OSU Libraries’ Robert Lundeen Library Faculty Development Award

APPLICATION

INSTRUCTIONS Submit a completed application packet to the Robert Lundeen Award Committee.

Date of Application – April 24, 2012
Title of Proposal/Project – Bibliographic Management Tools Adoption & Use Study
Expected Length of Project – 12 months
Total Funds Requested - $2130
Primary Applicant
Name – Hannah Gascho Rempel
Academic Rank and Working Title – Assistant Professor, Science Librarian and Graduate Student Services Coordinator
Campus Mail Address – 4th floor, The Valley Library
Telephone and E-mail Address - 541-737-9902,
Co-Applicant(s)
Name: Margaret Mellinger
Academic Rank and Working Title: Associate Professor, Engineering Librarian
Campus Mail Address: 4th floor, The Valley Library
Telephone and E-mail Address: 541-737-9642,
Project rationale
(2-3 paragraphs) Describe the thesis, problem or issue you will examine and the rationale.
·  Explain how this addresses the purpose of the Lundeen Award (pursuit of scholarship or professional capacity building activities)
·  Describe what you are going to do.
The most popular workshops offered in the graduate & faculty workshopseries are the bibliographic management software workshops (EndNote, Zotero and Mendeley). While those of us who teach these workshops are very familiar with the software itself and have regular consultations with users needing help troubleshooting the software, we do not get to see how users incorporate the software into their regular research routines and how the use of these types of tools affects their research process. We also miss out on an even more basic question – how do users choose a particular tool and what makes them stay with (or change to) a particular tool?
No literature currently exists to provide insight into these questions. The literature regarding bibliographic management software is almost entirely comprised of discussions of the features of these tools or how to start a library workshop about one of these tools. A more in-depth knowledge of how advanced users choose these tools, how they are able to incorporate them into their research process and how they deal with problems that arise will help us to provide a more nuanced instructional experience and will help us describe how to choose between the various tools available.
Goals & Expected outcomes
·  How the completion of the activity will contribute to the OSU Libraries
·  How the completion of the activity will contribute to your professional development
The proposed study matches with Goal 1 in the strategic plan, which seeks to “create a more comprehensive, collaborative learning experience to foster the engagement and success of OSU students and faculty.” Learning more about advanced researchers’ (including both graduate students and faculty) use of bibliographic management tools will help us provide a better learning experience that more accurately reflects the problems they face and the questions they may encounter in their research process.
In addition, the proposed study would build on our previous work with graduate students and their research processes and would contribute to the relatively small body of work that currently exists on the research needs and experiences of graduate students. We plan to employ qualitative research methods in this study that we have not previously used. Having the chance to explore these different methodologies would expand our skill sets as researchers.
Methodology & Timeline for completion
·  Outline the steps/phases of the activity.
·  Describe the roles, responsibilities and time commitment of each person involved
Methodology
Participant Solicitation
Solicit a maximum of 15 participants from past Mendeley, Intro to Zotero and Basic EndNote workshop attendees. Potential participants would be screened to make sure they are using a bibliographic management tool, as well as to determine if they are actively working on the literature portion of their research and would therefore be able to carry out the required number of research tasks.
Data Collection – Three Tasks
1)  Screen capture - Participants will use a free screen capture tool (CamStudio, BB FlashBack Express or similar) to record their screen activities while carrying out literature review-related research (either searching, reading or writing) in their own research environment in conjunction with the use of a bibliographic management software tool, three times over a two-month period for one hour each session. Sessions should be recorded at least one week apart. Participants will be instructed in the use of the screen capture tool during the brief introductory session and will be directed to stop recording if they choose to begin any screen activities of a personal nature that they do not wish to have recorded. Screen capture video files will be deposited in an invite-only shared Dropbox folder each time participants complete one of the three sessions.
2)  Journaling - At the end of each screen capture session, the participants will journal responses to several journal prompts about their research process/experience. Journal prompts will include: How did the tool enhance your work during the past hour? How did the tool detract from your work during the past hour? Did you run into any problems or questions (either with the tool or with your research process)? How did you deal with those problems? Did you learn anything new today? Participants will be asked to spend approximately 15 minutes carrying out this journaling and do not need to answer all the questions every time if this will require more than 15 minutes. Journal entry files will be deposited in an invite-only shared Dropbox folder each time participants complete one of the three sessions.
3)  Interview - At the conclusion of the two months, each participant will meet with the researcher for a 30-45 minute audio-recorded interview to discuss in a semi-formal manner how and why they adopted their bibliographic management tool; whether they use the same tool as their advisor or collaborators; their experiences with troubleshooting the tool; a description of their research process and workflow; and if they were primarily involved in searching, reading or writing during this 2-month period. Follow up questions may be asked based on answers to these specific questions.
Timeline
Late April - Submit IRB proposal (expedited)
Late June - Send out call for participants
Early July - Screen participants for blend of tools represented and appropriateness to task
Mid July - Have intro meeting with participants to go over expectations, demonstrate how to load and use the free screen capture software, outline the journaling requirements, and discuss the reminder system to make sure they complete all three screen capture/journaling sessions
Mid July – Mid September - Send email prompts at the beginning of every week for two months until I see (based on files loaded in Dropbox) that they have completed the three sessions
August – September - Do initial analysis of videos and journals as they are uploaded in to inform interview questions
October - Hold interviews
October – November - Have interview recordings transcribed
November – March - Analyze data
March – June – Write article, submit presentation proposals as appropriate, share results with fellow OSUL bibliographic management instructors
Total participant time commitment
-Pre-study introductory meeting – 15-30 minutes
-Recordings – 3 hours (over the course of 2 months)
-Journaling – 30-45 minutes (over the course of 2 months)
-Interview – 30-45 minutes
Total – 5 hours
Researcher time commitment
IRB write up – 2-3 hours
Call for participation – 1 hour
Participant screening – 3 hours
Pre-study orientation – 6 hours (scheduling and meeting time for 12 participants)
Reminders – 30 minutes
Initial scanning of recordings and journal entries - 12 hours
Interviews – 8 hours (scheduling and meeting time for 12 participants)
Analysis of screencasts, journal entries, interview transcripts – several months
Writing – several months
Dissemination plans
Include details about potential venues and audiences within OSU Libraries and/or in the field
Findings from this project would be communicated in article submitted to a scholarly journal. If appropriate venues arose, presentation proposals will also be submitted. The grantees would meet with other bibliographic management tool instructors at OSUL to review the findings and what they mean for our workshops.
Does the proposal require any of the following
·  Release time yes xno
o  If yes, include signature(s) of person(s) authorized to approve release time
o  If yes, expected hours and covered duties
·  Use of Human Subjects xyes no
o  If yes, attach appropriate university form to the application.
The process of obtaining IRB approval or a determination of exemption from subject protection regulations does not have to be completed prior to submitting your grant proposal. However, the grant cannot be awarded without evidence that the approval or exemption has been obtained.
Budget
Total amount requested from Lundeen Award Fund - $2130 (maximum – we are suggesting a maximum of 15 participants in the study)
Other funding obtained or expected (amount and source) - none
Salaries
Supplies:
·  Incentives - $50 in gift certificates from a combination of Fred Meyer and Fandango for 15 participants = $750
·  Audio transcription – 30 minutes x 15 participants x $3/minute (maximum cost as per DAS) = $1350
·  Dropbox Pro 50 account – 50 GB account, $9.99/month for 3 months = $30
Travel - none
Other Expenses
Signatures of all applicants
Other Required Signatures
Release Time Authorization
Appendices CV and Previous Awards

NOTE: Grant proposals are confidential until funding decisions are made.

Form adapted from Librarians Association of the University of California Research Grants Program http://www.ucop.edu/lauc/committees/rpd/rescover.doc

1