Marie R. Kennedy, Loyola Marymount University David P. Kennedy, RAND CorporationKristine Brancolini, Loyola Marymount University

Agenda

1. Problem statement2. The Institute for Research Design in

Librarianship (IRDL)3. IRDL assessment plan4. Social network analysis component

Focus on EgoWeb 2.0

1.Problem Statement

How does the personal learning network of a novice librarian researcher

evolve on their path to becoming a more advanced researcher?

2.Background on IRDL

“Kennedy, Marie R. & Kristine R. Brancolini(2012).

“Academic librarian research: A survey of attitudes, involvement, and perceived

capabilities.” College & Research Libraries 73(5): 431-448.

IMLS Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program, 2013-2016(RE-06-13-0060-13)

To create a learning experience and support network for academic and research librarians.

Funding Source & Partners

IRDLSummer

Workshop

Goal of IRDL

Increase the number of academic librarians with specific research skills in conducting and

disseminating the results of research.

3.Assessment Plan

Assessment Plan

Research proposals Confidence

Masteryof content

Development of personal learning

networks

4.Social Network Analysis Component

Methods

DesignEgo-centered

Longitudinal (4 waves over one year)

Focused on the research network of each of the IRDL Scholars.

PopulationEntire cohort of the 2014 IRDL

25 academic librarians employed in single, full-time positions in institutions of higher education (community college, college, and university libraries)

All novice researchers

InstrumentSurvey constructed and processed using EgoWeb 2.0

Self-administered via the Web

Survey Construction

elicitation composition structure

EgoWeb 2.0

Open-source survey software

Easily create social network data collection instruments• Generate lists of network members

“Who is in the network?”• Ask questions about network members

“What are the characteristics of these people?”• Ask about connections among network

members“How are they connected to each other?”

EgoWeb 2.0: Network elicitation

EgoWeb 2.0: Network composition

EgoWeb 2.0: Network structure

EgoWeb 2.0: Data processing

Adjust display settings

Size of the networksConsider the numbers of people with whom the IRDL Scholars interacted for research purposes during the course of one year.

Total Network Size and Average Size at Each Wave

T1 T2 T3 T4Network Size

Minimum 5 8 5 2Maximum 20 40 42 40

Average (SD) 10.78 (3.83) 24.74 (9.91) 16.09 (9.26) 16.39 (10.60)Total 248 569 370 377

Change from T1 to T2Average (SD) + 13.95 (9.00)

Total + 321Change from T2 to T3

Average (SD) - 8.65 (10.69)Total - 199

Change from T3 to T4Average (SD) + 0.30 (7.85)

Total + 7Change from T1 to T4

Average (SD) + 5.60 (10.08)Total + 129

Strength of the relationshipsLook closer at those mentioned in all four waves.

Category of Relationship by Type of Support (Those named across all four waves, n=107)

Personal friend Professional colleague

Both friend and colleague

abs. % abs. % abs. %I’m usually asking this

person for advice or help 6 42.86% 20 58.82% 14 23.73%

I’m usually giving this person advice or help

0 0.00% 4 11.76% 4 6.78%It’s pretty even; I ask for help but also give

help in equal amounts8 57.14% 10 29.41% 41 69.49%

Total 14 100% 34 100% 59 100%

Density of the networksExamine the cohesion of the research networks of the Scholars.

Discussion

Research question

Difference scores

Rate of change

Reciprocal assistance

Questions, comments, suggestions?

Marie Kennedy (marie.kennedy@lmu.edu) David P. Kennedy (davidk@rand.org)Kristine Brancolini (brancoli@lmu.edu)

For additional information about IRDL: http://irdlonline.orgFor additional information about EgoWeb: http://egoweb.info

Thanks

Special thanks to the people who made and released these presentation resources for free:◈ Presentation template by SlidesCarnival◈ Backgrounds by SubtlePatterns