The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Librarians as Authors in Higher Education and Teaching and Learning Journals in theTwenty-First Century: An Exploratory Study

Amanda L. Folk ⁎Millstein Library, University of Pittsburgh, 150 Finoli Drive, Greensburg, PA 15601, USA

⁎ Tel.: +1 724 836 9688; fax: +1 724 836 7043.E-mail address: alfolk@pitt.edu.

0099-1333/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2013.12.001

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 October 2013Accepted 2 December 2013

Keywords:AuthorshipHigher educationTeaching and learningPublishing activities

The future of academic libraries largely depends on our ability to be innovative, anticipate our users' needs, adaptto a changing landscape, and prove our value through evidence. However, if our higher education colleagues donot perceive the profession as being relevant, our ability to innovate, anticipate, and adapt will be moot. Thisstudy investigates the visibility of librarians as authors in scholarly higher education (HE) and teaching and learn-ing (TL) journals between 2000 and 2012. Findings include that 1.38% of articles published in these journalswerewritten by a librarian author or authors, most of who are employed at research institutions. Information literacywas the most common topic, and theoretical articles were the most popular article type.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

In 2010, the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)released Oakleaf's The Value of Academic Libraries report, which callson academic librarians to “provide evidence of their value” to their insti-tutions (p. 11). Oakleaf frames this call to action by noting that the land-scape of higher education has changed, including the expectations forwhat a higher education should entail. In light of this, Oakleaf createsa research agenda for academic librarians and outlines a list of “nextsteps.” The agenda and next steps should not only help academic librar-ies to prove their value to their institutions and provide opportunitiesfor librarians to engage with their colleagues, but will also create awealth of documentation.

While it is crucial for academic libraries to prove their value to theirown institutions, this call to action should not be separated from thelarger framework of higher education. As a doctoral student in a Schoolof Education, I have noticed that academic libraries' contributions arelargely absent from the academic study of higher education. Further-more, I am often asked why I am pursuing a degree in higher educationrather than library science. Questions like this have made mewonder ifacademic libraries are truly viewed as being a part of higher education,including the scholarship of higher education and postsecondary peda-gogy. With this in mind, the documentation that could be compiledbased on thenext steps outlined in The Value of Academic Libraries reportshould not only be relevant to a local, institutional audience, but couldalso benefit the broader higher education audience. Publishing suchdocumentation, in the form of empirical research or experiential narra-tives, in scholarly higher education or teaching and learning journals

ghts reserved.

seems to be a logical extension of Oakleaf's call to action, as it raisesthe visibility of academic librarieswithin the field and practice of highereducation. In this study, visibility means that librarians are communi-cating core professional values, such as information literacy or intellec-tual freedom, providing evidence of librarians' impact on postsecondaryeducation and scholarship, and demonstrating a commitment to thesame values and priorities as our higher education colleagues. In addi-tion to increased visibility, publication in these journals will also dem-onstrate that librarians, like teaching faculty, are scholars as well aspractitioners. Furthermore, by publishing in these journals, librarianshave the opportunity to engage in the development of the future ofboth higher education and academic libraries. Libraries must remainvisible in order to remain a vital component of higher education as itslandscape continues to change to meet stakeholders' expectations. Li-brarians should want to shape the way libraries are perceived by thefield of higher education and publishing in these venues is one way todo this.

This study investigates the visibility of librarians in scholarly highereducation (HE) and multidisciplinary teaching and learning (TL)journals focusing on postsecondary education for audiences in theUnited States between 2000 and 2012. This study will answer the fol-lowing research questions:

• How often did librarians, as primary authors or co-authors, publish inscholarly HE and TL journals between 2000 and 2012? During this pe-riod, were librariansmore likely to publish in one of these two journaltypes more than the other?

• When librarians published in these journals about which topics didthey write?

• What kinds of articles were librarians publishing?• Atwhich kinds of higher education institutionswere librarian authors

77A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

employed? Were librarians at large, research universities more likelyto publish in these journals than librarians at other kinds ofinstitutions?

The Value of Academic Libraries report is not the only call to action foracademic librarians to critically analyze their engagement with assess-ment and higher education. López (2002), the former associate directorof the Higher Learning Commission, believes that librarians have beenunderrepresented in the nationwidemovement to assess higher educa-tion learning outcomes. “Librarians rarely appear in assessment work-shops, such as those sponsored by the American Association of HigherEducation (AAHE)…nor do they appear to attend national and state-ment assessment conferences” (p. 356). At the 10th Northumbria Inter-national Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries andInformation Services, Association of Research Libraries Executive Direc-tor Elliott Shore “proposed that libraries shift their assessment focusfrom description to prediction, from inputs to outputs, from quantityto quality” in order to demonstrate “how libraries contribute to [highereducation's] success” (Groves, 2013).

It is too soon to tell if the release and subsequent popularity of TheValue of Academic Libraries report (Oakleaf, 2010), as well as the othercalls to action within academic libraries, will have an effect on howoften librarians share their research and assessment results with thebroader higher education audience. This study aims to provide a base-line for future investigations of librarians' visibility in the fields of highereducation and teaching and learning, as well as highlighting potentialopportunities for librarians to contributemore to the study of and schol-arship about higher education and postsecondary pedagogy.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Investigating the publication patterns of librarians is not a new idea;however, previous research has focused on the publication patterns oflibrarians in library and information science (LIS) literature. Severalstudies have examined the overall publication practices of academic li-brarians (Budd & Seavey, 1990; Krausse & Sieburth, 1985; Weller,Hurd, & Wiberley, 1999; Wiberley, Hurd, & Weller, 2006; Zemon &Bahr, 1998), as well as at the state (Henry & Neville, 2004) and institu-tion levels (Fennewald, 2008). Other studies have investigated the con-tributions of LIS faculty (Bates, 1998; Pettigrew & Nicholls, 1994) orboth academic librarians and LIS faculty to LIS literature (Watson,1985).

Likewise, investigating the visibility of certain groups of authors ortypes of research is not new to the field of education. Yettick (2009) ex-amined which kinds of education-related research reports were beingcited in the popular press, including The NewYork Times, TheWashingtonPost, and EducationWeek. Yettickwas concerned about the quality of theresearch being published in the popular press, because she believed thatresearch published in these venueswould bemore visible to the generalpublic. This visibility could have a role in shaping public opinion andpolicymakers' views on education-related topics. Creamer (1994) in-vestigated howoften female authorswere published in coreHE journalsbetween 1987 and 1991. Creamer believes that “the extent thatwomencontribute to these journals provides a measure of women's visibilityand leadership within a profession” (p. 35).

Librarians have studied the visibility of libraries and library-relatedtopics in literature outside the library profession. Rice and Paster(1990) looked at how much coverage academic libraries received inthe Chronicle of Higher Education between 1966 and 1988. Although li-brarians viewed the Chronicle as one of the best publications for highereducation news, they did not find the coverage of academic libraries tobe impressive. Rice and Paster found that 661 library-related articleswere published in the Chronicle between 1966 and 1988, and the fre-quency of coverage increased over that 22-year timeframe. Rice andPaster also found that no single library-related topic dominated the

coverage, meaning that a wide range of library-related topics receivedsome kind of coverage in the Chronicle.

Several studies have examined the visibility of library-relatedthemes in disciplinary journals. Still (1998) investigated how often li-braries or librarians were mentioned in discipline-specific pedagogicaljournals between 1984 and 1997, with a more in-depth look at a subsetof journals between 1990 and 1996. Still writes, “If teaching faculty con-sider librarians to be a part of higher education, to some degree, and in-clude library instruction into their course work, then surely this wouldbe demonstrated by descriptions or mentions of library resources andpersonnel in discipline specific teaching journals” (p. 225). After doinga search for “librar$” in ERIC, Still found that “only 53 citations includedsome form of the word library in the ERIC record,” which is less than0.05% of citations (p. 226).

Building on Still's (1998) study, Stevens (2007) examined whetheror not librarians use discipline-specific pedagogical journals, as well asgeneral higher education journals, “as a vehicle for reaching out to fac-ulty and promoting information literacy and library instruction” (p.256). The publication of ACRL's Information Literacy Competency Stan-dards for Higher Education in 2000 was the impetus for Stevens' study.Using four ProQuest databases, Stevens searched for articles publishedbetween 2000 and 2005 in fifty-four relevant journals using “librar*”or “information literacy.” Stevens found that “eighty records containedsome form of the stem librar* and twenty-one contained the phrase in-formation literacy” (p. 258). Stevens reports that despite the publicationof the ACRL Standards in 2000, librarians were not using discipline-specific pedagogical journals to promote information literacy morethan they had in the past.

Using a slightly different approach, O'Connor (2008) used diffusionof innovations theory to study the “presence of the information literacyconcept in academic business literature published and indexed between1986 and 2006” (p. 106). Diffusion of innovations theory identifies fivestages of transmission or adoption, which could help librarians under-stand at what stage business faculty had adopted information literacy.O'Connor found forty-four relevant articles in eleven academic businessjournals. O'Connor categorized fourteen of these articles as havinginformation literacy as a major topic, but only three were authored or“co-authored by individuals who are clearly described as librarians”(p. 113). O'Connor concludes that information literacy “is still in theearliest phases of adoption within this field” (p. 120).

METHODS

SCOPE

This study examines articles from scholarly HE and multidisciplin-ary, postsecondary TL journals intended for audiences in the UnitedStates published between 2000 and 2012 (Table 1). For the purposesof this study, scholarly journals primarily publish original research, sub-stantive literature reviews or meta-analyses, or new contributions totheory and practice. TL journals have a primary focus on teaching, class-room, or curricular issues. Preference was given to peer-reviewedjournals; however serial monographs, such as New Directions for HigherEducation, were included. Trade and news publications, including mag-azines, were not included. Several sources were used to identify poten-tial journals for inclusion. Beach (n.d.), Associate Professor of HigherEducation Leadership at Western Michigan University, provides a listof higher education journals and publications. The School of GraduateStudies & Continuing Education at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (n.d.) offers a similar list for teaching and learning scholar-ship. The use of impact factors as a criterion for inclusion was alsoexplored, but many respected TL journals, such as College Teaching, arenot given impact factors.

Based on the goals of this study, only journals that provided substan-tial author information were included. Research in Higher Education, arelevant higher education journal, was not included because adequate

Table 1Journals examined.

Journal title Method of full-text access

Higher education journalsInnovative Higher Education SpringerLink ContemporaryJournal of Higher Education JSTOR (2000–2008)

Academic Search Premier (2009–2012)New Directions for Higher Education Wiley InterscienceReview of Higher Education Project MUSETeaching and learning journalsCollege Teaching Taylor & Francis Current ContentJournal of General Education Project MUSEJournal of the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning

Journal's website (http://josotl.indiana.edu)

Journal on Excellence in CollegeTeaching

Print

New Directions for Teaching andLearning

Wiley Interscience

Table 2Categorization and definitions of topics.

Category Definition of topical category

Information literacy Library instruction and related pedagogies, faculty-librariancourse or assignment collaboration, curricular integration,embedded librarians, assessment of information literacyskills, general information literacy theories

Scholarlycommunication

Open access, citation analysis, institutional repositories,scholarly publishing industry, altmetrics, copyright andintellectual property

General library issues Space constraints, redesign or renovations, library budget,acquisitions/collection development/technical services,library consortia

Institutionalparticipation

Accreditation, shared governance, service to the institution

LIS education Information relevant to an LIS educationNon-library issues Information relevant to the general higher education

community that is not specific to libraries, includinggeneral teaching and learning issues

78 A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

author information was not provided. Likewise a relevant TL publica-tion, the Journal of Effective Teaching, was not included for the same rea-son. Although it would be possible to search the web for each author todetermine if he or she is a librarian, this could result in measurementerror. Because of the omission of these journals, no inferences can bemade about librarians as authors for the entire population of scholarlyHE and TL journals.

Given the exploratory nature of this study, the journals selected forinclusion broadly cover the study of higher education and multidisci-plinary TL scholarship. There are many scholarly journals which serveparticular sectors or communities of practice within higher education,such as community colleges, campus diversity, student affairs and aca-demic advising, and the first-year experience. Likewise, many disci-plines have their own scholarly TL journals which focus on relevantclassroom and curricular issues.

Finally, many important and influential HE publicationswere not in-cluded in this study, because they are not considered or intended to bescholarly journals. Please see Appendix B for a list.

DATA COLLECTION

Once a journal was selected for inclusion, each article publishedbetween 2000 and 2012 was examined to determine authorship. Bookreviews, review essays, and editor's notes were excluded, but commen-taries, introductions, and conclusions were included when they weredeemed substantive. Reprinted articles were included in this study,since they must have been regarded as either timely or timeless. Inmany cases a search for librar* would have identified a librarian-authored article, but this method is not entirely accurate. For example,one librarian author was identified as the Director of Information Ser-vices. After doing some investigative work, it was clear that this personis a librarian and is serving in a library-related position. A search forlibrar* would not have retrieved this article, since there is no mentionof library, libraries, or librarian(s) within the article's full text. Forcases in which the author's position was not clear, a Google searchwas initiated. Often educational background information or a curricu-lum vitae was available online through the author's current institutionor on the author's LinkedIn profile. If the investigative work proved tobe inconclusive, a dummy variable for “author occupation unknown”was used.

In general, the decision to classify an article as librarian-authoredwas straightforward; articles with authors identified as a librarian orfaculty in a LIS program were classified as such. However, there werethree special cases that were cause for some deliberation. Three articleshad authors whowere librarians by degree but not by position. In thesethree cases, the authors were not classified as librarian authors, sincethey were not writing as an author who was employed as a librarianat that point in time.

Once articles were identified as having librarian authors or co-authors, they were grouped into six broad topical categories—informa-tion literacy, scholarly communication, general library issues, institu-tional participation, LIS education, and non-library issues (Table 2).Prior to analysis, these categorizations were reviewed for consistency.Sorting the articles into these topical categories was not a black-and-white process, because articles did not always fit neatly into a single cat-egory. For instance, it should not be assumed that an article categorizedunder the “general library issues” heading does not discuss informationliteracy.

Articles were also categorized as empirical studies (quantitative,qualitative, or mixed methods), theoretical pieces, or experiential nar-ratives. Theoretical pieces could include philosophical or pedagogicalperspectives, literature reviews or meta-analyses of existing literature,or the definition of libraries' roles or value in higher education. Experi-ential narratives report information, such as the mechanics, generaloutcomes, or lessons learned, about librarians' experiences with partic-ular services, programs, or collaborations. In order for an article labeled

as a “case study” to be categorized as empirical, itmust be grounded in amethodological or theoretical framework or pose specific researchquestions. Like the topical categories, sometimes elements of multiplearticle typeswere present. For example, one article thatwas categorizedas an experiential narrative also had a strong theoretical component.Likewise, a couple of articles which were characterized as theoreticalcontained an experiential narrative section. Another article, whichwas ultimately categorized as theoretical, used experiential narrativeto discuss the development of a pedagogical theory. In these lattercases, the experiential narrative portionswere supplemental to the the-oretical perspective presented. Furthermore, a couple of articles thatwere classified as experiential narratives also contained empiricalelements.

Finally, the current Carnegie classifications for the librarian authors'institutions were determined. Since the current Carnegie classificationschema was used, it is possible that these are different than they wereat the time of the article's publication.

FINDINGS

LIBRARIAN VISIBILITY

In total, 2979 articles were examined in this study. Of this total,forty-one articles, or 1.38%, were authored or co-authored by a librarian.In total, forty-seven librarians published in these journals between 2000and 2012. Of the librarian-authored articles, twenty-seven had a librar-ian as the primary author, and eighteen had at least one librarian as aco-author. In some cases, an article had more than one librarian as aco-author. Four articles had a librarian as a primary author and as a

Table 3Number of librarian-authored articles by journal title.

Journal title Total numberof articles

Number of librarian-authored articles

% of articles authoredby a librarian

Librarian asprimary author

Librarian(s) asco-author(s)

Higher education journalsInnovative Higher Education 284 5 1.76% 2 4New Directions for Higher Education 480 2 0.42% 2 0Journal of Higher Education 346 1 0.29% 0 1Review of Higher Education 267 0 0.00% 0 0Teaching and learning journalsCollege Teaching 426 12 2.82% 10 3New Directions for Teaching and Learning 496 9 1.81% 8 2Journal of General Education 204 6 2.94% 3 4Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 210 3 1.43% 1 2Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 266 3 1.13% 1 2

79A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

co-author. See Table 3 for the number of librarian-authored articlesby journal title. Librarians authored an average of 3.41 articles in thesejournals per year. However, there were two years that were outliers.In 2008, librarians published 12 articles in the HE and TL journalsselected for this study. In 2010, librarians did not publish articles inany of the journals examined. See Table 4 for the number of librarian-authored articles by year.

1377 articles in HE journals were examined, of which eight articles,or 0.58%, were librarian-authored. Of these eight librarian-authored ar-ticles, one article had a librarian as a primary author, six articles had atleast one librarian as a co-author, and one article had a librarian asboth a primary author and co-author.

1602 articles in TL journals were examined, of which thirty-three ar-ticles, or 2.06%, were librarian-authored. Of these thirty-three librarian-authored articles, twenty articles had a librarian as a primary author,nine articles had at least one librarian as a co-author, and four articleshad a librarian as both a primary author and co-author.

Overall, between 2000 and 2012 librariansweremuchmore likely topublish in the TL journals than the HE journals explored in this study.One limitation of these findings is that this study cannot determinehow many librarians submitted manuscripts to these journals.

Table 5Number of librarian-authored articles by topic.

Topic Number of articles

Information literacy 28

TOPICAL COVERAGE

Of the forty-one librarian-authored articles identified, informationliteracywas by far themost popular topic (Table 5). Perhaps not surpris-ingly, all twenty-eight articles about information literacy were pub-lished in the TL journals. In 2008, New Directions for Teaching &Learning devoted an entire issue to information literacy, which includedeight librarian-authored articles.

The second most popular topical category was non-library issues.The articles in this category ranged from teaching as a performance to

Table 4Number of librarian-authored articles by year.

Year Total numberof articles

Number of librarian-authored articles

% of Articles authoredby a librarian

2000 211 4 1.90%2001 195 1 0.51%2002 227 2 0.88%2003 219 3 1.37%2004 216 2 0.93%2005 208 2 0.96%2006 226 1 0.44%2007 221 4 1.81%2008 232 12 5.17%2009 272 4 1.47%2010 247 0 0.00%2011 238 3 1.26%2012 267 3 1.12%

research methodologies to mentoring African-American students.Three of the five articles in this category were published in TL journals.

Six of the eight articles categorized under general library issues, in-stitutional participation, and LIS education were published in HEjournals. The article categorized under general library issues publishedin a TL journal included some discussion of information literacy.

With the momentum behind open access, institutional repositories,copyright and intellectual property issues, and impact factors, it wassurprising to find that no librarian-authored articles were about schol-arly communication. It is possible that scholarly communication topicsare covered in the HE journals, just not by librarians. Also it is possiblethat articles about scholarly communication are more common inother types of journals. This presents a potential opportunity for librar-ians to contribute more to the higher education conversation aboutscholarly communication issues.

ARTICLE TYPE

Most librarian-authored articles in this study were categorized astheoretical pieces (Tables 6, 7). All of the twenty theoretical articleswere published in TL journals, and eighteen of the twentywere about in-formation literacy. The two theoretical articles that were not about in-formation literacy were about classroom pedagogy and technology inlibraries. Seventeen of these articles had a librarian as a primary author,two had a librarian as a co-author, and one had both.

Non-library issues 5Institutional participation 4General library issues 3Library and information science education 1Scholarly communication 0

Table 6Number of librarian-authored articles by article type.

Article type Number of articles

Theoretical 20Experiential narrative 12Empirical 9• Quantitative 4• Qualitative 3• Mixed methods 2

Table 7Types of librarian-authored articles by topic.

Article type Informationliteracy

Non-libraryissues

Generallibraryissues

Institutionalparticipation

Library andinformationscienceeducation

Theoretical or opinion 18 1 1 - -Experiential narrative 6 1 2 2 1Empirical 4 3 - 2 -• Quantitative 2 2 - - -• Qualitative 1 1 - 1 -• Mixed methods 1 - - 1 -

80 A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

Twelve of the librarian-authored articleswere categorized as experi-ential narratives. These articles were almost evenly split between thetwo journal types—six were published in TL journals and six were pub-lished in HE journals. All of the experiential narratives published in TLjournals were about information literacy. Of the experiential narrativespublished in HE journals, twowere about library issues, twowere aboutinstitutional participation, one was about non-library issues, and onewas about LIS education. Four of the experiential narratives had a librar-ian primary author, five had a librarian as a co-author, and three hadboth a librarian primary author and co-author.

Nine of the librarian-authored articleswere categorized as empirical.Four of these articles were quantitative, three were qualitative, and twoused mixed methods. Seven of the nine empirical articles were pub-lished in TL journals. The four quantitative articles and twomixedmeth-od articles appeared in TL journals. Two of the three qualitative articleswere published in HE journals. The quantitative articles were evenlysplit between informational literacy and non-library issues, while oneeach of the qualitative articles was about information literacy, non-library issues, and institutional participation. Themixedmethod articleswere evenly split between information literacy and institutional partic-ipation. Only two of the nine empirical articles had a librarian primaryauthor. One of these articles was a quantitative study categorizedunder non-library issues and published in a TL journal. The other articlewas a qualitative study about information literacy also published in a TLjournal.

INSTITUTION TYPE

Librarians from RU/VH, RU/H, andMaster's/L institutionsweremorelikely to publish in HE and TL journals, although a range of institution

Table 8Number of librarian-authors by Carnegie basic classification.

Carnegie basic classification Number oflibrarian authors

Research universities—very high research activity (RU/VH) 18Research universities—high research activity (RU/H) 9Doctoral/research universities (DRU) 1Master's colleges and universities—larger (Master's/L) 10Master's colleges and universities—medium (Master's/M) 2Baccalaureate colleges—diverse fields (Bac/Diverse) 1Associate's—public urban-serving multicampus (Assoc/Pub-U-MC) 1Not classified 1Professional or medical school 1Canadian 2Not applicable 1

Notes: Trudi Jacobson, published four articles in TL journals andwas included four times inthis count.Qun G. Jiao published two articles in TL journals andwas included two times in this count.One author was a part-time librarian at an RU/VH institution, as well as an adjunct for aSchool of Library and Information Science at an RU/H institution. RU/H was selected asthe institution type, since the author is faculty at that institution.One author is the manager of information literacy initiatives in the California StateUniversity Chancellor's Office. Each campus has its own classification, so “not applicable”was used in this case.

types were represented in the sample (Table 8). Authors from thesethree institution types were more likely to be primary authors thanco-authors—12 librarians at RU/VH institutions, six librarians at RU/Hinstitutions, and 6 librarians at Master's/L institutions. Most of the au-thors from the three most productive institution types published TLjournals—thirteen librarians at RU/VH institutions, seven librarians atMaster's/L institutions, and all nine librarians at RU/H institutions.More diversity in institution type existed in the TL journals than theHE journals.

DISCUSSION

Between 2000 and 2012, librarians published forty-one articles out ofalmost 3000 in HE and TL journals. The LIS profession is transitioningfrom a print-based environment to an everything-at-your-fingertips, on-line environment, which causes higher education colleagues to start ask-ing, “When we have information available from desktops, who needslibraries? Who needs librarians?” (Crowley, 2001, p. 573). Since 2003,the Ithaka Faculty Survey has found that the most important role thatthe library plays, according to faculty, is the procurement of informationin the form of books, journals, and databases (Housewright, Schonfeld, &Wulfson, 2013, p. 66). Furthermore, faculty who believed the library wasa critical partner in teaching and research activities dropped several per-centage points between 2009 and 2012 (p. 68). These findings place therole of the librarian at the periphery of faculty life. As Crowley (2001)points out, being on the periphery in higher education means one risksbecoming viewed as “expendable” (p. 566). In a period of prolonged eco-nomic retrenchment, this is not a favorable place to be.

Despite the decrease in the percentage of facultywhoview librariansas critical partners in teaching and research activities, librarians weremost likely to publish articles about information literacy in TL journals.Kempcke (2002) warns that librarians ignore “the campus political cli-mate, administrative support, and the involvement, contributions, pro-fessional development, and expertise of … librarians” when discussinginformation literacy (p. 530). Kempcke believes that librarians take asubordinate role to teaching faculty and argues that librarians need tomake their contributions more visible to their campuses by becoming“vital participants in the governance of their institutions” (p. 531). Pre-sumably this participation would not only put librarians on equal foot-ing with teaching faculty, but also increase the visibility of librariansand our core values with administrators. However, librarian invisibilityand inferiority issues should not be understood just on a campus level,but also at the level of the profession. Just as López (2002) recognizedthe absence of librarians at state and national assessment conferences,Kempcke acknowledges, “discussions of the role of the library are dis-turbingly absent from the literature outside our own, yet another indict-ment of how little impact we have had on other fields” (p. 532). This iswhy it is important to establish a baseline to understand future librariancontributions to scholarly TL and HE journals.

In this sample, librarians who published in the selected HE and TLjournals were not as likely to publish empirical research. In a recent ex-ploratory study, Kennedy and Brancolini (2012) find that librarians doconduct research after completing a library and information sciencedegree, but only 77% of the librarian participants who had conductedresearch since completing an LIS degree disseminated the results, in-cluding to an informal, local audience. Furthermore, only 26% of the par-ticipants believe that “their LIS master's degrees adequately preparedthem to conduct original research” (p. 437). Interestingly, a statisticallysignificant correlation does not exist between conducting research andbelieving that the LIS master's degree was adequate preparation forsuch research. In 2010, 61% of the ALA-accredited LIS degree programsrequired students to take a research methods course (Luo, 2011). How-ever, this number was not always so high. Only nine years earlier, in2001, only half of the programs required such a course (O'Connor &Park, 2001). It is possible thatmid-career librarianswere less likely to re-ceive training in researchmethods and feel less comfortable publishing,

81A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

particularly outside of LIS literature. However, the LIS profession isstarting to offermore continuing education opportunities devoted to re-search methods and assessment, such as the Institute for Research De-sign in Librarianship and the Association of Research Libraries' (ARL)Service Quality Evaluation Training, which should help librarians ofany generation who believe they need additional training.

Librarians at research universities were more likely to publish in HEand TL journals between 2000 and 2012. Of the forty-seven librarian au-thors, twenty-seven, or 57%, were employed at research universities.Thisfinding is congruentwith previous studies about the publishing pat-terns of academic librarians. In a study about academic librarians and ar-ticles published in LIS journals, Budd and Seavey (1990) found that thetwenty most productive institutions were large, research universities.In both of their studies examining publication patterns of academic li-brarians, Weller et al. (1999) and Wiberley et al. (2006) found that80% or more of the most productive institutions were research universi-ties. These authors believe that “scholarly research and publication areimportant elements of the institutional culture” at large, research univer-sities (Weller et al., 1999, p. 357). Furthermore, Bolin (2008) found that62% of librarians at research universities in the United States hold facultystatus, “with tenure-track faculty representing slightly more than halfthe population” (p. 421). Based on the finding of this study and previousstudies, librarians at research universities might have more motivationto publish based on the expectation set forth in their job descriptions,as well as the prevailing institutional culture.

Althoughmore than half of the librarian authors in the current studywork at research universities, ARL institutions were not as well repre-sented. Only fourteen of the forty-seven librarian authors, or 30%,were employed at institutions that were ARL members at the time ofpublication. Three librarian authors were library and information facul-ty at ARL institutions but were not employed by the library systems attheir institutions and were not included in this count. This finding isnot congruent with previous studies that have analyzed the publishingpatterns of academic librarians, which found that the majority of themost productive institutions were also ARL members (Best & Kneip,2010; Budd & Seavey, 1990; Weller et al., 1999; Wiberley et al., 2006).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

This study is not intended to make comparisons of how often librar-ians publish in these types of journals with other higher education pro-fessionals, such as those working in writing centers or student affairs.This study is also not intended to judge whether 1.38% is a good orbad rate of authorship in the selected HE and TL journals. The purposeof this study is to reveal howactive librarians have been in communicat-ing their values and accomplishments to those in the fields of higher ed-ucation and teaching and learning through scholarly publications at thebeginning of the twenty-first century.

In order to maintain a manageable scope for this study, several rele-vant scholarly publication venues were not included in this study, in-cluding scholarly HE journals targeting an international audience or aspecific institution type, such as community colleges. Furthermore,many disciplines have their own TL journals, in which librarians mightchoose to publish (Stevens, 2007; Still, 1998).

Previous research has attempted to determine the factors behind li-brarians' decisions to conduct research and disseminate the resultswithin the LIS literature. Given the Value of Academic Libraries report'scall for academic librarians toprove their value through research and as-sessment, it would be valuable to understand why librarians decide tosubmit or not submitmanuscripts to non-LIS journals. This study cannotdetermine if librarians are or are not submitting manuscripts to HE andTL journals. If they are not, the reason could be because librarians simplydo not think of these journals as potential publication venues, or due toa lack of confidence, either in their own research skills or belief that li-brarians do not have anything to contribute. Furthermore, librariansmight select LIS journals because they believe these publication venues

will benefit their careers more, particularly regarding tenure and pro-motion, more than publishing in non-LIS journals. Likewise, an investi-gation of howmany librarians present at HE or TL conferenceswould bea nice complement to the present study.

CONCLUSION

Between 2000 and 2012, librarian-authored or co-authored articlescomposed 1.38% of the articles published in selected HE and TL journalsgeared to a United States audience. Librarians seem to be slightly morecomfortable publishing in TL journals than HE journals. The topicsaddressed by the librarian-authored articles in this study were quiteuneven, with information literacy being the focus of 68% of librarian-authored articles. Librarians were less likely to publish empirical re-search, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed method studies,in both HE and TL journals. It is possible that librarians in general needmoremethodological training to feel confident in their ability to publishin non-LIS journals. Although themajority of the librarian authors wereemployed at research universities, diversity does exist among the insti-tution types of the librarian authors.

The future of the LIS profession largely depends on our ability to beinnovative, anticipate our users' needs, adapt to a changing landscape,and prove our value through evidence. However, if our higher educationcolleagues do not perceive the profession as being relevant, our abilityto innovate, anticipate, and adapt will be moot. Publishing articles inHE and TL journals is one way to increase the visibility of academic li-braries through the provision of evidence, such as the results of researchor assessment activities, and to be viewed as a vital component in thelarger higher education profession, of which we are a part.

APPENDIX A. LIBRARIAN-AUTHORED ARTICLES IN HIGHER EDUCA-TION JOURNALS (AN ASTERISK * DENOTES LIBRARIAN AUTHOR)

*Alberico, R. (2002). Academic library consortia in transition.New Directions for Higher Education 120, 63–72.

*Barclay, D.A. (2007). Creating an academic library for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Higher Education 139, 103–115.

Bosch,W.C., Hester, J.L., MacEntee, V.M.,MacKenzie, J.A., Morey, T.M.,*Nichols, J.T., Pacitti, P.A., *Shaffer, B.A.,… Young, R.R. (2008). Beyondlip-service: An operational definition of ‘learning-centered college.’Innovative Higher Education 33, 83–98.

Dodson, J.E., Montgomery, B.L., & *Brown, L.J. (2009). ‘Take the fifth’:Mentoring students whose cultural communities were not historicallystructured into U.S. higher education. Innovative Higher Education 34,185–199.

*Dow, E.H. (2008). Successful inter-institutional research sharing ina niche educational market: Formal collaboration without a contract.Innovative Higher Education 33, 169–179.

Franklin, K.K., & *Hart, J.K. (2007). Idea generation and exploration:Benefits and limitations of the policy Delphi research method. Innova-tive Higher Education 31, 237–246.

*Melgoza, P., & *Smith, J. (2008). Revitalizing an existing honor codeprogram. Innovative Higher Education 32, 209–219.

Waltman, J., Bergom, I., Hollenshead, C., *Miller, J., & August, L.(2012). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfactionamong non-tenure-track faculty. Journal of Higher Education 83,411–434.

LIBRARIAN-AUTHORED ARTICLES IN TEACHING AND LEARNINGJOURNALS (AN ASTERISK * DENOTES LIBRARIAN AUTHOR)

*Brasley, S.S. (2008). Effective librarian and discipline faculty collab-oration models for integrating information literacy into the fabric of anacademic institution. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 114,71–88.

82 A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

DeMars, C., *Cameron, L., & Erwin, T.D. (2003). Information literacyas foundational: Determining competence. Journal of General Education52, 253–265.

*Ewald, L.A. (2005). Commedia Dell'Arte Academica. College Teaching53, 115–119.

Fitzpatrick, M. J., & *Meulemans, Y.N. (2011). Assessing an informa-tion literacy assignment and workshop using a quasi-experimental de-sign. College Teaching 59, 142–149.

*Gratch-Lindauer, B. (2008). College student engagement surveys:Implications for information literacy. New Directions for Teaching andLearning 114, 101–114.

*Gross, M., *Latham, D., & Armstrong, B. (2012). Improving below-proficient information literacy skills: Designing an evidence-based edu-cational intervention. College Teaching 60, 104–111.

*Harmon, J.C. (2007). Let them use the internet: Why college in-structors should encourage student internet use. College Teaching 55,2–4.

*Hensley, R.B. (2003). Technology as environment: From collectionsto connections. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 94, 23–30.

*Houdyshell, M.L. (2003). Navigating the library: What students(and faculty) need to know. College Teaching 51, 76–80.

Hunt, S.K., Simonds, C.J., & *Hinchliffe, L.J. (2000). Using studentportfolios as authentic assessment of the basic communication course.Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 11(1), 57–77.

*Isbell, D. (2008). What happens to your research assignment at thelibrary? College Teaching 56, 3–6.

*Jackson, R. (2008). Information literacy and its relationship to cog-nitive development and reflective judgment.NewDirections for Teachingand Learning 114, 47–61.

*Jacobson, T., & *Mark, B.L. (2000). Separating wheat from chaff:Helping first-year students become information savvy. Journal ofGeneral Education 49, 256–278.

*Jiao, Q.G., DaRos-Voseles, D.A., Collins, K.M.T., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J.(2011). Academic procrastination and the performance of graduatelevel cooperative groups in research methods courses. Journal of theScholarship of Teaching and Learning 11(1), 119–138.

Johnson, O.J., *Whitfield, J.S., & Grohe, B. (2011). Improving socialwork students' information literacy skills: A faculty and librarian collab-oration. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching 22(3), 5–21.

Kenedy, R., & *Monty, V. (2008). Dynamic purposeful learning ininformation literacy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 114,89–99.

Mackey, T.P., & *Jacobson, T. (2004). Integrating information literacyin lower- and upper-level courses: Developing scalable models forhigher education. Journal of General Education 53, 201–24.

Mackey, T.P., & *Jacobson, T. (2005). Information literacy: A collabo-rative endeavor. College Teaching 53, 140–44.

Mackey, T.P., & *Jacobson, T. (2007). Developing an integrated strat-egy for information literacy assessment in general education. Journal ofGeneral Education 56, 93–104.

*Maehre, J. (2009). What it means to ban wikipedia: An explorationof the pedagogical principles at stake. College Teaching 57, 229–236.

*Mahaffy, M. (2006). Encouraging critical thinking in student libraryresearch: An application of national standards. College Teaching 54,324–327.

*Orme, W.A. (2008). Information literacy and first-year students.New Directions for Teaching and Learning 114, 63–70.

*Parker-Gibson, N. (2001). Library assignments: Challenges that stu-dents face and how to help. College Teaching 49, 65–70.

Rossing, J.P., *Miller, W.M., Cecil, A.K., & Stamper, S.E. (2012).iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions onlearning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching andLearning 12(2), 1–26.

*Sellen, M.K. (2002). Information literacy in the general education: Anew requirement for the 21st century. Journal of General Education 51,115–126.

*Snavely, L. (2008). Global educational goals, technology, and infor-mation literacy in higher education. New Directions for Teaching andLearning 114, 35–46.

*Stamatoplos, A. (2000). An integrated approach to teaching re-search in a first-year seminar. College Teaching 48, 33–35.

*Travis, T.A. (2008). Librarians as agents of change: Working withcurriculum committees using change agency theory. New Directions forTeaching and Learning 114, 17–33.

*VanderPol, D., *Brown, J.M., *Iannuzzi, P. (2008). Reforming the un-dergraduate experience. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 114,5–15.

Wao, H.O., Singh, O., Rich, V., Hohlfeld, T.N., Buckmaster, M.,Passmore, D.,… *Jiao, Q.G. (2009). The perceived barriers toward read-ing empirical articles among graduate students: A mixed methods in-vestigation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 9(3),70–86.

*Warner, D.A. (2009). Programmatic assessment of information lit-eracy skills using rubrics. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching20(1), 149–165.

*Wills, D. (2004). Teaching the unteachable: Helping students makesense of the web. College Teaching 52, 2–5.

*Wright, C.A. (2000). Information literacy within the general educa-tion program: Implications for distance education. Journal of GeneralEducation 49, 23–33.

APPENDIX B

Influential HE publications not included in the study

Publication

Rationale

Change

Change self-identifies as a magazine, not an academic orscholarly journal.

Chronicle of HigherEducation

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a news source and,for the most part, does not publish original research.

Peer Review

Peer Review “provides a quarterly briefing on emergingtrends and key debates in undergraduate liberal education”and, for the most part, does not publish original research.

Thought & Action

Although peer-reviewed, Thought & Action's primaryaudience is practitioners.

REFERENCES

Bates, M. J. (1998). The role of publication type in the evaluation of LIS programs. Libraryand Information Science Research, 20, 187–198.

Beach, A. (n.d). Higher education journals and publications. Retrieved from. http://homepages.wmich.edu/abeach/HEjournals.htm

Best, R. D., & Kneip, J. (2010). Library school programs and the successful training of aca-demic librarians to meet promotion and tenure requirements in the academy. Collegeand Research Libraries, 71, 97–114.

Bolin, M. K. (2008). Librarian status at US research universities: Extending the typology.Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34, 416–424.

Budd, J. M., & Seavey, C. A. (1990). Characteristics of journal authorship by academiclibrarians. College and Research Libraries, 51, 463–470.

Creamer, E. G. (1994). Gender and publications in core higher education journals. Journalof College Student Development, 35, 35–39.

Crowley, B. (2001). Tacit knowledge, tacit ignorance, and the future of academic librarian-ship. College and Research Libraries, 62, 565–584.

Fennewald, J. (2008). Research productivity among librarians: Factors leading to publica-tions at Penn State. College and Research Libraries, 69, 104–116.

Groves, K. (September 17). Radical change in library assessment called for by Elliott Shoreat Northumbria Conference. Retrieved from. http://www.arl.org/news/arl-news/2916-radical-change-in-library-assessment-called-for-by-elliott-shore-at-northumbria-conference

Henry, D. B., & Neville, T. M. (2004). Research, publication, and service patterns of Floridaacademic librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30, 435–451.

Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Ithaka S + R US faculty survey2012. New York, NY: Ithaka.

Kempcke, K. (2002). The art of war for librarians: Academic culture, curriculum reform, andwisdom from Sun Tzu, 2. (pp. 529–551): portal: Librarians and the Academy, 529–551.

Kennedy,M. R., & Brancolini, K. R. (2012). Academic librarian research: A survey of attitudes,involvement, and perceived capabilities. College and Research Libraries, 73, 431–448.

Krausse, S.C., & Sieburth, J. F. (1985). Patterns of authorship in library journals by academiclibrarians. Serials Librarian, 9(3), 127–138.

83A.L. Folk / The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40 (2014) 76–83

López, C. L. (2002). Assessment of student learning: Challenges and strategies. Journal ofAcademic Librarianship, 28, 356–367.

Luo, L. (2011). Fusing research into practice: The role of research methods education.Library and Information Science Research, 33, 191–201.

Oakleaf, M. (2010). The value of academic libraries: A comprehensive research review and re-port. Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries.

O'Connor, D. O., & Park, S. (2001). Crisis in LIS research capacity. Library and InformationScience Research, 23, 103–106.

O'Connor, L. G. (2008). The diffusion of information literacy in academic business litera-ture. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 13, 105–125.

Pettigrew, K. E., & Nicholls, P. T. (1994). Publication patterns of LIS faculty from 1982–92:Effects of doctoral programs. Library and Information Science Research, 16, 139–156.

Rice, P. O., & Paster, A. L. (1990). Chronicling the academic library: Library news coverage bythe Chronicle of Higher Education. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 16, 285–290.

School of Graduate Studies and Continuing Education, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (n.d). Journal outlets for scholarship of teaching articles: Higher educa-tion in general. Retrieved from. http://www.uww.edu/learn/journalsotl.php

Stevens, C. R. (2007). Beyond preaching to the choir: Information literacy, facultyoutreach, and disciplinary journals. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 33,254–267.

Still, J. (1998). The role and image of the library and librarians in discipline-specificpedagogical journals. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24, 225–231.

Watson, P. (1985). Production of scholarly articles by academic librarians and libraryschool faculty. College and Research Libraries, 46, 334–342.

Weller, A.C., Hurd, J. M., & Wiberley, S. E. (1999). Publication patterns of U.S. aca-demic librarians from 1993 to 1997. College and Research Libraries, 60,352–362.

Wiberley, S. E., Hurd, J. M., & Weller, A.C. (2006). Publication patterns of U.S. academiclibrarians from 1998 to 2002. College and Research Libraries, 27, 205–216.

Yettick, H. (2009). The research that reaches the public: Who produces the educationalresearch mentioned in the news media? Boulder, CO and Tempe, AZ: Education andthe Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit.

Zemon, M., & Bahr, A. H. (1998). An analysis of articles by college librarians. College andResearch Libraries, 59, 421–431.