Purpose & Goals

This study sought to collect ideas from employees of an academic library at a public land-grant research university regarding desired changes to improve diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in the workspace. The goal of the study was twofold: 1) To allow library employees to generate new ideas for improving DEIA within the library, and 2) To collect ideas on possibilities for actionable change within the library. The subject population consisted of library employees (aged at least 18 years old) who worked for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign during the time of the study. The focus groups included the following employment classifications: Faculty (tenure-system), Civil Service (non-academic staff as defined by the Illinois State Universities Civil Service System/SUCSS), Academic Professional (academic staff who are exempted from SUCSS) , and Graduate Student. Recruitment consisted of flyers (posted at staff lounges) and email invitations sent to the Library’s internal LISTSERVs.

Design & Methodology

Participants involved in a 60-90 minute focus group with 5-8 other library employees of the same employment categories. The focus groups were facilitated by two research team members. For each focus group session, at least one of the facilitators was from the same employment category as the focus group participants. The facilitators followed a semi-structured focus group guide during the focus groups. In order to accommodate all participants, regardless if they were working on-site or remote due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the focus groups were conducted virtually or in person ina library conference room. Participants could choose whether they wished to participate via a virtual or in-person session. The virtual focus groups were recorded using the university-licensed video conferencing software (Zoom) and the in-person focus groups were recorded using a digital audio recorder and the university-licensed Zoom as a backup. The digital audio files from the recorded focus groups were then transcribed. Data collected for this study include the recordings, transcripts, and de-identified metadata about the participants (i.e. their employment categories but not their name, gender or unit name). The data were analyzed using deep reading and open coding.

Findings

Five (5) focus groups were conducted: one (1) in-person and four (4) virtual. A total of 18 individuals participated. Civil Service staff and Graduate Student employees participated most, with six (6) and five (5) participants respectively. Major themes that emerged from the study are: First, while the library hired a diversity officer and invested in initiatives to address issues related to DEIA, it still feels that DEIA is not a priority. Participants shared experiences of neglect or inactions when they discussed accessibility or retention at the library or university. The study concluded with recommendations for each of the areas (DEIA) that came from the focus group participants. It is worth noting that while this study focused on library employees, the participants wanted to see changes that are not only for their own health and workplace safety, but also for the health and safety for their colleagues and library patrons.

Action & Impact

The researchers submitted a written report to the library task force that they belonged to and the library administration. The report's findings, as well as the results from two library climate assessment surveys, contributed to library-wide DEIA efforts. Similar to what can be observed after many climate assessments in higher education institutions, the subsequent inaction or clearly stated future intentions to make organizational-wide change based on the findings from this study remain unclear at this time. However, the researchers did apply what we learned from conducting this study in our own subject or functional areas. For example, the Graduate Student participants expressed that the New Graduate Student Orientation (for library workers) did not provide adequate instruction regarding when to involve campus police. One researcher brought that feedback directly to the group that was responsible for the orientation and the relevant orientation components were revised. There are also incremental changes in recruitment and professional development across all employment categories. Examples include a renewed interest in providing formal mentoring to library tenure-system faculty as well as establishing a process and additional funding for advertising open positions with library associations of librarians of color.

Practical Implications & Value

The researchers learned valuable lessons from the process and findings from an assessment perspective. First, the researchers obtained human subject research approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure the protection of participants’ confidentiality and privacy. Second, the focus groups were conducted in 2022 while indoor masking and social distancing protocols were still in place in the state. the researchers learned how to construct a “COVID-19 Human Subjects Research Safety Plan” as part of the study. While such safety plans might no longer be required, it was helpful to learn about ways to reduce the risk of contagion in a physical research setting. Thirdly, the researchers developed qualitative research training for research team members who were not familiar with the focus group research method. The entire team then went through the training together before conducting the focus groups. The process not only familiarized the research team on the research protocol approved by the IRB, but also the foundational values of a quality approach to climate assessment. Last but not least, an important value was that by conducting thoughtful and listening focused research on DEIA in the workspace, it positioned the researchers as trustworthy and DEIA-allied individuals. Being intentional about our work communicated to our colleagues that we as researchers were serious about our values. Structural change at scale is beyond the scope of assessment to resolve. However, assessment methodologies can be designed to enhance safety and well-being for participants engaged in challenging issues as well. These experiences underscore that assessment is a crucial part of the process of change, not apart from the processes of change.