Studying Students
The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester
edited by
Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons
Association of College and Research Libraries
A division of the American Library Association
Chicago 2007
Edited by
Nancy Fried Foster
Susan Gibbons
Studying Students:
The Undergraduate Research Project
at the University of Rochester
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National
Standard for Information Sciences–Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI
Z39.48-1992. ∞
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Studying students : the Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester / edited by
Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8389-8437-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. University of Rochester. River Campus Libraries--Case studies. 2. University of Rochester-
-Students--Case studies. 3. Academic libraries--Use studies. 4. Report writing. 5. Research. 6.
Study skills. I. Foster, Nancy Fried. II. Gibbons, Susan (Susan L.), 1970-
Z733.U868S78 2007
025.5’877--dc22
2007028559
Printed in the United States of America.
11 10 09 08 07
5 4 3 2 1
Contents
v
Introduction to the Undergraduate Research Project
Nancy Fried Foster and Susan Gibbons
1
one. Faculty Expectations of Student Research
Barbara Alvarez and Nora Dimmock
7
two. Asking Students about Their Research
Vicki Burns and Kenn Harper
16
three. Night Owl Librarians: Shifting the Reference Clock
Suzanne Bell and Alan Unsworth
20
four. Library Design and Ethnography
Susan Gibbons and Nancy Fried Foster
30
five. Dream Catcher: Capturing Student-Inspired Ideas for the Libraries’ Web site
Jane McCleneghan Smith and Katie Clark
40
six. Photo Surveys: Eliciting More Than You Knew to Ask For
Judi Briden
48
seven. Mapping Diaries, or Where Do They Go All Day?
Katie Clark
55
eight. What an Experience: Library Staff Participation in Ethnographic Research
Helen Anderson and Ann Marshall
63
nine. Then and Now: How Today’s Students Differ
Sarada George
72
ten. The Mommy Model of Service
Nancy Fried Foster
79
eleven. Conclusion: Creating Student-Centered Academic Libraries
Susan Gibbons and Nancy Fried Foster
84
References
88
Author bios
Why would an academic library attempt to study
its students? A typical answer would include
discovering new insights about our students
and then using these to inform library planning.
Indeed, our Undergraduate Research Project
led to made many informative discoveries, some
of which are discussed in other chapters of this
book. In addition to these, our project has had
a more immediate impact on the staff who
participated. In this chapter we focus on how
the methodologies used in the project helped to
create an environment conducive to generating
new perspectives, which in turn has affected staff
members’ day-to-day work.
In gathering data for this chapter, we infor-
mally interviewed twelve project participants,
asking each a series of questions about their in-
volvement in the project. In the first part of this
chapter, we discuss the kinds of tasks that staff
engaged in during the undergraduate project as
well as some of the underlying ethnographic and
work-practice methodologies used. In the second
part of the chapter we explain how participa-
tion in the study resulted in important changes
in staff interactions with students and view their
own academic role within the library. Specifically,
we focus on our interactions with students at the
reference desk and in the classroom. All of this
is presented in the hope that readers will be en-
couraged to experiment with similar methods in
their own professional settings.
Project Participation: Who, When, and How
Given significant demands on library staff time,
some readers may ask if their own schedules could
accommodate a two-year study of this scope. Our
project was, however, structured to be attentive to
staff schedules. We aimed to be as open as pos-
sible to staff involvement at all levels and from
all departments while offering a wide variety of
ways that staff could meaningfully participate.
This included the option of occasionally attend-
ing a one-hour meeting or helping out with the
preparation and execution of some of the project’s
exercises. Staff more deeply involved in the proj-
ect negotiated time for participation with their
own supervisors.
By the end of the study, the project was
able to involve approximately 30 percent of
the staff at the University of Rochester’s River
Campus Libraries. Tis number includes staff
from technical services, reference departments
in the humanities, social sciences, and science
libraries, circulation, collection development,
administration, interlibrary loan, acquisitions,
and digital initiatives. Participants’ job titles
included subject librarian, library assistant, Web
designer, anthropologist, department head, sci
-
ence and engineering library director, and as-
sociate dean.
A core group of three librarians and an
anthropologist developed a project plan and
organized and planned meetings. A larger proj-
eight. What an Experience: Library Staff Participation in
Ethnographic Research
Helen Anderson is Head, Collection Development at the River Campus Libraries, University of Rochester; e-mail:
handerson@library.rochester.edu. Ann Marshall is Political Science Subject Librarian at the River Campus Libraries,
University of Rochester; e-mail: amarshall@library.rochester.edu
Helen Anderson and Ann Marshall
55
56
Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester
ect team of ten staff members met for an hour
and a half each month to advise the core group,
participate in interviews, and, in later stages of
the project, view and discuss data. In addition,
the three subteams (reference outreach, digital
initiatives, and facilities) ensured that impor-
tant research questions were addressed in each
of these three areas, helped plan research proj-
ects, then viewed data and shared it with others
involved in the research. Te subteams often
met weekly or biweekly, and it was through
their activities that many other library staff
were able to participate on a more casual basis
as their schedules allowed.
At the start of the project, an open invita-
tion was made at a general staff meeting, and
volunteers signed up for one or another group
depending on their interests. Troughout the
project, calls were issued for additional vol-
unteers to perform tasks such as running the
video camera during an interview, viewing data
with a group of staff, proofreading interview
transcripts, and coding data. Participants re-
ceived training from the project’s lead anthro-
pologist.
Troughout the project, we engaged in sev-
eral different techniques in order to immerse
ourselves in the data and capture our thoughts
and ideas. Tree of these techniques were espe-
cially important in giving us access to the per-
spectives of students: observation and listening
techniques, coviewing, and brainstorming.
Observing and Listening
In the initial stages of the project, staff partici-
pants completed an exercise that involved posi-
tioning themselves discreetly in pairs in a public
place of their choice and observing the activity
taking place there for a set period of time. Many
people chose stores or malls, and one group sat
on the bus that runs between two university cam-
puses. We all took notes and then met with our
partners to discuss our observations.Later we met
as a larger group to discuss our experiences with
the exercise. The goal here was to give the staff
members an experience of basic anthropologi-
cal methods, particularly observation and note
taking. We learned to simply observe and listen,
without feeling the need to rush in to fix a situ-
ation or answer a question. We experienced the
process of observing and taking notes as separate
from that of forming an opinion about a situation
or activity. Holding the video camera during an
interview also provided opportunities to practice
intentional observation and listening.
Coviewing and Discussing
Coviewing is a technique used to bring people
together in a setting where data from the study
can be collectively viewed and discussed (see
Suchman and Triff 1991; Brun-Cottan and Wall
1995). In our case, staff involved in the project
were brought together to watch videotaped in-
terviews of students jointly and then engage in
discussions about content from the interviews.
Since two people at most were present during the
actual interview, coviewing allowed us to involve
a greater number of staff in the project. In addi-
tion, we could become immersed in the data with
minimal demands on our time.
Te viewings sponsored by the reference
outreach subteam are a useful illustration of
how these sessions were organized. Reference
outreach coviewing meetings were advertised
by e-mail to all reference staff and were held
over the lunch hour to provide a time slot that
most staff could attend. Tere was no obliga-
tion to attend, and staff could choose to come
to one, many, or none of these meetings. Te
subteam sponsored coviewing meetings twice
a month for roughly a five-month period. At-
tendance varied from four to nine library staff,
with some staff attending only once and others
attending the majority of the sessions.
Tese sessions provided staff members with
access to the data collected from and about
Library Staff Participation in Ethnographic Research
57
our undergraduate population.
1
Te majority
of materials collected for this project, with the
exception of the design workshops (see Chap-
ter 5), had a corresponding interview, including
both audio and video. Te goal of coviewing
was not, however, simply to listen and watch
the interview. Te technique of coviewing also
involves mechanisms to encourage staff to
share their reactions to the interview. Tis was
accomplished, first, by giving some initial guid-
ance about the types of reactions best suited
for coviewing. Te premise underlying these
coviewing sessions was that learning about
student experiences from the student point of
view is valuable. Terefore, the goal was not to
critique the student but to try, as best as pos-
sible, to get into the student’s head and then to
remark on issues that surprised us or that we
did not previously know. In addition, staff were
encouraged to remark on questions raised by
the interview and insights the interview gave us
about our own work.
Staff were instructed that, if they wanted to
make a remark, they should raise their hand
or ask that the video be stopped. We found
that we quickly became comfortable with this
practice, and in a typical one-hour session we
would watch about thirty minutes of video, in
-
terspersed with four or five breaks for a total of
twenty minutes of conversation. Te remaining
ten minutes were used for setup, introductory
instructions, and logistics. We aimed to create
a fun, comfortable, and interesting environ-
ment for the coviewing sessions. One librarian
remarked that what she enjoyed most about
coviewing was experiencing her own reactions
while at the same time hearing others’ perspec-
tives.
Brainstorming
One final technique that had a large impact on
staff was brainstorming. Brainstorming sessions
helped staff to generate an extensive list of ideas
about student needs and what we as staff wished
we could accomplish. Brainstorming sessions
led to specific pilot projects (see Chapter 3), but
again the sessions were a valuable activity in and
of themselves, acting as a tool to help us break
out of preconceived ideas and habits.
Our brainstorming sessions adhered strictly
to the rule that all ideas are valid and need to
be captured. Our mantra during these sessions
was “always say yes,” that is, receive each and
every idea openly and without prejudice or
criticism. For some, it was tempting to express
only ideas that seemed sensible or to evaluate
others’ ideas. We gradually discovered that the
expression of outlandish ideas was a crucial part
of the exercise. It was these seemingly off-the-
wall ideas that helped us see beyond our rou-
tine ways of doing and thinking. Brainstorming
allowed us to reframe our notions of what was
possible and had an immediate effect of mov-
ing us beyond our preconceptions and prefer-
ences.
Te structure of our brainstorming ses-
sions varied but most included the following
elements. One person acted as facilitator. At
the beginning of the study, this role was most
often filled by our resident anthropologist,
but as time went on others began to act as
facilitators. Te facilitator’s role was to ex-
Figure 8.1. Brainstorming session in
progress
58
Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester
plain the purpose and structure of the session,
encourage the “always say yes” rule, promote
a creative atmosphere, and make sure that
there was a mechanism for capturing the ideas
generated. In some cases, the brainstorming
sessions started with a warm-up activity—
something fun and outside our routine to put
participants in a relaxed and creative mood.
Te brainstorming itself took a variety of
forms. In a large group, we might throw out
ideas and have one person record them on a
white board or a flipchart. As an alternative, we
might have people spend five or ten minutes
quietly jotting down their own ideas on sticky
notes and then pass these on to others, who
might generate related ideas. Other times we
broke up into small groups to generate ideas
verbally, jotting down one idea per sticky note
and then regrouping as a whole to sort the
ideas by category.
One participant reported that the brain-
storming sessions were useful because “it is so
easy to get into a rut about certain issues, and
it can be very hard to get out of that rut.” For
her, brainstorming freed up her own train of
thought, since she did not have “to think it
through,” and it allowed her to “really think
off her feet.” From her perspective, this helped
open everyone’s thought processes. Te collec-
tive aspect of brainstorming was equally impor-
tant in that it generated many more ideas than
if each of us had done it alone.
Being Involved in the Study: The Experience of
Staff Members
In this section, we report on the informal inter-
views conducted with twelve of the library staff
members who took part in the study as well as on
our own experiences as participants.We were in-
terested in learning what it was like to be involved
in the study and how participation affected the
way we approached our work, students, and the
mission of the library. Interviews were conducted
in person or by telephone and included some
version of the following questions:
• How were you involved in the Under-
graduate Research Project, and what was
your experience of being involved?
• What did you learn about undergraduates
that surprised you?
• How has your understanding or percep-
tion of the students changed?
• Are there any ways your interactions with
students or your daily tasks have changed?
• Has the Undergraduate Research Project
affected your work in any way?
In general, each of the library staff we
spoke with learned something new about the
students. In some cases, staff perceptions of
undergraduate life were reinforced by their in-
volvement in the study. In other cases, beliefs
were altered and viewpoints changed more
dramatically.
Personal Benef its
Many participants felt that one of the most im-
portant benefits of the study was the optimism
it generated. For example, several staff members
talked about how enjoyable and interesting it was
to be involved in the study. One staff member
reported that the best thing about the project
was learning ethnographic methods and being
intellectually stimulated. Another librarian said
that “one of the most wonderful things was to be
involved in research again.”Another staff member,
whose job responsibilities involve few interactions
with students,said that being involved in the proj-
ect was a “good exercise for your mind and body.”
Her involvement helped her to not “get mired in
the day-to-day”and made her work “more engag-
ing.” In addition, several staff talked about how
the project gave them more confidence. For one
librarian,the research increased his credibility with
faculty members. This led directly to his regular
attendance in an undergraduate class and to more
interactions with students in the library.
Library Staff Participation in Ethnographic Research
59
In some cases, what we learned was not
new, but it deepened our understanding. For
example, several staff members explained that,
even if a particular finding was not new, they
had a greater depth of understanding about
the issue from the students’ perspective. It was
a gut level feeling of “I really get it now.” For
example, one librarian described how powerful
it was to watch video clips of students in their
dorm rooms. She felt that watching these clips
presented the students more fully and gave her
a real picture of how the students are “not the
same as we are.”
For some staff, this deeper level of awareness
created a greater comfort level with students.
One staff member felt she had gained an in-
creased understanding of undergraduates as
well as increased confidence in students’ ability
to use the library and do research. One library
staff member reported that she now thinks of
undergraduates as individuals rather than as a
group. In some cases, staff felt reassured that
the strategies they were using to help and en-
gage students actually worked.
Tis new level of understanding created ap-
prehensions as well. As one staff member put it,
the project acted as a “wake-up call,” drawing
attention to the amount of work that still needs
to be done to prove our credibility to students
and faculty. Motivated either by confidence or
by apprehensions, several staff used their new
insights to experiment with new approaches in
their work with students.
Interacting with Students: At the Reference Desk
and Beyond
Many participants noted small but important
changes in their one-to-one interactions with
students. For a few others, participation radically
transformed their interactions with undergradu-
ates. The project also offered an opportunity to
renew and refresh interviewing and observation
skills learned in graduate library degree programs.
From this new perspective, earlier interactions
with students now appeared to be somewhat
one-dimensional, with the stress on the librarian
telling students how to find or do things. Now,
interactions with students resemble something
more like two-way conversations, or what one
librarian called “a more level relationship.”
In addition, specific findings of the study
gave librarians a clearer understanding of how
students work and provided a basis for start-
ing or directing conversations. For example,
our research taught us about the important
role parents play in many students’ lives. Tus,
if a student is struggling with a topic, a librar-
ian might ask, “Have you talked with anyone
about your research?” Te student’s response,
about parents or instructors, might then add
more context and background to the discus-
sion. We also learned how busy our students’
lives are, such that they may work on a paper
for several hours and then not pick it up for
another two weeks. In this case, a reference
librarian might ask a student, “Will you be
working on this paper tonight? If so, you can
definitely get back to us, we’ll be here until
nine tonight” In both of these examples, a
deeper understanding of our students’ aca-
demic and social practices led to interactions
that were more comfortable and more attuned
to students’ needs.
One librarian reported that now she does
not try to give the same “ideal” response to
reference questions from undergraduates but
instead focuses more on getting the context of
the question right. Participation in the study
reminded her how important it is to under-
stand faculty expectations and to determine
where the student is in the research and writ-
ing process. In general, her approach became
less idealized but more practical, observing that
students have more difficulty narrowing their
topic and with writing itself, rather than with
research-related problems.
60
Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester
Another librarian observed that she no
longer agonizes over getting the students
to come to the reference desk or approach a
librarian. She recognizes that students want
to work independently and was surprised at
their level of confidence in their ability to
find things, noting that we need to design
Web pages and interfaces so that students
can do what they need to do on their own.
Now her strategy at the desk is not to bury
students with suggestions but to get them
started and let them know that they can come
back for more help.
For some librarians, the study also enabled
easier interaction with students away from
the reference desk. Some reported that, when
encountering a student in the elevator or ap-
proaching one in the book stacks, the conversa-
tion felt “more reciprocal.” For others it meant
being more careful and sensitive when convers-
ing with students and having a fuller apprecia-
tion of the differences between individuals.
In this way, the anthropological methods we
practiced were useful beyond the official study,
helping us create an easier rapport with our
students.
Similarly, one staff member changed her
individual training sessions with the student
workers she supervised, based on her experi-
ence with the project. Previously she had re-
lied on her own explanation of tasks and on
instructional handouts. After being exposed
to this generation of students’ approaches to
learning, she now finds it more effective to
train students by “working alongside them.”
After talking her trainee through a procedure,
she now has the student do it alone and en-
courages more questions. She says that she
now takes time to “feel out” the student’s per-
spective and then tailors her training accord-
ingly. In this case, participation in the study
inspired her to experiment with new student-
centered teaching strategies.
Classroom Instructional Strategies
As a consequence of this project,several librarians
have altered their instructional strategies. Some
have made their instruction sessions more hands-
on,wanting to emphasize two-way conversations.
One librarian described a “more minimalist” ap-
proach to instruction. Though she is aware that
students will likely encounter obstacles, she has
learned that it is not helpful to convey all the
complexities of the research process up front.
Instead she supplies clues to get students started
and then allows them to discover the richness of
the research process on their own. Some librar-
ians reported that they now spend more time
observing their students in a hands-on classroom
situation and sharing search tips relevant to their
immediate needs.
In other instances, involvement in the study
has led librarians to add to or reorient their
classroom presentations. For example, the study
taught us that many students do not under-
stand what academic librarians do. As one per-
son put it, “In the minds of students, librarians
equal print.” In response, some librarians report
that they have added a sentence or two about
the role of the librarian, telling the class, for
example, that “a librarian can save you time.”
For example, instead of talking about the power
of the search tips—a topic of great interest to
librarians—she now relates concepts directly
to what we know is important to our students:
their need to be efficient with their time.
Other library staff have begun to use slightly
different strategies to connect with students.
For example, the study gave us a deeper under-
standing of how students interact with com-
puter and communications technologies. Tis
has allowed some staff to talk more effectively
about how library tools relate to the students’
existing knowledge of online searching. One
staff member tells her students, “If what you
find in Google isn’t enough for your assign-
ment, try this.” Another librarian, again with
Library Staff Participation in Ethnographic Research
61
students’ busy schedules in mind, gives her class
explicit after-hour time slots when she will be
available at the reference desk. In both of these
examples, librarians could have viewed students’
use of Google or their inability to seek us out
at the reference desk as points of frustration or
barriers between students and librarians. But,
with a better appreciation for why students do
what they do, these librarians saw both of these
issues not as barriers but as an opportunities.
Collaboration
The Undergraduate Research Project facilitated
collaborative relationships among the library
staff and helped the staff pursue the mission
of the library more creatively. In fact, one staff
member said that the greatest benefit of the
study, more than any set of findings, was how it
motivated staff. In addition, many staff enjoyed
and benefited from working with other people in
the library whom they had not previously known
well. One staff member said that it was especially
helpful to get to know other staff members for an
extended period of time and “not as a one-shot
deal.” This collaborative atmosphere was also
fostered by the research and ethnographic aspects
of the project. A focus on doing research created
a wonderfully neutral, exploratory environment.
We learned that all of us,regardless of department
or job description, had this in common: we did
not know what our students are really like.
Discovering this common denominator led
to fruitful discussions among staff and helped
us transcend recurring debates, such as those
about database interfaces. For example, one
staff member reflected on how staff used to de-
bate, again and again, whether we should have
a simple search interface or a more complex
interface. Being involved in the study helped
all of us realize that, as far as our students were
concerned, we did not really know what was
best. By the end of the study, many of us had an
expanded view of this issue, regardless of what
our original opinion might have been. In this
particular case, a deeper understanding of the
issues helped us see the value of both sides of
this debate. As we learned more about our stu-
dents, it became clear that we needed both sim-
ple and complex interfaces; we can now focus
our energies on the interactions of both. One
library staff member observed that we now re-
spond differently, both as a group and individu-
ally, at vendor database demonstrations: “We
are able to give constructive feedback from the
point of view of the student. We put ourselves
in the shoes of the students.”
As discussed throughout this chapter, partic-
ipation in the project encouraged staff to exper-
iment with new ideas and techniques. Because
this took place within the context of research,
the experimentation seemed less threatening.
Participants were not engaged in making li-
brary-wide policy decisions or working in com-
mittees to solve problems. Instead, the study
created, as one librarian put it, a comfort level
with “hit or miss” and with different people try-
ing different things. Instead of agonizing over
getting it right, innovation was happening on a
grassroots level.
In addition, by focusing so intently on our
students, the project helped orient us, as a
staff, toward our mission for students. One
staff member remarked that the project had
an interesting parallel to the idea of strategic
planning, except that instead of looking inward
toward ourselves we were looking outward to-
ward our students. When debates about issues
arise now, we have a common language and
shared understanding about students. Tis has
meant that we are better prepared to meet new
challenges and to move forward as a library.
Thoughts for Future Projects
Even though the staff felt very positive about the
project, it is worth considering what we might
do differently in the future. As discussed earlier,
62
Studying Students: The Undergraduate Research Project at the University of Rochester
a large number of staff members participated.We
later discovered, though, that additional staff had
wanted to be involved.This was a natural progres-
sion of the project; as more staff learned about the
study, interest grew. In retrospect, however, there
are some simple ways to make future projects more
inclusive. For example, the lunch hour coviewing
sessions were inconvenient for some staff. The
timing of these sessions could have easily varied:
lunch,mid-afternoon,and mid-morning.In addi-
tion, the reference-sponsored coviewing sessions
were advertised only to subject librarians.It would
have been interesting to advertise at least some of
these meetings to the entire library staff.
In addition, several staff members have ex-
pressed an interest in continuing the project.
We are aware of how easy it is to fall back into
our old habits and typical frustrations with stu-
dents and to lose the collaborative and experi-
mental mood created by the study. But what is
the best way to proceed? And how do we not
lose the rich environment that ethnographic
research has given us? One idea was to spon-
sor a regularly scheduled brown-bag lunch or
mid-afternoon “snack break.” During this one-
hour discussion, hosted on a rotating basis by
a staff member who participated in the study,
we examine a topic of current interest to public
services through the lens of what we learned
during the Undergraduate Research Project.
We also continue to collect and analyze data on
a limited basis.
Another idea is to sponsor more research-
inspired implementations. Tis allows us to
try small experiments on a preliminary basis,
with the focus on what we can learn with small
investments of time and resources. In addition,
staff now trained in some ethnographic meth-
ods are equipped to conduct mini-studies. For
example, a small group of staff may form an ad
hoc team to interview a few students about a
particular issue.
In late 2006, the River Campus Libraries
began a two-year research project on gradu-
ate students. With generous funding from the
Institute of Museum and Library Services, we
will delve into the academic practices of gradu-
ate students, with a particular focus on the
research and authoring of dissertations, using
many of the methodologies that proved so suc-
cessful in our undergraduate project.
Regardless of what approaches we pursue,
our staff are strongly committed to nurturing
the benefits derived thus far from the Under-
graduate Research Project and to striving to
broaden them.
Note
1. We had permission from all of the students involved in the study to share interview content with
library staff. In addition, in order to err on the side of caution, we regularly reminded those who attended co-
