Supported Australian LIS Practitioners are Confident LIS Practitioner Researchers: Insights from a National Survey

ABSTRACT

This paper presents findings from a survey of 291 Australian library and information science (LIS) practitioners, examining their research capacity by identifying attitudes towards, and experiences of research activities, including support needs and barriers. This study found that supported LIS practitioners will be confident LIS practitioner-researchers. Findings reveal that in addition to fostering research skills and knowledge strategies to build LIS practitioners’ research capacity, the profession must acknowledge and address the feelings that underlie resistance to research. In addition, before mentoring can be used as a meaningful research support mechanism, LIS practitioners need to first develop confidence that their experiences are sufficient to provide support to others and receive training in research methods to bridge the gap between research as service, and research as partnership. LIS academics, with their expertise in research, are well placed to take an active role in collaboration with LIS practitioners to provide research training and mentoring. For LIS practitioner-researchers’ potential to be realised, developmental interventions need to be addressed within LIS institutions. As a supportive research culture within a workplace is enhanced, mistrust in research and anxiety about research practices will diminish, and practitioners will build their identities as practitioner-researchers.

KEYWORDS:

• Practitioner-research
• practitioner-researchers
• library and information science research
• research culture
• research skills and knowledge
• research education and training

Introduction

Embracing a culture of research and scholarly enquiry enhances opportunities for library and information science (LIS) practitioners to contribute to the development of Australian society and the knowledge economy. Supporting the conduct of research by LIS practitioners in the course of their daily work has the potential to foster social change and community well-being in more sophisticated and overt ways (Wilson, 2013). Research can inform decision-making, aid continuous improvement, assist in strategy and planning, raise the profile of both LIS services and the profession more broadly, and advance evidence-based library and information practice (Hall, 2010). In addition, practitioners benefit from improved critical and analytical thinking, the development of new knowledge and skills, career advancement, and professional recognition from their peers (Pickton, 2016).

A vibrant research culture is not the norm across the Australian LIS sector, despite strategies in recent years to build the capacity of the nation’s LIS practitioners to undertake research. To fully embrace a research culture in the field it is important to first understand how research is currently experienced by the nation’s LIS practitioners. This paper presents findings from a survey of 291 Australian LIS practitioners, exploring their experiences with research in their work roles. The paper demonstrates the research capacity of Australian LIS professionals by identifying their research experiences, support needs and barriers to research practice. It begins with a brief review of relevant literature before providing an overview of the research approach and outlining the key findings from the study. The paper concludes by discussing the key implications of the study and identifying areas of further consideration.

Literature Review

The Value of Research Culture and Practice in the Library and Information Science Profession

The value of research to the library and information science (LIS) profession is well documented, with the need to embrace the concept of the LIS ‘practitioner-researcher’ (Harowitz & Martin, 2013; Wilson, 2013) burgeoning in the last decade. Simply expressed, a practitioner-researcher is ‘a practitioner who does research’ (Jarvis, 1999, p. 3). Within the context of the LIS profession, however, Wilson (2013, p. 23) describes it as:

someone on the inside looking around, observing and attempting to understand what’s going on for the benefit of how things are working on the inside. It is the practitioner reflecting on practice, being curious about practice in a formalised way, and wanting to know more about practice in order to make that practice better.

Wilson (2013) argues the practitioner-researcher should be ‘an encouraged and formalised role’ within the LIS profession. Similarly, Hoffman describes the role as a ‘constructive concept for librarians’ (2015, para 15) because:

embracing the practitioner-researchers identity can bring us to a fuller understanding of and a unique perspective on both practice and research; and we are both practitioners and researchers and so we need an identity that encompasses both of these roles.

By becoming a practitioner-researcher, LIS professionals can contribute to building a research evidence base, and also inform and facilitate continuous improvements to practice and services, assist in benchmarking and future planning of the profession, demonstrate professional value and impact, and raise the profile of both the library and the discipline (Hall, 2010; Pickton, 2016). For the individual LIS practitioner, Pickton (2016, p. 106) notes:

The benefits are far-reaching. Engagement in research may lead to new knowledge and skills; satisfy intellectual curiosity; bring professional recognition … support career advancement; and enhance job satisfaction.

Library and Information Science Practitioners’ Confidence and Competencies for Research

Librarians’ perceptions of their skills with research affects their engagement with these practices.

Kennedy and Brancolini’s (2012, 2018) survey of academic librarians’ attitudes, involvement, and perceived capabilities relating to their research practice found that librarians were confident in undertaking research. The authors concluded that ‘confidence in performing the discrete steps in a research project may be useful as a predictor for whether or not an academic librarian conducts research’ (2012, p. 437). This finding was also observed by Malik et al.’s (2023) work with academic librarians in Pakistan. However, they noted the possibility of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. Previous meta-analysis studies indicated a mismatch between perceived and actual ability of performing a task, such as information literacy and work performance (Mahmood, 2016). Consequently, they call for careful interpretation of their study’s findings, while also noting the need for creating a supportive environment for librarians to continue to learn and apply research knowledge in their professional practice.

In contrast to these studies, Berg et al. (2009) reported that Canadian library administrators ranked the research skills of librarians at their institutions at a low level, although they noted that librarians had a high level of enthusiasm and willingness to engage in research. They called on librarians and library administrators to have the conversations necessary so that realistic and meaningful strategies, expectations, and support for research can be outlined. More recently, Thielen and Stuit (2021) surveyed 255 early-career librarians in North America to investigate their research practices including their confidence in these skills. The majority of study respondents reported a lack of confidence in their skills but a desire to publish. Notably, respondents required to publish by their institutions expressed more confidence in their ability to publish scholarly, peer-reviewed articles. The authors observed that respondents ‘expressed deeply personal feelings and issues related to research and publications’ (p. 21) and that ‘early-career librarians’ engagement with research and publication has the opportunity to improve the quality of LIS literature, advance the profession and sustain LIS research’ (p. 20).

Barriers to, and Enablers for, Research in the Library and Information Science Profession

Barriers to adopting research in LIS professional practice are wide-ranging and well-documented (Booth, 2011; Nguyen & Hider, 2018). More than two decades ago, Turner (2002) identified the top reasons for not consulting with research, including time constraints, availability of other knowledge-sharing opportunities (e.g. conferences), and that research findings were not providing solutions for practical problems in the workplace. Many of these issues continue to be raised. In addition to time constraints, Jamali’s (2018) study identified another set of barriers, including: lack of research evidence in certain areas (e.g. scarcity of studies from special and government library contexts); time lag between research and publication of outcomes which causes loss of relevancy and applicability of results; and lack of support or lack of skills (e.g. data analysis skills) to undertake research.

With the barriers to practitioner research well understood, attention has also been given to investigating the factors that enable and support successful research practice in the LIS profession, with a particular focus on institutional or management support. Kennedy and Brancolini (2018) described a ‘paradigm shift’ in focus from the negative (i.e. how to overcome barriers) to the positive (i.e. identifying facts that lead to successful research). The literature offers several suggestions to foster research activities, including dedicated time to research or write (Clapton, 2010), access to research grants, payment of fees, and reimbursement of research expenses (Carson et al., 2014), adopting organisational merit and reward systems (Kim, 2005), and including a commitment to research in strategic plans and reflected in service goals (Carson et al., 2014).

Hoffman et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive review of 42 empirical studies focused on research success factors, both in the LIS profession and in other fields. Using content analysis, they identified 16 factors that contribute to research productivity, which cluster into three broad categories: individual attributes; peers and community; and, institutional structures and supports. They used these categories to develop a survey completed by 453 librarians who worked at Canadian universities (Hoffman et al., 2017). No single factor within the three categories was identified as the main statistical contributor to research productivity, leading them to conclude that ‘an environment that embraces all three areas … will be likely to promote research productivity among librarians’ (p. 16).

Recently, Kennedy et al. (2020) explored factors that contribute to a librarian becoming a highly productive researcher. A survey of 46 academic librarians explored professional training and research environments, research networks and beliefs about the research process. A recent CV from the librarians was also coded to produce a research output score. They observed that there are many pathways, and numerous factors, that support librarians to become accomplished researchers. A positive research environment includes high institutional expectations, a variety of institutional supports for research, and extrinsic rewards, such as salary increases, tenure, promotion, and opportunities for advancement. They concluded that a librarian’s research network may be an important factor in becoming an accomplished researcher. Similarly, Hollister’s (2016) survey of academic librarians found that a combination of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations influenced sustained research productivity. The librarians who described their library culture as nurturing, encouraging or supportive of scholarship articulated a greater inclination for research than those who described their circumstances as demoralising, exhausting, unsupportive and hostile.

To fully embrace a research culture in the Australian LIS field it is important to first understand how research is currently experienced by the nation’s LIS practitioners. This paper reports on a study that meets this need, while also contributing to the broader international agenda for a research based, and research informed, LIS profession.

The Research Design

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate how research is currently experienced by Australia’s library and information science (LIS) practitioners. This study was part of a larger program of research – the Library and Information Science Australia (LISRA) project – which was designed to support and enable research culture and practice within Australia’s LIS profession. The project was funded by the Australian Research Council (LP1501100456) and undertaken in partnership with the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), and National and State Libraries Australasia (NSLA). The primary outcome of the project is an empirically derived practice framework that can support library and information services by empowering practitioners to undertake research endeavours and establish a strong research culture. Specifically, this paper reports the outcomes of an online questionnaire to respond to the following questions:

• How important is research to LIS practitioners?

• How experienced are LIS practitioners with research?

• What support is required for LIS practitioners to become proficient in research?

• What are the barriers and enablers for LIS practitioners to engage in research?

• What are the attitudes of LIS practitioners towards research?

• How can a supportive research culture be enabled that will enhance practitioner researcher confidence?

Method

Self-administered questionnaires are one of the most widely used data collection techniques within the survey methodology and are well suited to investigating questions about people’s beliefs or behaviours (Neuman, 2014). An online questionnaire was developed to investigate the experiences and perceptions of practitioners with research as part of their professional practice. Australian LIS practitioners who were currently working or had previously worked in a library or information service were invited to participate. Respondents were recruited via social media (e.g. Twitter), the project’s website, and e-lists of the Australian Library and Information Association. Recruitment emails were also distributed via e-lists directly to Directors or Managers of major library services inviting them to promote the survey to their staff. The survey took an average of 45 min to complete. The covering email informed recipients that returning the questionnaire indicated that they were giving informed consent to participate. All questions were optional and identifying details were not gathered. To further protect privacy, only aggregated data were analysed. The questionnaire was pilot tested using a subset of the target population, to test wording clarity, interpretation, and acceptance of the questionnaire, and completing the online instrument using a range of Web browsers. Ethical clearance was obtained by the team members’ institutions prior to data collection.

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was designed to investigate various aspects of research culture in practice environments for library and information science (LIS) practitioners. Informed by prior research studies, the questionnaire investigated aspects related to practitioner perceptions and experience with research. This study, focusing on a particular subset of the questions, delved into practitioner capacity for research engagement, their support needs and challenges encountered in practice. Perceptions of research attitudes were explored within the context of participant’s professional practice and their comprehension of research principles.

Regarding the perceived importance of research, respondents were asked to rate how important they felt research was to their own professional practice, to their sector (e.g. public libraries, academic libraries), and to the Australian library and information profession in general. All responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating ‘not at all important’ and 5 ‘very important’.

Research experience and perceived support needs were measured using a scale developed by Harvey et al. (2013) to investigate the research capacity of social workers. The scale explored research experience and support needs through 14 types of research activity, representing sequential tasks along a ‘research continuum’ or increasing complexity. The activities were based on the ‘Research Spider’ developed by Smith et al. (2002), which is a tool for self-rating research skills and experience within discrete components of the research process. In addition to social workers, the scale developed by Harvey, Plummer, Pighills, and Pain has been used with a varied sample of allied health practitioners across Queensland with results reported for a sub-cohort of occupational therapists (Pighills et al., 2013) and comparisons between rural and regional health professionals (Pain et al., 2015).

The scale was divided into two sections, each with 16 questions. The first section of the scale asked respondents to rate their experience in areas of research-related activities, such as critically reviewing literature and writing an ethics application (research experience). The second section asked respondents to rate the level of support they would require to be proficient in the same research-related activities (research support). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (no experience/support) to 5 (a lot of experience/support). Changes to the items were made for the present study with the original item ‘Analysing, interpreting results’ split into two ‘Analysing results’ and ‘Interpreting results’. ‘Applying research to professional context or practice’ was added to explore the application of research within the work environment. The changes to these items were made to ensure a greater fit to the LIS practitioner context and were based on feedback gathered during pilot testing. These changes expanded the research continuum of increasing complexity referenced in the original research from 14 types of research activity to 16 types.

Items were adopted from Harvey et al.’s (2013) survey related to participants’ ability to engage in research (11 items) and beliefs and attitudes towards research (11 items; full survey obtained via personal communication, 9 May 2016). The items related to ability to engage in research are intended to explore barriers and enablers to research participation. The items related to beliefs and attitudes are intended to uncover knowledge of research methods and attitudes towards the use of research methodologies in practice. Participant responses to the two items gauging comfort with conducting qualitative or quantitative research are presented in Table 5 with the ‘barriers and enablers’ items. This placement was chosen as these items share a practical application rather than being solely reflective of beliefs and attitudes.

Items were used largely in their original form, with only slight modifications to the wording. For instance, the original item from the ‘barriers and enablers’ subset ‘I don't know what topic I could research’ was adjusted to ‘I struggle with identifying a topic to research’. Similarly, ‘I would like to engage in research but there is not enough statistical support’ was changed to ‘I would like to engage in research but there is not enough support for analysis’. In the ‘beliefs and attitudes’ subset the item ‘Quantitative research methods are too rigid to be clinically useful’ was altered to ‘Quantitative research methods are too rigid to be useful in practice’. And ‘A statistically significant result implies clinical significance’ was modified to ‘A statistically significant result implies significance for practice’. All remaining items are taken directly from the original survey. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

There were regular opportunities for respondents to add qualitative data (i.e. comments) to their questionnaires. Demographic data were also obtained in the full questionnaire for profiling the employment characteristics and geographic location of LIS practitioners. Questions included respondents’ employment status (What is the status of your current LIS employment?), level of employment (What is the current level of your LIS position?), area of employment (In what area of LIS work are you employed?), years of experience (All up how many years’ experience do you have working in the LIS sector?), level of education (What type of qualification do you hold/are studying?) and region of employment (What region do you live in?). All responses were categorical and mutually exclusive.

Analysis

Data submitted online were stored automatically in a database and downloaded for analysis in spreadsheet format. SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp) was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to summarise all variables. Care was taken to report the amount and pattern of missing data in line with the recommendations of Schlomer et al. (2010). Chi-square (χ²) ‘goodness of fit’ testing was used for LIS practitioners to identify if within-discipline trends in experience or support differed compared to the published results for the comparison cohorts. To remain consistent with the published research, a confidence level of .001 was used to indicate statistical significance for the within-discipline testing of the experience and support scales (Pighills et al., 2013).

To compare the sample trends across responses to perceptions of research importance or demographic groupings, appropriate comparative analyses such as t-tests were used. A confidence level of .05 was used for all statistical tests, except for the within-discipline testing, where a stricter confidence level of .001 was employed to maintain consistency with the findings of Pighills et al. (2013).

Multivariate analyses such as linear regression were used to identify experience drivers of researcher confidence supporting peers. The potential factor structure of the items used to measure research attitudes, barriers, and enablers to conducting research was assessed using factor analysis to identify correlated variable constructs within the data that explain most of the variance among attributes. The appropriateness of factor analysis was assessed by correlation, measures of sampling adequacy (MSA), partial correlation among variables, and reliability alpha to ensure that the factor analysis was appropriate to the data. Final correlations between the composite research attitude, barrier and enabler variables extracted demonstrated significant relationships between clusters of attributes in furthering or hindering the development of individual research confidence or workplace research culture.

Respondents

Two hundred and ninety-one LIS practitioners responded to the questionnaire, with 234 completing all questions and 57 partially completing the questionnaire (as all questions were optional). To accommodate missing values, the percentage of missing responses for each item are reported and analysis has been conducted using pairwise deletion to retain the maximum amount of available data (Schlomer et al., 2010).

The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) indicates around 25,000 workers in Australia's libraries and information services. Yet, this figure includes a wide range of roles, not all comparable to the ‘practitioner’ category in our survey. A possibly closer representation of the relevant workforce is ALIA's membership of about 5000 (ALIA, 2021). Our survey, with 291 respondents and a 5.84% margin of error at a 95% confidence level, is drawn from this member pool, giving us a relevant sample of the practitioner category (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). The sample was reasonably well distributed across regions.

Most respondents were employed in a library and information service (265, 91%) with 26 not working (8.9%) when they completed the questionnaire. Full-time employees consisted of 70.2% of the sample (186), 21.9% were employed in regular part-time positions (58) and 4.9% were employed only casually (13). The 8 respondents who recorded other positions either worked as volunteers or in flexible working arrangements. Thirteen of the 26 who were not working had over 20 years’ experience (50%), seven had between six- and 20 years’ experience (26,9%) and six had less than five years’ experience (23.1%). All non-working respondents had a LIS qualification and 50% (13) had, or were studying towards, a research qualification.

Of the 265 employed respondents, our sample included various sectors. University libraries were well-represented, with 124 (46.8%) respondents. Public libraries accounted for 46 respondents (17.4%), while special libraries or information services comprised 30 respondents (11.3%) and state or territory libraries made up 25 respondents (9.4%). A smaller proportion worked in school libraries, with 14 respondents (5%). We also observed respondents working in other LIS-related sectors, including Technical and Further Education (TAFE) libraries, national libraries, archival centres, records management units, and medical or health libraries (5), other education libraries (3), corporate libraries (2), and a law library (1). While this study primarily focused on the development of a research skills model and its implications for practice, we recognise the potential influence of sectoral differences in the research engagement of LIS practitioners. We intend to conduct in-depth investigations of these variances across the different library sectors in future publications based on the data in this study. We believe that this will provide valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities faced by LIS practitioners in various sectors.

In terms of roles, non-management practitioners formed the largest proportion of the employed sample (153, 57.7%), with 22 in supervisory positions (8.3%), 67 in middle-management positions (e.g. department head, team leader, associate director, 25.3%) and 23 in senior management positions (e.g. chief librarian, CEO, director, regional head, 8.7%). The vast majority of respondents (276 of 291, or 94.8%) had either completed (240 respondents, 82.5%) or were studying towards (8 respondents, 2.7%) a professional library and information science qualification. Additionally, 28 respondents (9.6%) did not specify their completion status but indicated that they had pursued a professional LIS qualification. Fifteen respondents (5.2%) did not possess an LIS qualification; of these, seven (2.4%) held or were studying towards a research qualification, while eight respondents (2.7%) had neither a professional LIS qualification nor a research qualification.

The three largest qualification groupings included bachelor’s degrees (75, 25.8%), graduate diplomas (113, 39.2%), and master’s by coursework (101, 34.7%). Eleven held a certificate (3.8%), 27 a diploma or associate diploma (9.3%) and eight an advanced diploma (2.7%).

Of the total sample, 50 (17.2%) held or were studying towards research qualifications which consisted of doctoral studies (26, 8.9%), research masters (21, 7.2%), or honours studies (3, 1%). The self-reported research disciplines for these respondents varied; for example, 18 were from disciplines directly related to library, communication, or information studies, 13 were from disciplines related to art, literature, history, or linguistics, and three were from archival science. Additional disciplines included medical science, law, education, and biology, among others. Eight respondents were early career practitioner-researchers (under 5 years post completion of postgraduate research training), and 12 were mid-career practitioner-researchers (6–10 years). Fifteen could be considered experienced practitioner-researchers, declaring more than ten years of research-related experience.

Of the 231 respondents that answered the question on gender, 206 (70.8%) identified as female, 25 (8.6%) identified as male, and 60 (20.6%) did not respond. Most respondents (162, 55.7%) originated from a capital city, 56 (19.2%) from a regional town or city and seven (2.4%) from a rural or remote area; 66 (22.7%) did not respond to this question.

Findings

How Important is Research to LIS Practitioners?

The importance of research to LIS practitioners was measured on a 5-point Likert scale from not at all important (1) to very important (5) across three items: importance to the practitioner’s professional practice; importance to their sector; and importance to the Australian library and information profession, overall. A high proportion (range of 87% to 96%) of LIS practitioners rated the importance of research in all three domain areas as important or very important (see Table 1). However, an analysis of the difference between the mean scores using a paired samples t-test revealed that LIS practitioners are significantly more likely to consider research to be important to their sector (M = 4.21, SD = 0.718, t(266) = −7.01, p = .000) or to the Australian LIS profession, overall (M = 4.51, SD = 0.645, t(266) = −7.78, p = .000), than to their own professional practice (M = 4.47, SD = 0.63). The perceived importance of research was not significantly influenced by employment level or whether the practitioner held or was studying towards a research qualification.

Table 1. Belief in research importance by LIS practitioners (N = 291).

How important do you believe research is to each of the following? N (%)	N	Not at all important	Unimportant	Neither	Important	Very important	Scale distribution
Your professional practice	268	1 (0)	4 (1)	29 (11)	139 (52)	95 (35)
Your sector (e.g. public/special libraries etc.)	267	0	4 (1)	7 (3)	116 (43)	140 (52)
The Australian library and information profession?	267	0	5 (2)	7 (3)	102 (38)	153 (57)

How Experienced are LIS Practitioners with Research and What Support is Required for LIS Practitioners to Become Proficient in Research?

Previous research based on the ‘Research Spider’ concept of Smith et al. (2002) identified an inverse relationship between experience and support required; this was replicated in our sample of LIS practitioners (see Figure 1). The findings from this questionnaire reveal that the majority of LIS practitioners possess moderate to substantial experience in locating relevant literature, critically reviewing literature, and writing literature reviews. Specifically, out of 289 respondents, 63% indicated having moderate to high levels of experience with critically reviewing literature. For composing literature reviews, 43% reported substantial experience. On the other hand, the lowest levels of experience were associated with tasks like applying for research funding (9%), writing an ethics application (12%), publishing research (16%), and writing a research proposal (23%).

Figure 1. Levels of experience vs. support required for tasks on the research continuum.

These four research activities exhibited a pronounced gap concerning support requirements. Roughly 67% of the respondents expressed a need for moderate to significant support when it came to research funding applications, 63% for writing ethics applications, 54% for publishing research and 46% for writing a research proposal (see Figure 1). The significance of the p values for these tasks (outlined in Table 2) demonstrates that there is a considerable demand for support in these areas. Additionally, it is evident that there is an insufficient proportion of skilled practitioners within this sample to provide this support through peer mentoring alone.

Table 2. Comparative profile of the level of research experience and supports needs for research activities (N = 291).

	Amount of experience N (%)						Amount of support required N (%)
Research Activity	N	No/Little	Some	Moderate/very	p	χ^2 (df)	N	No/Little	Some	Moderate/lots	p	χ^2 (df)
Finding relevant literature	291	6 (2)	26 (9)	257 (89)	*.000	404.02 (2)	279	206 (74)	47 (17)	25 (9)	*.000	210.53 (2)
Critically reviewing literature	291	34 (12)	74 (26)	181 (63)	*.000	119.92 (2)	280	166 (59)	73 (26)	40 (14)	*.000	91.81 (2)
Writing a literature review	291	85 (29)	81 (28)	123 (43)	.004	11.16 (2)	280	152 (54)	69 (25)	58 (21)	*.000	56.80 (2)
Generating research ideas	288	114 (40)	70 (24)	103 (36)	.004	10.96 (2)	280	110 (39)	81 (29)	88 (32)	.085	4.93 (2)
Developing a research question	289	110 (38)	76 (26)	102 (35)	.037	6.58 (2)	280	102 (37)	84 (30)	93 (33)	.419	1.74 (2)
Writing a research proposal	288	168 (59)	53 (18)	66 (23)	*.000	82.92 (2)	279	78 (28)	72 (26)	128 (46)	*.000	20.40 (2)
Applying for research funding	289	237 (82)	26 (9)	25 (9)	*.000	310.65 (2)	278	36 (13)	56 (20)	185 .(67)	*.000	141.67 (2)
Writing an ethics application	288	217 (76)	34 (12)	36 (13)	*.000	230.85 (2)	280	57 (20)	46 (16)	176 (63)	*.000	111.76 (2)
Using qualitative research methods (e.g. interviews)	286	136 (48)	77 (27)	72 (25)	*.000	26.67 (2)	281	86 (31)	88 (31)	106 (38)	.273	2.60 (2)
Using quantitative research methods (e.g. questionnaires)	288	124 (43)	87 (30)	76 (26)	.001	13.22 (2)	283	85 (30)	96 (34)	100 (36)	.525	1.28 (2)
Analysing results	287	122 (43)	73 (26)	91 (32)	.002	12.89 (2)	281	97 (35)	78 (28)	105 (38)	.127	4.12 (2)
Interpreting results	287	118 (41)	75 (26)	93 (33)	.008	9.78 (2)	279	92 (33)	79 (28)	107 (38)	.120	4.24 (2)
Writing a research report	288	123 (43)	70 (24)	94 (33)	.001	14.73 (2)	280	104 (37)	82 (29)	93 (33)	.272	2.60 (2)
Presenting research at a meeting, conference etc.	288	145 (51)	59 (21)	83 (29)	*.000	41.17 (2)	279	122 (44)	68 (24)	88 (32)	*.000	16.09 (2)
Publishing research	288	202 (70)	39 (14)	46 (16)	*.000	177.54 (2)	279	66 (24)	61 (22)	151 (54)	*.000	55.22 (2)
Applying research to professional context or practice	285	131 (46)	65 (23)	88 (31)	*.000	23.71 (2)	279	99 (36)	84 (30)	94 (34)	.531	1.26 (2)

*p < .001.

This finding extends to support for presenting at meetings or conferences. A significantly larger proportion of LIS practitioners required support for these activities (89%) compared to those who did not, underscoring the importance of a structured support system in enhancing research engagement.

Between one-fifth and one-third of LIS practitioners reported moderate-to-high levels of experience with the remaining ten tasks. This included the new scale item measuring the application of research to professional context or practice (31%). However, it’s noteworthy that experience levels were higher than support needs for the first five tasks on the research continuum, which included literature searching, critical appraisal, writing a literature review, generating research ideas, and developing a research question. In the case of generating research ideas, only 36% of LIS practitioners reported moderate to substantial experience, and for developing a research question, 35% similar levels of experience. This suggests that a considerable number of practitioners had little to no experience and would require support with these tasks.

The need for support was considerably lower for the first three activities. Only 9% required moderate to significant support for literature searching, 14% for critical appraisal, and 21% for writing a literature review.

The availability of mentors or significant peer influence within the workplace can play a crucial role in fostering a supportive research culture. As previously noted, our findings indicate that many LIS practitioners require substantial support, particularly for advanced activities on the research continuum. This suggests that while peer support is valuable, relying solely on it for developing research proficiency may not be adequate within the Australian LIS sector.

Within our sample, only 23% of LIS practitioners felt very or extremely high confidence in their research experience and skills, signifying that they feel well-prepared to support others in research endeavours. However, a larger proportion, 42%, viewed their research experience as moderate, indicating room for growth. Importantly, none of the respondents considered their skills to be non-existent, showing a baseline level competence. Nonetheless, its noteworthy that 36% of participants expressed only slight confidence in their ability to support others, emphasising the potential for further improvements in building a research-supportive environment.

Employing multiple regression analysis, we delved into the interconnectedness of our data. Specifically, we examined how the experiences our respondents reported in 16 distinct research activities, as shown in Table 2, collectively shaped their confidence in their research experience for supporting peers (see Table 3). Pairwise deletion was used to compensate for participants who skipped responses.

Table 3. LIS practitioner’s confidence in supporting others with research.

N (%)	Not at all	Slightly	Moderately	Very	Extremely	Scale distribution
To what extent do you feel you have sufficient research experience and skills to provide support to others who are interested in doing research? (N = 233)	0 (0)	83 (36)	97 (42)	38 (16)	15 (6)

Four of the 16 items were identified as playing a substantial role in shaping confidence with supporting others. The adjusted R-squared value of .414 signifies that approximately 41.4% of the variance in practitioners’ confidence can be attributed to their experience with these four research activities. In the final model, the development of a research question emerged as the most influential item, explaining 28% of the variance in research confidence for supporting others (F₄, 260 = 47.010, p = .000).

Furthermore, three other variables also made noteworthy contributions: to enhance confidence. These included experience with writing a research report (21% or β = .21), using qualitative research methods (19%, β = .19), and finding relevant literature (14%, β = .14). In the initial stepwise regression iteration, the impact of experience with developing a research question was even more pronounced at 56% (β = 0.56, p = .000), leading to an adjusted R Square of 0.313 (F₁, 260 = 119.504, p = .000). The presented p-values in Table 4 signify that the relationships uncovered were highly significant at a significance level of p ≤ .001 or p < .05.

Table 4. Stepwise regression summary: predicting research experience sufficiency for supporting others.

Variable	Model 1*			Model 2*			Model 3*			Model 4*
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Developing a research question	.475	.043	.562*	.298	.053	.352*	.262	.053	.310*	.233	.054	.276*
Writing a research report				.280	.052	.335*	.191	.059	.229**	.175	.059	.210**
Using qualitative research methods							.171	.056	.200**	.165	.055	.194**
Finding relevant literature										.199	.071	.144**
R^2 / Adjusted R^2	.316 / .313			.384 / .379			.406 / .399			.423 / .414
F		119.504			80.503			58.458			47.010

*p < .001, **p < .05.

What are the Barriers and Enablers for LIS Practitioners to Engage in Research?

Several barriers contributing to anxiety and a lack of confidence in research abilities were identified among LIS practitioners, with responses detailed in Table 5. To facilitate interpretation, responses were combined into ‘% agree’ (which includes ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’) and ‘% disagree’ (comprising ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’).

Table 5. LIS practitioner barriers and enablers to conducting research (N = 291).

Statement N (%)	N	% Disagree/Agree		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	Distribution
My line manager is supportive of me engaging in research	253	20	41	18 (7)	32 (13)	98 (39)	77 (30)	28 (11)
My work colleagues are supportive of me engaging in research	249	19	41	12 (5)	36 (14)	99 (40)	80 (32)	22 (9)
Research is part of my work units plans	252	56	26	45 (18)	96 (38)	46 (18)	51 (20)	14 (6)
Engaging in research is relevant to my job	251	13	71	5 (2)	27 (11)	43 (17)	117 (47)	59 (24)
Funding is available to conduct research if I want to	252	52	16	42 (17)	89 (35)	81 (32)	36 (14)	4 (2)
I would like to engage in research, but we are too short staffed	252	14	58	7 (3)	28 (11)	72 (29)	92 (37)	53 (21)
I would like to engage in research but there is not enough support for analysis	251	18	40	9 (4)	36 (14)	104 (41)	79 (31)	23 (9)
Currently there is too little time in my working day to do research	251	11	74	6 (2)	23 (9)	36 (14)	100 (40)	86 (34)
I feel comfortable doing quantitative research	252	24	47	17 (7)	44 (17)	72 (29)	109 (43)	10 (4)
Statistical analysis is beyond me	252	46	27	14 (6)	100 (40)	69 (27)	46 (18)	23 (9)
I feel comfortable doing qualitative research	252	21	54	12 (5)	40 (16)	63 (25)	112 (44)	25 (10)
The thought of doing research makes me anxious	251	55	27	40 (16)	97 (39)	47 (19)	52 (21)	15 (6)
I avoid engaging in research because I am not a confident writer	251	73	13	63 (25)	121 (48)	36 (14)	17 (7)	14 (6)
I struggle with identifying a topic to research	251	43	34	30 (12)	78 (31)	59 (24)	59 (24)	25 (10)

While a substantial 70% of LIS practitioners considered research relevant to their job, less than half considered line managers (41%) and colleagues (41%) to be supportive. Research integration into work unit plans was only available for 26% of LIS practitioners and only 16% had access to funding to conduct research. A lack of time within the working day for research activities was a workplace-related barrier for 74% of LIS practitioners, with 58% expressing interest in research but hindered by staffing shortages. Additionally, 40% found the absence of support for data analysis to impede their research efforts.

More than half of LIS practitioners were comfortable with conducting qualitative research (54%), and 47% were confident in their ability to undertake quantitative research. Nearly a third (27%) felt statistical analysis was beyond their abilities. Research anxiety around the thought of doing research was present in close to a third of LIS practitioners (27%). More than one third (34%) struggled with identifying a topic to research and 12% avoided research due to low confidence with writing abilities.

What are the Beliefs and Attitudes of LIS Practitioners Towards Research?

The results presented in Table 6 indicate that few practitioners expressed mistrust toward research, with only 5% and 4% agreeing with statements suggesting bias in research results or rigidity hindering the usefulness of research findings in practice. A small minority (17%) believed that small sample sizes in qualitative research hinder the meaningfulness of results, while 15% felt that it was not possible to transfer findings beyond the original study participants. Regarding the understanding of research principles, 26% disagreed that statistically significant results are practically significant, possibly indicating confusion between these distinct concepts. Similarly, 28% disagreed that isolating an effect is an advantage of quantitative research, suggesting some misunderstanding of quantitative methodologies. However, a significant majority (80%) agreed that the choice between qualitative or quantitative research depends on the research question, and 78% considered an advantage of qualitative research to be the ability to study issues in their real-life context.

Table 6. LIS practitioner beliefs about and attitudes towards research (N = 291).

Statement N (%)	N	% Disagree/Agree		Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither	Agree	Strongly agree	Distribution
Qualitative research results are usually too biased to be meaningful	252	62	5	24 (10)	131 (52)	84 (33)	11 (4)	2 (1)
Qualitative research sample sizes are usually too small to be meaningful	251	43	18	21 (8)	89 (35)	98 (39)	39 (16)	4 (2)
In qualitative research it is usually not possible to generalise the findings beyond the original participants	252	40	15	8 (3)	92 (37)	115 (46)	33 (13)	4 (2)
Quantitative research methods are too rigid to be useful in practice	250	63	3	18 (7)	139 (56)	84 (34)	6 (2)	3 (1)
A statistically significant result implies significance for practice	250	13	46	8 (3)	26 (10)	102 (41)	109 (44)	5 (2)
An advantage of quantitative research is that you isolate an effect	249	11	33	0 (0)	28 (11)	140 (56)	76 (31)	5 (2)
Whether you choose qualitative or quantitative research depends on the question you are asking	251	3	81	2 (1)	6 (2)	41 (16)	140 (56)	62 (25)
An advantage of qualitative research is that you can study issues in their real-life context	250	2	78	1 (0)	5 (2)	48 (19)	158 (63)	38 (15)

A notable proportion of ‘neither’ responses across various items suggests greater variability rather than consistent experiences across the cohort. To gain insight into these nuances, a cross-tabulation of perspectives related to line manager support was overlaid against the barrier and attitude items. ANOVA significance testing revealed that participants who ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that their line manager was supportive were also significantly (p = .000) more likely to consider research engagement to be relevant to their job, consider work colleagues to be supportive, have funding available for conducting research and consider research to be part of their work unit’s plans.

Bonferroni post-hoc testing identified distinctive patterns between the three groups. For participants without manager support, there is a notable discrepancy in the perceived relevance of research to their job compared to the other two groups, suggesting a potential impact on the integration of research into their professional roles. Those with neutral responses about manager support exhibit moderate perceptions across the items, possibly reflecting a degree of uncertainty. In contrast, participants with supportive managers consistently demonstrate higher perceptions of research relevance to their job, strong colleague support, and a more positive outlook on funding and research integration into work unit plans. These nuanced insights underline the multifaceted influence of managerial support on practitioners’ attitudes, support networks, and the organisational environment for research. The subtleties of these findings are visually represented through box plots in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Box plots illustrating the relationship between line manager support and enablers for research.

How Can a Supportive Research Culture be Enabled that Will Enhance Practitioner Researcher Confidence?

The potential factor structure of the 14 items used to measure research barriers and enablers (Table 5) and the eight items used to measure attitudes to research (Table 6) were further investigated to determine the internal consistency between items and the extent to which this scale could reliably predict research culture and practitioner research confidence.

Nineteen of the 22 items correlated at least .3 with at least one other item, suggesting reasonable factorability. Four items, including the three items that did not correlate also had communalities of less than .3 and were excluded from the factor analysis: ‘A statistically significant result implies significance for practice’, ‘An advantage of quantitative research is that you isolate an effect’, ‘Whether you choose qualitative or quantitative research depends on the question you are asking’, and ‘An advantage of qualitative research is that you can study issues in their real life context’. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy for the remaining 18 items was .74, above the commonly recommended value of .6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ² (153) = 1245.72, p = .000).

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical method that identifies the dimensionality of constructs by examining relations between items and factors when information on the dimensionality is limited (Netemeyer et al., 2003). A Principal Axis method of extraction initially identified 5 factors with eigenvalues greater than one. An Oblimin rotation was performed since factors were expected to be correlated. The obtained pattern matrix is displayed in Table 7. Only items with factor loadings of above .3 are shown. Initial eigenvalues indicated that the first three factors explained 22%, 14% and 9% of the variance respectively. The fourth and fifth factors had eigenvalues of just over one, and each explained 8% and 7% of the variance. Solutions for three and five factors were each examined using Varimax and Oblimin rotations of the factor loading matrix. The five-factor solution with an Oblimin rotation provided the best-defined factor structure explaining 48% of the variance. This model was preferred because the solution offered more interpretable insight into the relationships between research attitudes and barriers that could result from varying facets of workplace research culture and individual perceptions towards research confidence.

Table 7. Pattern matrix for individual and workplace related clusters of attitudes, barriers and enablers to conducting research.

Scale items	Research mistrust	Workplace research culture	Workplace research capacity	Research confidence	Research anxiety
	1	2	3	4	5
Qualitative research results are usually too biased to be meaningful	.881
Qualitative research sample sizes are usually too small to be meaningful	.658
In qualitative research it is usually not possible to generalise the findings beyond the original participants	.587
Quantitative research methods are too rigid to be useful in practice	.379
My line manager is supportive of me engaging in research		.806
My work colleagues are supportive of me engaging in research		.788
Research is part of my work units plans		.578
Engaging in research is relevant to my job		.426
Funding is available to conduct research if I want to		.420
I would like to engage in research, but we are too short staffed			.956
I would like to engage in research but there is not enough support for analysis			.549
Currently there is too little time in my working day to do research			.526
I feel comfortable doing quantitative research				.849
Statistical analysis is beyond me				−.652
I feel comfortable doing qualitative research				.412
The thought of doing research makes me anxious					−.774
I avoid engaging in research because I am not a confident writer					−.699
I struggle with identifying a topic to research					−.541
Percentage of Variance	21.90	14.25	9.43	7.73	7.39
Eigenvalue	3.94	2.57	1.70	1.39	1.33
Cronbach’s Alpha	.73	.75	.71	.71	.70

The pattern matrix in Table 7 revealed that the items were cleanly distributed across the five factors with none of the items cross-loading with values of more than .3 on more than one item, demonstrating a high internal consistency. The first factor was labelled ‘research mistrust’ as it consisted of four items that related to sceptical beliefs around the value or bias of research. The second factor was labelled ‘workplace research culture’ as it included five items that demonstrated the availability of organisational support for research. The third factor consisted of three workplace-related resource items including perceptions of poor staffing, time, or specific support for analysis and was labelled ‘workplace research capacity.’ The fourth item consisted of three items directly related to ‘research confidence’ with undertaking quantitative or qualitative research. The item ‘statistical analysis is beyond me’ was the only item to contribute negatively to the factor and was reverse coded for further analysis with the scale to align the directionality of the statement. The final factor consisted of three items that described ‘research anxiety’ towards undertaking research.

Good internal consistency was evident for each of the scales using Cronbach’s alpha with a range of alphas from .70 for research confidence to .75 for workplace research culture (Table 7). No substantial increases in alpha for any of the scales could have been achieved by eliminating more items. Composite scores were created for each of the five factors, based on the mean of the items which had their primary loadings on each factor.

Factors 1 and 5, ‘research mistrust’ and ‘research anxiety,’ can be considered barriers due to the negative phrasing of the statements included in each of the factors related to the research attitudes or perceptions of individual practitioners. Factor 3, ‘workplace research capacity,’ also consists of negatively phrased items but appears to be related specifically to organisational barriers. Factors 4 and 2, ‘research confidence’ and ‘workplace research culture,’ consist of items that are phrased positively and can therefore be considered enablers, with Factor 2 relating to organisational enablers and Factor 4 relating to individual practitioners. Results from a Pearson’s correlation matrix between the five composite factors supported the distinction between individual and organisational workplace barriers and enablers (see Table 8). A significant inverse relationship was observed between a strong workplace research culture (2), mistrustful practitioner attitudes towards research (1) and poor workplace capacity (3) to undertake research. A significant positive relationship was observed between workplace research culture (2) and individuals’ research confidence (4). Individuals’ mistrust of research (1) was also moderately correlated with research anxiety (5) yet negatively correlated with individuals’ research confidence. Low workplace research capacity (3) was not however significantly correlated with individuals’ research confidence (4) or research anxiety (5).

Table 8. Correlation between composite scales in five factor model of individual and workplace research capacity development.

	Factor	n	M	SD	Mistrust (1)	Culture (2)	Capacity (3)	Confidence (4)
1	Mistrust (I)	254	2.52	.59
2	Culture (O)	253	3.07	.73	−.200**
3	Capacity (O)	252	3.62	.79	.031	−.286**
4	Confidence (I)	253	3.24	.82	−.358**	.186**	−.121
5	Anxiety (I)	253	2.57	.90	.352**	−.122	.088	−.343**

Note: (I): Individual; (O): Organisational, **p < 0.01.

Discussion

The study provides evidence-based insights into the research experience and confidence of LIS practitioners in Australia, identifying current enablers and barriers. This nuanced understanding has the potential to inform a practitioner-researcher approach to ensure the continued relevance of LIS services to evolving community needs.

Research Support Should Focus on Anxiety and Confidence Alongside Skills and Knowledge

While most LIS practitioners are experienced in finding and critically appraising literature, and writing literature reviews, there is a pronounced gap in experience with more complex research activities. The study’s findings on LIS practitioner’s experiences with research activities and corresponding support needs align with previous research conducted globally (Crampsie et al., 2020; Kennedy & Brancolini, 2012; Kennedy & Brancolini, 2018; Meadows et al., 2013). Notably, the willingness to engage in qualitative and quantitative research, despite limited exposure, demonstrates interest and potential for growth.

The levels of anxiety reported by almost one-third of LIS practitioners in addition to the high level of skills-related support needs required to prepare research funding applications, ethics applications, and publications suggests a need for multifaceted interventions. While most practitioners did not express mistrust in the research process, a significant positive correlation between consolidated mistrust items and those indicating anxiety implies that addressing research mistrust is crucial for reducing anxiety and improving confidence. The impact is further emphasised by the significant negative correlation between confidence and workplace culture items and the mistrust items. The significant negative correlation between items related to anxiety and items related to confidence further demonstrate that reduction in anxiety towards research will correspond with improved confidence.

Although aligning with Thielen and Stuit's (2021) conclusions that many LIS practitioners lack confidence in research engagement, the high demand for support for more complex research activities offers deeper insights into why LIS practitioners may be hesitant to engage with research. This may also illuminate the decline in practitioner-authored articles in peer-reviewed journals, specifically (Finlay et al., 2013). Importantly, while challenges exist, 47% are not anxious, and 63% are not deterred from engaging in research due to poor confidence in writing, signifying that there is a desire and capacity for growth in research capability. In addition to research skills and knowledge, strategies to build the research capacity of LIS practitioners must acknowledge and address the feelings that may hinder engagement with complex research activities.

Leveraging Collaborations to Facilitate Mentoring for Research Support

Mentoring, both informal and informal, is frequently cited as a critical research support mechanism (Ackerman et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2021). While previous studies have shown that mentoring facilitates the identification of research topics, learning about the research process, hearing different views on issues, contextualising practice-based problems, and seeking feedback and advice (e.g. Kumaran, 2019; Vilz & Poremski, 2015), the findings from the current study suggest that the Australian LIS sector is not yet ready to use mentoring alone to support research practice. Less than one-quarter of the LIS respondents in the current study felt they had sufficient experience to support others with research, and the proportion of practitioners who need research support far exceeds the proportion that have sufficient experience with research to provide such support.

Bridging this gap requires building practitioners’ confidence through targeted training, focusing on four pivotal activities: developing a research question; finding relevant literature; using qualitative methods; and writing a research report. These activities contribute almost half of the training required to ensure mentorship confidence and could provide the foundation for a structured research mentor training program as well as professional development opportunities for Australian LIS practitioners. By focussing on these four activities the LIS profession can take the first step towards building the research capacity and mentoring needed to support LIS practitioners in embracing a practitioner-researcher approach to their professional practice.

For a research mentoring training program to be successful, however, collaborations between LIS practitioners and LIS academics is needed. The nature of the four activities forming the basis for the training program suggest that Australian LIS practitioners are at a bridging stage between the research activities that align with traditional LIS disciplinary skills and knowledge (i.e. critically appraising literature, writing literature reviews) and those associated more with applied research (i.e. formulating practice-related research problem statements, contributing to problem-solving). This supports findings from Pinfield et al. (2017) who noted that the identities of academic and research libraries are shifting, globally, from the provision of services to research users, towards roles that entail active participation in research and contribution to changing practice.

LIS academics have expertise in discipline-specific research processes and are well-placed to take an active role in collaboration with LIS practitioners. LIS academics could also be enlisted to provide a research mentoring training program to bridge the gap between research as service and research as a partnership. Nguyen and Hider (2018) argue that LIS academics

should build strong partnerships with libraries and librarians, for the benefit not only of their own research, but also so that they can increase the capacity of practitioner researchers at large. They can do this by taking part in initiatives such as mentoring programs and research training courses. (p.16)

In addition, professional associations have a role to play in supporting research culture in the profession and fostering collaborations between LIS academics and practitioners (Given et al., 2022). In Australia, the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL), the Special libraries Association (SLA) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) can take on a larger role in this respect. Additionally, researcher-practitioners should engage with international academic associations in the LIS discipline to foster research networks. As members of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T), for example, practitioners could access research-related professional development and mentoring services, as well as networking opportunities with LIS academics, who could become partners in future practice-based research activities.

Institutional Context and Culture Will Influence LIS Practitioner Research

While the LIS practitioners in this study were generally enthusiastic about research, noting its importance to the Australian profession, and to their sector (i.e. public, special, academic), many did not see research as important to their own professional practice. The high proportion of ‘neither’ responses across items related to research barriers and enablers in addition to the disparity in perceiving research as important to individual professional practice calls attention to potential nuances in institutional contexts which may provide insight into these findings.

Nearly 40% of LIS practitioners reported uncertainty about support available from managers and colleagues and up to 20% were not supported to engage in research, noting that research was only included in unit work plans for 26%. In addition, lack of time, lack of staffing, lack of funding, and lack of support (especially for data analysis) were identified as institutional barriers to conducting research in this study. These have been frequently cited as barriers to conducting research as part of LIS practice over several decades (e.g. Jamali, 2018; Turner, 2002). The study’s findings suggest that although LIS practitioners may be interested in conducting research, if it is not prioritised or if available support is not clearly communicated at the institutional level, practitioners will receive the message that research is not important to practice.

This study identified several components that were present in workplaces where participants were confident that research was supported in the workplace: management and peer support, inclusion of research in work unit plans, clear relevance to the job, and research funding. Together these workplace components correlate strongly with individual practitioner confidence with doing research, and protect against research anxiety and mistrustful research attitudes. The importance of clarifying research in work unit plans is supported by findings from a report by Research Libraries UK (RLUK, 2021) that identified library staff with less formal roles in research are less likely to be acknowledged for their contributions. In addition, the study identified three components that significantly correlate with workplace culture but not with individual research confidence or mistrust: insufficient staffing, support for analysis, and time to do research. This suggests that although tangible resource-based support enables a positive workplace research culture, workplaces that visibly support and acknowledge research contributions as valuable foster an environment where library research practitioners feel confident to engage with research.

The engagement in research by LIS practitioners in this study is therefore discretionary and contingent upon a supportive institutional environment. For LIS practitioner-researchers’ potential to be fully realised, developmental interventions need to be addressed at both the individual and the institutional level. This supports what Kennedy et al. (2020) found in their study. However, the findings reported here demonstrate that the focus needs to be on the institutional level first (i.e. developing an institutional culture that values research and prioritises research support), before any form of individual capacity development can have a meaningful impact. This perspective sits in contrast to the study by Hoffman et al. (2017), which identified three broad categories (individual attributes; peers and community support; institutional structures and support) contributing to LIS practitioners’ research productivity; noting that not one category was more or less important and that all must be embraced to impact. Our findings further contrast with Hoffman et al’s conclusions that institutional factors were not motivators of research productivity; however, this could be due to practitioner uncertainty around current availability of organisational support in library contexts. As Hoffman et al’s study reported results from Canada, where academic librarians often have academic status and are expected to publish and conduct research in their work roles, this may explain this contrasting finding. Consequently, further research into the drivers of positive organisational climate to support practitioner-researchers in LIS, globally, is warranted.

Conclusion

This research found that supported LIS practitioners are the foundation of confident LIS practitioner-researchers. Leadership's role in shaping research culture cannot be overstated. Establishing an optimal workplace environment that ensures a supportive research culture and enhances practitioner confidence, requires employers to demonstrate the role of research within their institution. Further, institutions should intentionally develop partnerships (i.e. with professional associations, LIS academics) to foster opportunities for research participation, collaboration, and mentorship.

Aside from individual motivators, the findings from this study confirm that intentional institutional support for research is critical for building the identity of librarians as practitioner-researchers. Institutional support for research should include ensuring leaders understand and prioritise research, as well as model the appropriate use of research for societal impact with library communities. Including research in a purposeful manner within research unit plans, providing appropriate research opportunities and training, and offering funding and practical opportunities to conduct research in day-to-day work, all demonstrate organisational commitment towards research and evidence-informed practice change. As LIS professionals embrace research as a societal impact tool, the resultant positive culture will naturally diminish mistrust and anxiety, fostering a dynamic and research-driven LIS community.

Investment in workplace research capacity through sufficient staffing, adoption of technologies for, or employing experts in analysis, and time for research are tangible organisational contributions required to enable a positive leadership and peer workplace culture for supporting research. However, as our findings show that infrastructure for data analysis or additional staffing is not directly related to research anxiety or mistrust, smaller libraries that may not have the funds to increase staffing or purchase technologies to support research can still build research confidence in their employees by ensuring a supportive research environment. Further research is needed to explore how mentorship models to enhance practitioner participation in research can be structured to best support the research confidence of LIS practitioners.

While this study has provided valuable insights into the research experience of LIS practitioners, we acknowledge that certain factors, such as library sector variations, merit a more in-depth exploration. We intend to undertake future research that explicitly delves into the influence of library sectors on various aspects highlighted in this study. This will not only enhance our understanding of the intricate interplay between sectoral contexts and research engagement but also contribute to a more comprehensive knowledge base for the benefit of the LIS community.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the library and information practitioners who generously contributed their time and thoughts to this research project. The authors would also like to thank the Australian Library and Information Association, and National and State Libraries Australasia for the support as project partners. The authors acknowledge and thank John Gilmour who provided initial statistical advice.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Research Council [grant number LP150100456].

Notes on contributors

Helen Partridge

Professor Helen Partridge is the Pro Vice-Chancellor Teaching and Learning at Deakin University. Prior to this she was the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) at the University of Southern Queensland. Professor Partridge has published widely in the area of teaching and learning and has received a number of teaching awards and a Teaching Fellowship in 2008 from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council. She is an active member of the Australian and international library and information profession, has served on the board of directors of the Australian Library and Information Association and is a Fellow of the Association. Professor Partridge’s research explores the interplay between information, learning and technology. She has been a visiting research Fellow at the University of Oxford and Harvard University.

Lisa M. Given

Lisa M. Given, PhD, FASSA, is Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, and Professor of Information Sciences at RMIT University (Melbourne). Her interdisciplinary research in human information behaviour brings a critical, social research lens to studies of technology use and user-focused design. Her studies embed social change, focusing on diverse settings and populations, and methodological innovations across disciplines. A former President of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Prof Given is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and has served on the Australian Research Council’s (ARC’s) College of Experts. She holds numerous grants funded by ARC, Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, working with university and community partners across disciplines. She is Editor-in-Chief of the Annual Review of Information Science and Technology and lead author of Looking for Information: Examining Research on How People Engage with Information (2023). You can follow her on X/Twitter @lisagiven and read more about her work at https://lisagiven.com/.

Angela Murphy

Angela Murphy manages the adoption of learning analytics for academic quality at the University of Southern Queensland including supporting the use of analytics to inform teaching and learning practice. Angela is a Research Psychologist with a PHD from the University of South Africa. She dabbles in social research using statistical methodologies to unpack the impact of the digital world on teaching and learning outcomes.

Alisa Howlett

Alisa Howlett is a library and information practitioner-researcher with professional experience spanning government archives and records management, corporate information management and university libraries. As the Research Support Librarian at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Alisa engages stakeholders across the university to promote collaborative, evidence-based practice approaches to the development and coordination of its research training program. Prior to this, Alisa was the Coordinator of Evidence-Based Practice at the University of Southern Queensland Library, partnering with individuals and teams across the Library to build tools, processes and capability in evidence-based practice. Her professional experience, research and contributions to the library and information science profession has been presented and published internationally, most notably in evidence-based library and information practice. Alisa was recognised by her peers with the ALIA Metcalfe Award in 2017 and achieved ALIA Distinguished Certified Professional status in 2021. She has a Bachelor of Business (Marketing) and a Master in Information Technology (Library and Information Science) from QUT, and is now completing a Graduate Diploma of Psychology at the University of Adelaide with a view to further develop her research skills and experience. More information about Alisa’s experience and research can be found on her website at www.acrystelle.com.

Elham Sayyad Abdi

Dr. Elham Sayyad Abdi is an applied information researcher. Her research interests lie at the intersections of people, information, and learning. Through her research, Elham explores people’s information experiences in different settings, how this leads to learning and how the findings from such inquiries translate into practice. Elham holds undergraduate and postgraduate coursework qualifications in librarianship, a PhD in Information Technology, and a Graduate Certificate in teaching in the higher education context. She currently serves as a Senior Lecturer in the School of Media, Creative Arts, and Social Inquiry, Curtin University, Australia. Elham co-chairs the ALIA Research Advisory Committee, represents Curtin University in the iSchools Organisation, and is a member (and former convenor) of the IFLA LIS Education in Developing Countries Special Interest Group. She has also previously served as the secretary for the ASIS&T Asia-Pacific Chapter.