These slides are from a talk given on 19 January 2022 CISC Research Seminar at Charles Sturt University. The paper to which these slides talk is available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.25911/45BB-9Y24 ABSTRACT: This talk will discuss the results from a nationwide survey of the level of confidence that librarians working in scholarly communication in Australia and New Zealand have in their current competencies. The work showed that while respondents were generally confident across seven competency areas (Institutional repository management, Publishing services, Research practice, Copyright services, Open access policies and scholarly communication landscape, Data management services, and Assessment and impact metrics), the majority combined their scholarly communication tasks with other roles. There are challenges across the sector in updating skills and knowledge to keep abreast of current trends and developments were identified. This work has significant implications for improving both the education provision in this area and creating more professional development opportunities.

1. Scholarly communication competencies:
An analysis of confidence among
Australasian library staff
SICS Research Seminar – Charles Sturt University - 19 January 2022
Dr Danny Kingsley @dannykay68
Dr Mary Anne Kennan @MaryAnneKennan
Dr Joanna Richardson @jprglobal
Image:

2. Why this study?
• No & range of scholarly communication-related
roles within academic libraries, and other
departments and divisions, have been growing
steadily for nearly 20 years
• Distinct lack of formal education and training
opportunities - sensed anecdotally and
demonstrated in multiple US and UK studies
• Recent US study on impostor phenomenon in
scholarly communication practitioners elicited
interesting discussion on CAIRSS list
• Decision to investigate the current Australasian
context Image:
Danny Kingsley

3. Expanding body of work – UK & US
US study (2020)
“…formal training on scholarly
communication topics in LIS is
rare, leaving many early career
practitioners underprepared for
their work. …”
US study (2020)
“scholarly communications
librarians experience
impostor phenomenon more
frequently and intensely than
academic librarians more
broadly”
https://shsu-ir.tdl.org/handle/20.500.11875/2866
https://jlsc-pub.org/articles/abstract/10.7710/2162-3309.2328/
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1313
UK study (2016) hypothesis:
“there is a systematic lack of education
on scholarly communication issues
available to those entering the library
profession. This is creating a time bomb
skills gap in the academic library
profession and unless action is taken we
may well end up with a workforce not
suited to work in the 21st century
research library.”

4. Which competencies?
Multiple & misaligned
https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Competencies-for-
ScholComm-and-OA_June-2016.pdf
https://www.nasig.org/Competencies-
Scholarly-Communication
https://www.alia.org.au/foundation-knowledge-skills-and-
attributes-relevant-information-professionals-working-
archives
ALIA : 2014-2020
https://read.alia.org.au/foundation-knowledge-entry-level-
library-and-information-professionals
ALIA : Dec 2020 onward

5. Comparison &
analysis of
competencies
https://openresearch-
repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1
885/251609

6. Definition of
“scholarly communication”
Includes tasks associated with:
• Institutional repository management
• Publishing services
• Research practice
• Copyright services
• Open access policies and the scholarly communication
landscape
• Data management services
• Assessment & impact metrics
Also included questions about ‘Personal Strengths’ (as described in the
NASIG competencies)
Image:
Danny Kingsley

7. Our study (2020-2021)
https://cpas.anu.edu.au/research/research-projects/scholarly-
communication-knowledge-and-skills-australasian-research
Openly accessible material related to paper:
• Authors’ Accepted Manuscript:
https://dx.doi.org/10.25911/45BB-9Y24
• Supporting datasets https://dx.doi.org/10.25911/45BB-9Y24
• Survey instrument
• The raw responses to the survey
• Analysis of number of responses for each question
• File detailing how charts and tables in the paper were
generated
• Comparison of competencies:
https://dx.doi.org/10.25911/5BPD-6X95
Paper accepted to be published in College & Research Libraries
November 2022

8. Summary of the research process
• Questions on:
• confidence in the core competencies of scholarly communication
• education and training background of the respondents
• The survey used Qualtrics software. Participants were recruited through communication mediums used by the target cohort. Responses
received from 21 October to 3 December 2020.
• ANU ethics panel required that no question would be compulsory - not all respondents answered all questions. Pre-analysis undertaken for
each of the questions to determine the no of responses for each question
• 160 valid responses received & analysed:
• Excel and descriptive statistics for the quantitative questions
• NVivo and manual thematic coding for the qualitative questions
• Each member of the team took responsibility for analysis of different quantitative questions and coding of the qualitative questions, after
which the team came together and confirmed each other’s work
• Initial analysis of the Confidence in Competency Areas included a set of specific Tasks for each Competency Area from matrix questions. The
results from these questions were initially individually analyzed for each Competency Area. We analyzed the level of confidence the
responses showed across a Competency Area by adding together all of the Tasks listed in each Competency Area and then charting the total
Confidence for each Competency Area

9. The respondents (n=160)
Of Australian respondents:
35.1% were at HEW6 with only (6.7%) at a lower
level
HEW7 and above = 58.2% Experienced librarians, newish roles – similar to the
findings from Owens in 2020 (<12% more than 10 years)
and Sewell in 2016 (<15% more than 10 years)

10. Only two areas where majority are confident
Two Competency Areas had the majority of Confidence Levels
as A great deal or A lot:
• Open Access Policies & Scholarly Communication Landscape
• Assessment & Impact Metrics
Two Competency Areas where the positive Confidence
Levels were considerably lower:
• Publishing Services
• Data Management Services

11. Time is a major
factor
impacting
confidence

12. New services = new roles & new skills
https://www.liberquarterly.eu/articles/10.18352/lq.10336/
Finland (2020)
It soon became evident that open
science would require an expansion of
traditional library services and the
adoption of new roles. The
development of new open science and
research support services,
infrastructures and tools would also
require qualifications beyond those of
traditional library skills
The skills required of people
working in libraries in
institutions that *produce*
information as well as
*consuming* it are
different.

13. The role of formal
education
Image:
Danny Kingsley

14. Library & Information
Science qualification • 88% (n=141) held a
LIS qualification
• 1.8% (n=33) were
studying for such a
qualification
• Only 10% (n=16) did
not hold an LIS
qualification

15. LIS qualification equipped them for scholarly
communication work?
• 122 respondents: 57.4% answered No (n =70)
• Of 92 comments, 25 respondents noted scholarly communication
knowledge and skills were not included in their degree at all:
My LIS qualification barely touched on scholarly
communication issues …
My experience with work placement students is that
they do not get great insight into scholarly
communications. This is a crying shame, not just for
their own professional development, but for the
industry. We need graduates who are aware of the
big issues and who have knowledge in emerging and
current issues in Scholarly Communications. Just
look at the impact COVID had on publishing!
My qualification (…) felt overly basic and general, not
offering much depth at all about the complexities of
scholarly communication, emerging platforms, the
changing landscape in university libraries, etc.
The course itself however didn't teach me
much/anything about what I actually do at work.
It's been a steep learning curve

16. Highly educated cohort
• 81.3% (n=130) had a
qualification other
than LIS
• 1.9% (n=3) working
towards one
• Only 16.9% (n=27)
having no additional
qualification

17. Comments from respondents with a research
background
It is an evolving and changing landscape
where a qualification does not necessarily
equip you with the knowledge required. To
be professionally active in this area and to
continuously build my knowledge are
required to effectively work in the current
scholarly communication environment.
Part of the problem librarians face in this area is
the issue of Universities being hierarchical
institutions where the PhD is a piece of cultural
capital that is often necessary to be taken
seriously by academics. I don't think my PhD will
make me a better librarian but it will make them
think I am a better librarian!
I understand first-hand the scholarly writing and
publishing process, although I have learned more
about research metrics and journal rankings as a
professional staff member than I did when I was
research active.

18. So how have
respondents gained
their skills?
Image:
Danny Kingsley

19. How the
study
defined
skills
acquisition
methods
Formal training refers to courses with a structured
plan that have some formal recognition upon
completion, e.g. participation certificate or
certification
Professional development refers to training related to
your job that did not lead to any formal recognition,
e.g. supervisor or colleague-assisted training, live or
virtual classes, conference sessions, webinars
Staying up to date / self-directed learning refers to a
form of study in which you are to a large extent
responsible for your own instruction

20. Formal
training is
not where
skills are
acquired

21. Reflects UK 2016 study:
Mostly ‘on the job’ & ‘self-directed’ learning
Skills in scholarly communication – needs & development
https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1943

22. Some
confusion
about
definitions
Several respondents nominated ’23 research things’ (a
self-directed training concept) as Formal training rather
than Self-directed learning.
One respondent nominated Leiden University’s CWTS
course on Bibliometrics and Scientometrics for Research
Evaluation as Professional development rather than
Formal training
Of the 32 people who had responded Yes, at least 14
were not formal training or certification courses. This
amends the proportion of responses to 18 Yes (11.3%)
and 140 No (88.7%). It is highly probable that some of
the respondents who chose Yes but did not comment
would also have had in mind courses and / or training
which does not meet the Formal training criteria for this
survey.

23. Self-Directed
Learning
• Landscape is:
• “a fast-moving and diverse area
such as this”
• “such a quick-moving and varied
research environment”
• “a space [which] changes so
rapidly”
• Perceived value of conference
attendance appears to be high
• Strong engagement with
organisations, e.g., OA
Australasia & ARDC
• 68% spend <2 hours per week

24. Opportunity to improve
• The frustration expressed about LIS qualifications could
reflect the previously low level of reference to any
scholarly communication skills in ALIA’s Foundation
Knowledge, Skills and Attributes relevant to Information
Professionals working in Archives, Libraries and Records
Management (which provided the key knowledge skills
and attributes required by ALIA for courses to be
accredited).
• As of December 2020, scholarly communication and
other research support services have now been included
as an element of foundation knowledge by ALIA.
• LIS Education programs now need to consider adding
scholarly communication more explicitly to their
programs. Image:
Danny Kingsley

25. Additional
opportunities
arising from
responses
• Structured professional development & training
• Keep staff up to date with the constant change
• Recognised by professional organisations, e.g., ALIA
& ARMS
• Community of practice & Australasian capacity-
building programs or initiatives
• National level changes, potentially through:
• Existing professional organisations, or
• Development of a new scholarly communication-
focused group

26. So where to now?
• The situation is clearly sub-optimal
• Where does the responsibility lie?
• This is not simple!
• We welcome your discussion
Image:
Danny Kingsley

27. Thanks!
danny.kingsley@flinders.ed
u.au
Image:
Danny Kingsley