The authors note that at the time the interviews were
conducted, the Library was in the process of developing a three-year strategic
plan, and these suggestions were considered in that process.
Bottlenecks and Silos. Pre-tenure faculty in particular noted that they encountered
bottlenecks in the grant development process that they felt could have been
avoided if they had had sufficient access to their expert colleagues and
business office staff. This group noted that they expended considerable effort
up-front “learning the ropes” of successful grant-writing. They felt unprepared
for what seemed to be unpredictable obstacles that occurred in the course of
preparing and submitting a grant proposal. Budget preparation was an area where
most interviewees noted they were required to devote significant time. In
particular, many commented that they were not prepared for the requirement to
identify sources of “cost-sharing” in order to address an agency’s requirement
for matching funds, and noted that this part of budgeting was complicated and
time-consuming. Yet another challenge articulated by those who were interviewed
was the difficulty of identifying more experienced colleagues who could devote
time to planning the grant, and reviewing drafts of the proposal narrative at
various stages in its development, to provide advice on the impact of the
proposed work and the clarity and completeness of the narrative. At the time of
the survey, support for grant preparation was limited to the Associate
University Librarian for Research, and the Research Manager in the Library’s
Business Office. Other colleagues with grant expertise provided advice and
support on an informal basis.
Internal Submission Timeline. Another concern expressed was that institutional requirements for
grant submission did not allow sufficient time for development of the narrative
and plan. Some grant opportunities have a brief turnaround time between the
call for proposals and the submission deadline. The University Library and the
campus require that both the completed proposal narrative and the budget and
submission package are reviewed at each level. This means that the narrative
and budget must be completed roughly three weeks before the funder’s submission
date. This time frame enables the University Library to review the narrative
and the budget, to complete required paperwork, and to ensure that any
commitments made in the proposal can be supported. The Office of Sponsored
Programs reviews proposals to ensure that investigators comply with University
regulations, as well as funder requirements. Admittedly, there is little that
can be done to address the internal review requirements for grant proposals.
Most proposals require iterative interaction between the PI, the Library, and
the campus prior to submission to modify the proposal budget and plan of work
and to strengthen the narrative, based on feedback from the internal review
process.
Limited Funding Options for Collections Grants and
Specific Research Interests. Several of those
interviewed noted the discontinuation of state grant competitions that funded
collection development. These collection enhancement grants, coordinated by the
CARLI (Consortium of Academic Research Libraries of Illinois) funds, channeled
LSTA funding to strengthen collections in targeted areas. Other interviewees
pointed out that funding to support either their collection or research
interests is very limited. These barriers hamper individual’s grant
submissions. They also reflect the
reality of a sponsored research environment that is driven by funders’ research
interests. While there are numerous
opportunities, not all areas of LIS research are not considered funding
priorities.
Discussion
Interviewees made several suggestions aimed at better
supporting proposal development. They requested that the Library sponsor
discussion sessions about grant proposal development, where knowledge and
experience about grant preparation could be shared widely. They recommended
involving successful grantees, who could share their expertise in proposal
development. Several librarians recommended hosting a two-part series, with one
session focusing on cultivation of ideas, planning, and grant submission, while
the second session could concentrate on how actual projects were implemented,
and strategies for success. Senior faculty suggested that working groups,
organized around a research interest, could support internal proposal review
and might be a rich avenue to pursue for several reasons. This suggestion was
aimed at providing assistance with the development of the idea, literature
reviews, and reviewing the final proposal. Several interviewees noted that they
relied upon a pool of experienced colleagues to review their proposals. They
developed strong linkages to faculty based in their disciplinary units or with
librarians at other campuses. One librarian indicated that she had received
feedback from staff in the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, and
attended grant-writing workshops led by an interdisciplinary campus unit. Interviewees
also suggested that the Library provide Web-based support for writing grants.
Finally, those who were interviewed wanted to see their grant projects promoted
within the Library, on campus, and to other constituents with a potential
interest in their research, with press releases and information on the
Library’s Web site. They suggested that this promotion could feature the
initiative, itself, or specifically funded activities and outcomes, and
information about the research outcomes. Faculty felt that showcasing grant
accomplishments could raise awareness of the project to a broader audience.
Those interviewed suggested that the Library develop a Web site that featured
research and grant initiatives.
Several key findings emerged from this assessment.
Historical trends in Library grant funding were identified, along with areas
where the Library is positioned to enhance grant efforts. Library faculty and
staff identified core organizational issues that were perceived as obstacles to
pursuing external funding to support research and innovative service
development. The analysis revealed that faculty view grant opportunities as
having extraordinary value within their careers and for the institution.
Finally, this work revealed a need for the Library to cultivate an
up-and-coming cadre of faculty and professional staff who can transform key
research questions into compelling proposals. As part of this effort, several
changes were made, including the development of professional forums aimed at
faculty and staff who are interested in and ready to pursue external funding,
the creation of a blog aimed at recognizing the research accomplishments of
library professionals, and the institution of more frequent and consistent
communication about grant and research opportunities.
These data support a number of findings. First, as an
organization, the Library now has a baseline of data about grant challenges and
successes. As a result of this analysis the Library has a clear idea of the
number and thematic scope of grants received annually, as well as their
strategic value to the institution. Data were generated that describe in detail
the breakdown of grants by strategic focus and funder. The Library now has a
method to assess changes over time that result in successes, and to pinpoint
areas in which it ought to pursue future growth. For example, the steady stream
of substantial grants awarded to the Library’s Mortenson Center for
International Library Programs to support international leadership training programs
served as a strong indicator of the success of the Mortenson program in the
area of international library leadership training. Similarly, several grants
have been awarded to support the evaluation of federated search services, which
has enabled the Library to develop strong expertise in this area. The analysis
also enabled us to identify areas where the Library could consider seeking
external funding to augment existing programs that could be of interest to the
broader research library community. Two such areas included the assessment of
user-focused services, and international reference service.
Improving these measures is important to the Library,
especially as it increases support to librarians who pursue grants to address
institutional priorities. The Library is reviewing the way it supports grant
projects, so that it can enhance the success of future proposals. This
assessment is also leading to opportunities that address people’s concerns and
obstacles to success. The Library implemented an internal review process to
provide librarians with timely feedback on grant proposals. The Office of the
Associate University Librarian for Research worked with the Library’s Research
and Publication Committee to organize workshops on grant-writing for librarians
and professional staff. One workshop involved experienced grant-writers who
discussed the positioning of their research to obtain grant funds. A second
workshop provided information on how to apply for internal competitive
opportunities and introduced other campus resource units that support research.
The Library also implemented a blog called “Recognizing Library Excellence”
that promotes the research of the Library’s faculty and professional staff,
posting periodic updates on publications, presentations, research grants, and
professional awards (Recognizing Excellence at the University of Illinois
Library).
Further strategies for supporting proposal writing
include more presentations and Web documentation on grant preparation and
identification of grants to support strategic needs. Two workshops were
presented as part of the Library’s Savvy Researcher series for graduate
students and faculty, focusing on grant resources and search strategies for
identifying funding opportunities. This material was expanded into a LibGuide
on grants, fellowships, and scholarships that presents tools for finding grants
and resources for writing successful proposals (Grants, Fellowships and
Scholarships LibGuide).
The issues raised by librarians and staff in the
interviews helped to inform daily operations as well as strategic planning. New
ideas that are incubated in grant projects have the potential to shape
strategic directions. The National Science Foundation’s Digital Library
Initiative Phase 1 program spawned numerous creative developments, including
the creation of Google. Areas that are targeted for strategic development,
either in a single library or within a large professional organization like the
ARL, can serve as guideposts for further exploration supported by grant
funding.
The Library has several long-standing internal
competitive grant programs that support research, publication, and innovation,
and serve to seed external grant proposals. The Library makes available
approximately $30,000 annually that is awarded on a competitive basis to
librarians in support of research and publication, juried by the Research and
Publication Committee. Further, the Library supports an Innovation fund that
seeds the development of innovative ideas and programs. The Library’s virtual
reference system—the only tool that enables management of geographically
dispersed virtual reference—was developed with seed funds from the Innovation
fund. The campus also supports research initiatives with funding for both
research and travel, for which librarians are eligible to compete. These funds
provide avenues for librarians to develop initiatives that can leverage
external funding into large-scale demonstration or research projects. The
analysis prompted us to recognize the important bridge role that such a group
can play in an organization to assist a researcher in moving from a local idea
to an externally-vetted and funded research initiative.
Conclusion
As a result of this assessment, the Library increased
its efforts to provide effective internal support in the proposal preparation
process, including help with budgets, support documentation, and the review of
grant proposal narratives. Several changes were initiated based on the feedback
from the data analysis and the interviews. These included: collaboration with
the Library Research and Publication Committee to develop and offer forums to
engage more Library professionals in initiating grant proposals; developing
workshops through public-facing programs; establishing a library blog that
recognizes research and professional accomplishments; developing a LibGuide
that focuses on identifying grant opportunities; and providing reviews of grant
proposals prior to submission.
The most important outcome of the assessment was that
it revealed the need for the Library to support grant efforts as an integral
component of the research process.
Although it appears obvious in retrospect, the assessment enabled the
Library to integrate support for grants into a more cohesive research
infrastructure than it had previously supported. This evaluation of grants
awarded to the Library identified trajectories of funding in different areas,
and opportunities that grants provide to librarians. It was clear from the
interviews that librarians view grants as significant milestones in their
research and program-building activities. The feedback from the interviews
revealed additional ways to support funded research projects after they are
awarded. Periodic meetings including the PI and other project staff, the
Library’s Manager for Research, and the Associate University Librarian for
Research provide opportunities to review progress, confirm or revise goals, and
to review the budget and spending rate of the project. Participants in the
interviews suggested that it was important for the Library to recognize the
efforts of those engaged in grant activities by communicating systematically
the outcomes and successes to a broad audience. The analysis and the interviews
also identified areas where the Library could stimulate the development of new
programs services, or new areas of research. This analysis was a key factor in
the Library’s decision to re-shape the position description of the Library and
Information Science Librarian, incorporating substantive responsibilities for
research support services into this role. Continued monitoring of these data
points, and periodic interviews with investigators are ongoing organizational
goals.
The review and analysis of the Library’s grants
program has proven valuable for the Library’s institutional practices, and this
assessment may also inform other institutions’ initiatives with grant-writing.
It can serve as a model to other academic and research libraries interested in
two areas: 1) utilizing quantitative methods to understand and track the past
and current trends related to research interests and grant funding and 2) using
quantitative and qualitative data to design support systems for those in the
Library seeking grants.
References
Cuillier, C., & Stoffle, C. J. (2011). Finding Alternative Sources
of Revenue. Journal of Library Administration, 51(7-8), 777-809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2011.601276
Grants, Fellowships and Scholarships: Find funding support for your
research or studies—A guide aimed at faculty, researchers, and students. In LibGuides
@ University of Illinois Library Retrieved 1 June 2015 from: http://uiuc.libguides.com/content.php?pid=334382&search_terms=grants
Herkovic, A. (2004). Proposals, grants, projects and careers: A
strategic view for libraries. Library Management, 25(8), 376-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435120410562862
Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A
catalyst for organizational change. portal:
Libraries & the Academy,4(3), 345-361. Retrieved 1 June 2015 from: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/portal_libraries_and_the_academy/v004/4.3lakos.pdf
Landau, H. B. (2011). Winning Library Grants: A Game Plan.
Chicago: American Library Association.
Mook, C. (2004). ARL SPEC Kit 283:
Grant Coordination. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.
“Recognizing Excellence at the University of Illinois Library,”
Retrieved 1 June 2015 from: http://publish.illinois.edu/library-excellence/
Taylor, C. (2010). Thinking out of the box: Fundraising during economic
downturns. Serials Librarian, 59(3-4),
370-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03615261003623120
Zambare, A. (2004). The grant-writing process: A learning experience. College
& Research Libraries News, 65(11),
673-676.