ERIC EJ1074133: Intangible Factors Influencing the Successful Completion of Graduate LIS Coursework by Non-Traditional Students: A Case of Two IMLS-Funded Scholarship Projects

2013·0.39 MB·English

by  ERIC

Intangible Factors Influencing the Successful
Completion of Graduate LIS Coursework by
Non-traditional Students: A Case of Two
IMLS-funded Scholarship Projects
Linda R. Most
Master of Library and Information Studies Program, Odum Library Suite 4600, Valdosta State University,
1500 North Patterson St., Valdosta GA 31698-0133, Email: [email protected]
Michelle M. Kazmer and Paul F. Marty
School of Library and Information Studies, Florida State University, PO Box 3062100,
Tallahassee FL 32306-2100 Email: {mkazmer, marty}@fsu.edu
This paper examines two IMLS-funded scholarship programs that targeted non-tradi-
tional LIS students, documenting non-academic aspects of the programs that participat-
ing students identified as most important to the successful completion of their academic
programs and to their establishment as contributing members of the professional library
community. Formative analyses conducted during the programs pointed to the impor-
tance of ongoing and extensive administrative and emotional support for participants,
and this paper provides an analysis of the value of these intangible sources of student
support. Using online surveys and semi-structured interviews of selected participants
from both scholarship programs, this study found that multiple forms of intangible sup-
port, from multiple sources inside and outside the academy, that surpassed institutional
norms, were crucial to the academic and early career success of non-traditional LIS
students.
Keywords: student support; non-traditional students; distance learning; intangible sup-
port; survey and interview methods
Introduction recipients—many of whom are from back-
grounds that lead to their being considered
For the future of the LIS professions and non-traditional students—into their pro-
the success of individuals, it is crucial fessional communities and provide them
that LIS students begin to build their pro- with administrative and logistical support.
fessional networks during their academic To determine which aspects of LIS stu-
LIS programs (Kazmer, 2006). The In- dents’ educational programs have been
stitute of Museum and Library Services most effective, it is important to look be-
(IMLS) Laura Bush 21st Century Librari- yond the scholarship funding periods and
ans program has been instrumental in fund- follow the graduates as they begin their
ing the education of the next generation of professional careers. Are IMLS-funded
LIS professionals. Many of the scholar- graduates benefitting from the educational
ship projects funded through this program initiatives in which they participated? Did
have been designed to recruit and prepare the additional administrative support made
librarians to serve underserved or at-risk possible by grant funding factor into their
populations. These projects often include success? Are graduates connecting with
activities intended to socialize scholarship the people and institutions that will help
J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 54, No. 3—(Summer) July 2013
ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2013 Association for Library and Information Science Education 205
206 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
them become effective library leaders? Do grams can provide such support for their
their professional networks include their students is also evidenced by two panels
classmates? This study addresses these on student support at the 2011 ALISE con-
questions by documenting the intangible ference (Bajjaly, Bondy & Drulia, 2011;
factors recent graduates of two online Miller, Montague & Stanik, 2011), as well
IMLS-funded scholarship programs tar- as in the literature cited above.
geting non-traditional students at Florida
State University identified as being instru- LIS Scholarship Programs at
mental to their academic and early career Florida State University
success.
Two recent IMLS-funded scholarship
Background programs at the Florida State University
School of Library and Information Stud-
Research about the non-financial sup- ies (SLIS)—Librarians Serving the Pub-
port of graduate students has tended to lic (LSP) from 2004 to 2009, and Florida
focus on support for learning (Shepherd Leaders & Managers (FLM) from 2007 to
& Bolliger, 2011), often within individual 2011—were designed to educate and so-
courses (Lee, Srinivasan, Trail, Lewis, & cialize the next generation of library lead-
Lopez, 2011). Other research in the area of ers in Florida. Both projects used online
support has focused on how librarians can distance-learning technology to deliver
support students in a wide variety of edu- student coursework, and both projects
cational settings and for varying purposes, were conducted in collaboration with part-
including higher education (Mortimore & ner libraries and library cooperatives from
Wall, 2009; Stoffle & Cuillier, 2010) and different regions of the state. Together,
K-12 schools (Farmer, 2009). Research these projects enabled 67 students—many
about the support needed by online LIS already affiliated with Florida libraries as
students began soon after the first wave paraprofessionals—to earn their master’s
of LIS programs moved to web-based degrees in Library and Information Stud-
platforms in the mid-1990s (e.g., Hara & ies or a Certificate in Leadership & Man-
Kling, 2000; Kazmer, 2000), and contin- agement.
ues to be an area of study as e-learning be- The LSP and FLM projects shared the
comes more common and the technologies same principal investigator, and had sev-
used for it change rapidly (Hank, Sugimo- eral objectives in common, including re-
to, & Pomerantz, 2012; Mon, 2012). cruiting non-traditional students who had
Master’s students in LIS are frequently not previously considered pursuing gradu-
in need of support beyond that offered at ate professional degrees for a variety of
the level of the course (i.e., dedicated to- reasons and consequently providing stu-
ward learning); they need support at the dent support beyond institutional norms
program and professional preparation lev- (Heery, 1996; Sendall, Shaw, Round &
el (Cherry, Duff, Singh, & Freund, 2011). Larkin, 2010; Virkus & Wood, 2004; Yi,
This is especially true for distance students 2005). Both projects also featured: online
who may encounter more roadblocks in ac- courses that participating students took in
cessing traditional means of support (Lee, cohorts (via dedicated sections of regu-
2010). LIS master’s programs are tech- larly offered courses, or courses created or
nologically demanding—face-to-face and revised especially for each project); atten-
online—and incoming students may need dance by the students at on-campus (LSP)
adaptable and just-in-time support to help or regional (FLM) grant-funded profes-
them meet program expectations for tech- sional development workshops; and fund-
nology skills (Kules & McDaniel, 2010). ing for all enrolled students to attend the
This increasing interest in how LIS pro- Florida Library Association’s professional
Intangible Factors Influencing the Successful Completion of Graduate LIS Coursework 207
conference each year. These opportunities the challenges they would encounter once
added face-to-face components to an oth- they began their studies (Heery, 1996; Yi,
erwise fully-online master’s program (Ka- 2005). Key challenges the LSP scholars
zmer, 2007). Formative analyses of both faced included learning how to manage
projects were conducted through annual their time, and coordinating and commu-
focus groups, and summative analyses nicating with school, jobs, and families.
through capstone papers (FLM) and sur- Many LSP students did not understand
veys (LSP). the additional commitments they were
making when they accepted their scholar-
Project 1: Librarians Serving the ships, commitments which exceeded those
Public (2004–2009) expected of regularly matriculated online
graduate students (e.g., on-campus work-
Librarians Serving the Public was de- shops and FLA conference attendance).
signed to prepare librarians to assume pro- The LSP project’s objectives were to re-
fessional leadership or innovation roles cruit an ethnically diverse group of student
within academic, public or school librar- scholars; provide an online educational
ies in north and central Florida (Florida experience focused on public service,
State University, 2009). The service area community partnerships, and leadership;
for this project included 58 of Florida’s 67 assign each student to one of five specially
counties and the majority of its rural popu- recruited and trained mentors; provide the
lation. The grant partners for this project students with the opportunity to attend
were representatives of three multi-coun- three professional meetings within Florida
ty cooperatives serving northeastern and to model aspects of leadership behavior
central Florida and the Panhandle. The and responsibility; place the students in
partners’ roles included recruitment, men- library positions that would allow them to
toring, and helping to place the project practice what they learned; and conduct
graduates. formative and summative evaluations of
The original timeline for the LSP proj- student success and project goals. At the
ect was severely affected by the 2004 and close of the LSP project, 48 students had
2005 hurricane seasons, which decimated completed, or were expected to complete,
much of the state’s infrastructure during their master’s degrees and were on track to
the recruiting periods for the first two co- begin professional library careers.
horts (Smith & McCarty, 2006). Potential
scholars were so concerned with meeting Project 2: Florida Leaders & Managers
the basic needs of life in communities (2007–2011)
without electricity or other basic infra-
structure elements that attending graduate Florida Leaders & Managers, officially
school became a dream to be deferred in- titled Southeast Florida Library Leaders:
definitely. The project was granted a no- Building the Next Generation of Service to
cost extension, and when conditions stabi- Underserved Populations, was designed
lized 55 students were ultimately accepted to educate the next generation of public
across three extended cohorts. library leaders and managers who would
Many of the students recruited for the serve underserved populations in Miami-
LSP project were categorized as non- Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties
traditional because they had not thought in South Florida (Florida State University,
it would be possible to attend graduate 2011). The project was intended to fund
school because they needed flexibility to 15 ALA-accredited master’s degrees and
accommodate familial, work, and finan- 15 Certificates in Management & Leader-
cial obligations, or for geographic reasons, ship. The project’s main partners included
and therefore had not considered some of the Southeast Florida Library Information
208 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
Network (SEFLIN), the Broward County full-time, had been out of school for many
Library, and the Miami-Dade Public Li- years, or were completely unfamiliar with
brary System. The partners’ responsibili- the culture of higher education in the US
ties included recruitment, hosting local (Heery, 1996; Sendall, Shaw, Round &
and regional workshops, and helping to Larkin, 2010; Yi, 2005). Once recruited,
place students. many found the university’s online appli-
As with the LSP project, FLM met cation processes daunting. Several were
with unexpected challenges from outside unable to arrange for their non-US under-
the academy. During the FLM recruiting graduate institutions to provide their tran-
period the nation fell into an economic scripts in a timely fashion, and once those
downturn which was exacerbated in Flor- transcripts were secured they had to be
ida by a property tax reform initiative that translated into English and evaluated for
resulted in severe public budget cuts at all equivalency to the US education system.
levels. Many potential project candidates Many were overwhelmed by the idea of
wondered why they should put themselves having to take the GRE exam (required, in
through the stress and disruption of two the English language version, by the uni-
years of graduate school when they saw no versity), even if they did speak English as
hope of promotion upon graduation. Ulti- the first language. These students were ad-
mately 27 students were admitted to the mitted to the project as certificate scholars
FLM project and 24 graduated, earning 18 (that is, non-degree-seeking according to
Master’s degrees, 2 Specialist (post-mas- the university) so that they would not need
ter’s) degrees, and 22 interim or terminal to negotiate all the university’s adminis-
Certificates in Leadership & Management. trative procedures and the standardized
The FLM project’s objectives were testing at the same time. As these students
to provide scholarships to students who: proved their capabilities to themselves by
demonstrated leadership and management successfully completing their certificate
skills; desired management positions; coursework, they developed confidence
were committed to work with underserved and began to contemplate taking their
populations in Southeast Florida; and dem- GREs to seek full admission to the univer-
onstrated a knowledge and understanding sity as degree-seeking students.
of underserved populations through edu-
cation, language skills, multicultural ex- The Challenges of Supporting
perience, and recommendations. Project Non-Traditional LIS Students
activities included delivering the leader-
ship and management curriculum to the The LSP and FLM projects targeted
students in cohorted online class sections, less traditional scholars than those who
providing six regional workshops, fund- typically pursue graduate LIS degrees (see
ing participation in the state library asso- Mehra, Black, Singh, & Nolt, 2011; Meh-
ciation’s annual conference, and adding ra & Lambert, 2008). To help students in
two courses (on planning and evaluation, both programs circumvent these difficul-
and human resources management) to the ties, the principal investigators, the FLM
SLIS curriculum. project’s graduate assistant, and the SLIS
Many of the public library parapro- admissions and advising staff provided
fessionals identified as candidates for help that was well beyond institutional
the FLM scholarships by their Southeast norms to guide these students through the
Florida library employers fit the non-tra- university’s process to become fully ma-
ditional student category targeted by the triculated into the master’s program. The
grant because they had immigrated to the FLM graduate assistant tracked each ap-
US from other countries, spoke English as plicant’s status and regularly made calls
a second or third language, were working on the scholars’ behalf to admissions per-
Intangible Factors Influencing the Successful Completion of Graduate LIS Coursework 209
sonnel to clarify conditions for admission structured interview methods to evaluate
for non-traditional and non-US students both projects simultaneously and answer
and to lobby for extended deadlines and the research question. After the conclu-
exceptions. All project personnel contrib- sion of the FLM project, the researchers
uted to guiding the scholars through the used the data collected via the formative
matriculation process by supporting the assessments of each project to inform the
scholars through the GRE process, check- development of a survey instrument and
ing in with the scholars every semester to semi-structured interview schedule. A
make sure they knew what courses to take link to the survey was sent to each gradu-
next, and regularly encouraging and re- ate from the LSP and FLM programs for
sponding to phone calls, discussion forum whom SLIS had a viable e-mail address on
posts, and individual e-mails in an ongoing February 15, 2011 and again on March 3,
attempt to keep scholars from becoming 2011. Participants were not asked to iden-
discouraged by the challenges they faced. tify which project they had participated in
The project partners were very supportive when completing the survey.
of the required student travel and often The survey instrument (Appendix A)
attended the FLM regional workshops to was designed to evaluate multiple as-
mentor their employee scholars. pects of both projects from the students’
Literature indicates the need for a va- perspectives. It included questions about
riety of kinds of support, including intan- university procedures and requirements,
gible and “non-academic” support, by the the helpfulness and continuing value of
kinds of students who received scholar- different aspects of the project, and the
ships in the LSP and the FLM projects sources of challenges the students faced.
(Hara & Kling, 2000; Heery, 1996; Ka- Additional questions intended to identify
zmer, 2000; Kules & McDaniel, 2010; Lee, the students’ future educational needs and
2010; Lee, Srinivasan, Trail, Lewis, & Lo- desires were asked to inform future pro-
pez, 2011; Mehra, Black, Singh, & Nolt, gram planning. Two types of closed-end-
2011; Mehra & Lambert, 2008; Shepherd ed questions were asked: those featuring
& Bolliger, 2011; Yi, 2005). This in turn differential scales used ranges from very
indicates a need to assess the influence of difficult to very easy, very helpful to very
these intangible forms of support on the unhelpful, very supportive to very unsup-
scholarship recipients’ successful comple- portive, and very valuable to very unvalu-
tion of the programs. To improve under- able; other questions featured lists of op-
standing of the value of intangible support tions with radio buttons participants could
in the successful completion of academic select if the option was relevant to their
programs and the successful integration of experiences or future interests.
non-traditional LIS graduates into a pro- The semi-structured interview schedule
fessional community, this study addresses (Appendix B) addressed different aspects
the following research question: What are of the students’ professional experiences
the non-academic aspects of the FLM and since graduation. The different sections of
LSP scholarship projects that non-tradi- the instrument addressed questions about
tional students considered to be most im- career outcomes since graduation, service
portant to their success in their academic to the profession, the support participants
programs and in establishing themselves did or did not receive during their pro-
as contributing professional members of grams of study, professional development,
the Florida library community? and long-term goals. Interviews were con-
ducted over the telephone after the surveys
Methods were completed, and were transcribed for
data analysis.
This study employed survey and semi- The survey was conducted electronically
210 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
using SurveyMonkey, and the responses Findings
were tallied and percentages collected.
Responses to the questions considered in Invitations to participate were sent to 68
this study were dichotomized for analyti- scholarship recipients from both programs
cal emphasis, and responses by category in February 2011, and the online survey
are presented in the findings below. Cross- remained open for two months. 47 indi-
tabulation was not attempted because the viduals responded to and completed the
respondents were not asked to identify the survey, resulting in a 69% response rate
program in which they participated (because and a 100% completion rate. Nine individ-
the number of potential participants was so uals volunteered to participate in follow-
small, this decision was made to protect the up telephone interviews, and seven semi-
anonymity of those filling out the survey); structured interviews were conducted and
only aggregated findings over the two pro- transcribed in April 2011.
grams are reported. Content analyses of the
responses to open-ended survey questions Facilitating Administrative Support
and interview questions were organized
thematically to identify commonalities and Survey responses indicated the posi-
exceptions among respondents. tive value both groups of scholars placed
The findings reported below focus on on the extra administrative support they
survey and interview questions that ad- received during the application and regis-
dress the non-academic aspects of the tration periods (Table 1). Survey question
projects that participants considered to 1 asked about the ease of use of various
be most important to their academic and administrative aspects of the two projects.
subsequent career success (specifically, Seventy to 95% of respondents found the
survey questions 1, 2, 3, and 8, and the in- application, financial aid process, orienta-
terview questions labeled Support). Other tion, registration and method of instruc-
survey and interview questions focused on tion easy or very easy. Only 8.9% of re-
topics unrelated to this study’s research spondents reported that they found the
question (e.g., future program planning, university’s registration process difficult,
or the usefulness or relevance of the pro- and only 2% found the application process
grams’ academic content) and are not re- difficult. These small numbers reflect the
ported in this study. large amount of administrative support the
Table 1. Ease of Use (n = 47).
Please rate the ease of use of
the following: Very Easy Easy Neutral Difficult Very Difficult N/A n
Application 25 17 4 1 0 0 47
(53.2%) (36.2%) (8.5%) (2.1%)
Financial Aid Process 19 14 2 2 0 10 47
(40.4%) (29.8%) (4.3%) (4.3%) (21.3%)
Orientation 25 13 3 1 0 5 47
(53.2%) (27.7%) (6.4%) (2.1%) (10.6%)
Registration 21 17 2 4 0 1 45
(46.7%) (37.7%) (4.4%) (8.9%) (2.2%)
Method of Instruction 20 24 1 1 0 0 46
(43.5%) (52.1%) (2.2%) (2.2%)
Access to Classroom 19 21 4 3 0 0 47
(Blackboard Site) (40.5%) (44.7%) (8.5%) (6.4%)
Intangible Factors Influencing the Successful Completion of Graduate LIS Coursework 211
Table 2. Helpfulness (n = 47).
Please rate the helpfulness of the Very Very
following: Helpful Helpful Neutral Unhelpful Unhelpful N/A n
Communication from Scholarship 33 9 4 1 0 0 47
Program Leadership (70.2%) (19.1%) (8.5%) (2.1%)
Feedback from Instructors 31 15 1 0 0 0 47
(65.9%) (31.9%) (2.1%)
Interaction with Students (Virtually) 30 10 5 2 0 0 47
(63.8%) (21.2%) (10.6%) (4.3%)
Interaction with Students (Face to 22 11 0 0 0 14 47
Face) (46.9%) (23.4%) (29.8%)
scholars received and the associated eas- ated or revised for each project. Seventy
ing of difficulties in the process. percent of the scholars rated face-to-face
interaction with other students as helpful
Encouraging Helpful Communication or very helpful; of that group 46% rated
and Interpersonal Interaction this face-to-face interaction as very help-
ful. Face-to-face interaction facilitated
The importance of the intangible sup- by the projects’ leadership was restricted
port the scholars received from a variety to attendance at project workshops and
of sources is expressed in the responses to the annual Florida Library Association
Survey Question 2, in which respondents meetings, so the scholars experienced a
were asked to rate the helpfulness of dif- maximum of three formal face-to-face
ferent program elements (Table 2). Almost meetings per year. The high value the stu-
90% of respondents rated the helpfulness dents placed on even these infrequent op-
of the communication from the scholarship portunities is expressed in their ratings of
programs’ leadership as being helpful or the helpfulness of face-to-face interaction
very helpful; over 70% of the scholars rated with other students.
that communication as very helpful. These In Survey Question 3, participants were
responses also help illuminate why so few asked to rank the supportiveness of a range
respondents to Survey Question 1 found the of people they interacted with during the
application and registration processes to be time they were enrolled in school (Table
difficult (above). Ongoing communication 3). Over 90% of respondents rated Other
with the scholars during the application and Cohort Members as supportive or very
registration processes was instrumental in supportive. The interview respondents
the scholars’ successful matriculation into provided corroborating statements, report-
their academic programs. ing that each semester they found people
Eighty-five percent of both projects’ in class that they knew they could rely on
scholars rated virtual interaction with fel- based on previous cohort-based experi-
low students as helpful or very helpful; ences such as shared classes or face-to-
63% rated that virtual interaction with face meetings.
their classmates as very helpful. This re- The interview respondents expanded on
sponse reflects the positive value the proj- the importance of the multiple network-
ects’ scholars placed on being cohorted ing opportunities for all the participants,
into their classes because both projects as can be seen in the following statements:
featured online courses that students took
in cohorts either in dedicated sections of The most valuable aspect was the ability
regularly offered courses or in courses cre- to meet with other people who were going
212 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
through the school and programs—meet other day, we serve on the same statewide
informally in person and talk about the committee, and so we were able to talk
classes and help each other out. about the program. So that was really in-
[Interviewee #1] teresting. I think that was probably the best
thing—it helped me focus my goals and
I have to say that the cohort system was get me to where I need to be.
fabulous. It gave us a feel of camarade- [Interviewee #4]
rie —you’re at the same level, you have
Other respondents discussed the impor-
colleagues and peers you can talk to—talk
tance of being part of a cohort in the con-
about your problems. You feel like ‘omg,
text of the isolation some online learners
I’m not the only one stressing about this’.
experience:
[Interviewee #2]
. . . if I hadn’t had that little cohort, that
The networking opportunities—people in group, where we were all together . . . I
my cohort were able to help me with my think that made a huge difference. Because
homework. I had a situation . . . but I knew otherwise, if I didn’t have that I think that
people through the cohort who were able to I would have felt very alone. It would have
give me information to finish the project. been very hard to make friends and to
Even now if I’m working on something, I have a group for yourself that would also
know who’s around and who to contact to understand. They were the only ones that
ask them what they think. [Interviewee #3] understood how hard it was. Because my
family didn’t, my coworkers didn’t . . . I
As far as outside of classes, I enjoyed the remember one time, I told my Dad about
fact that there were several people within how hard it was and he just scoffed. The
the cohort that I could talk to outside of the little group I was in really helped.
classes. I actually just ran into someone the [Interviewee #5]
Table 3. Supportiveness (n = 47).
Please rate the support- Very Very
iveness of the following: Supportive Supportive Neutral Unsupportive Unsupportive N/A n
Work: Head of the Orga- 19 8 6 8 3 3 47
nization (40.4%) (17.0%) (12.8%) (17.0%) (6.4%) (6.4%)
Work: Direct Supervisor 28 6 1 8 4 0 47
(59.5%) (12.8%) (2.1%) (17.1%) (8.5%)
Work: Colleagues 20 12 7 4 2 2 47
(42.5%) (25.6%) (14.9%) (8.6%) (4.3%) (4.3%)
Program: Leadership 33 11 1 0 0 2 47
(70.2%) (23.4%) (2.1%) (4.3%)
Program: Professors and 33 12 2 0 0 0 47
Instructors (70.2%) (25.5%) (4.3%)
Program: Other Cohort 33 10 3 0 0 1 47
Members (70.3%) (21.3%) (6.4%) (2.1%)
Program: Classmates 29 11 5 1 0 1 47
(61.7%) (23.4%) (10.6%) (2.1%) (2.1%)
Family 37 5 2 0 0 2 46
(80.4%) (10.9%) (4.3%) (4.3%)
Other 5 2 0 0 0 12 19
(26.3%) (10.5%) (63.2%)
Intangible Factors Influencing the Successful Completion of Graduate LIS Coursework 213
This response sheds light on the survey Overcoming Personal Challenges
findings from Question 3 that, even though
the majority of responses were positive, Many of the scholarship recipients
23.4% of respondents rated the Heads of faced personal challenges even after they
their Work Organizations as unsupportive successfully matriculated into their pro-
or very unsupportive; 25.6% rated their grams of study. Survey Question 8 at-
Direct Supervisors at work as unsupport- tempted to identify these challenges by
ive or very unsupportive; and 12.9% rated asking respondents to identify challenges
their Work Colleagues as unsupportive or that made it difficult for them to pursue
very unsupportive. These were the high- and finish their programs of study (Table
est percentages of negative responses re- 4). In addition to five choices, respondents
ceived across the survey questions. Some were given an open-ended “other” re-
of the perceived lack of support from sponse they could complete. Some of the
workplace supervisors and directors may other issues respondents identified as chal-
reflect the challenges faced by employers lenges to finishing their programs of study
to continue to provide library services with included:
fewer available resources. Since 2007, li-
• Health issues
brary directors across Florida have been
• Failure of employer to assure path to
operating under rigid financial constraints
library career
as many found their budgets cut and their
• I switched employment in the middle of
open positions frozen. On the other hand,
the program and lost the support of my
interview respondent #7 reported that
employer
her workplace coworkers and supervi-
• I had two jobs, one full time and one
sors were especially helpful, saying, “if
part-time, and a sick parent that I was
I hadn’t had their support I just wouldn’t
caring for (out of state) but was still
have been able to do it” and interviewee
able to complete the program due to the
#2 reported that her colleagues:
program support
really wanted me to be able to become a • Nothing has made it difficult, the pro-
librarian. I really did have a lot of support gram was a pleasure
from my coworkers, but then again, I had • None, the program was very flexible
great support from [the principal investiga- with our work and personal needs. It
tors]. They were willing to be there and was structured very professionally and
answer questions. organized in a very helpful manner.
[Interviewee #2]
Networking among cohort members
The third interviewee reported a unique was a strong theme throughout the sur-
situation, saying:
My branch manager at the time is actu-
Table 4. Difficulties (n = 33).
ally kind of notorious for not supporting
students while they’re in school and want- Which of the following made
ing them to focus on the job, but he was it difficult to pursue and finish
actually incredibly supportive of me doing this degree: n %
stuff. He let me go to FLA even though we Financial Strain 10 30.3%
were strapped for the budget.
Pressures at Work 10 30.3%
[Interviewee #3]
Pressures from Home Life 13 39.4%
Overall, most students found support
Program Difficulty 2 6.1%
from at least some of the social, work, and
Hours and Time Commitment 17 51.5%
family groups to which they belonged and
from their classmates and instructors. Other (Please Specify) 11 33.3%
214 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
vey and interview responses. Returning to work with fellow scholarship recipients.
Survey Question 2 in which respondents [Interviewee #7]
identified the importance of the face-to-
Overall, the surveys and interviews
face interactions they experienced during
indicate that the combination of adminis-
their studies, graduates of both projects
trative support and facilitated interaction,
reported that the relationships they built
both face-to face and online, within the
during their studies have endured beyond
cohorts and among the project staff and
graduation and into their careers. Inter-
scholars, led to the students successfully
view respondents provided examples of
matriculating into and completing their
the networks they are building based on
degree and certificate programs and build-
the face-to-face interactions they experi-
ing the foundations for long-lasting pro-
enced with their classmates during their
fessional networks.
projects’ funded workshops and confer-
ence participation. The respondents report
that they are turning to their old class- Discussion
mates when they need advice about a cur-
rent workplace issue. The following state- These findings indicate that multiple
ments provide supporting evidence for the forms of intangible support, from mul-
projects’ objectives of helping the students tiple sources inside and outside the acad-
build professional networks: emy, that surpass institutional norms, are
critical to the academic and early career
. . . Even now if I’m working on some-
success of non-traditional scholarship re-
thing, I know who’s around and who to
cipients. As the survey and interview data
contact to ask them what they think.
demonstrate, the LSP and the FLM schol-
[Interviewee #3]
ars have been able to maintain the connec-
Quite a few friends [from the program] tions they established during their stud-
will e-mail me with questions or issues ies and are drawing upon these academic
they might have that are related to digital networks in their professional lives. The
services. [Interviewee #2] scholars have identified belonging to co-
horts during their studies as being crucial
There was someone else in the program to laying the groundwork for their profes-
with me who is also a [professional] in sional networks.
[. . .] County, so we see each other at a lot Formative evaluations conducted as
of meetings. So, if I have any questions part of both scholarship programs found
about anything going on, I have someone that the additional, intangible forms of
that went through this with me that I can support the project personnel provided,
ask. Someone else in the cohort just recent- including checking with students regu-
ly became the branch manager at my local larly throughout their programs of study;
library. Several of us are also planning to providing extra advising on course se-
meet up at FLA. [Interviewee #4] lections; encouraging and responding to
phone calls, discussion posts, and e-mails
We were a group and there’s still people on non-academic issues that were impact-
that I’m friendly with and fond of. ing their schoolwork; and facilitating their
[Interviewee #6] required grant-funded travel all had a tre-
mendous positive impact on the scholar-
I’m on the committee with another [pro- ship recipients, well beyond the monetary
gram] graduate. In addition to that, I work awards they received as part of their schol-
with a fellow [scholarship] recipient and arships (Florida State University, 2009;
she and I have presented for our consortia. 2011). Formative evaluations conducted
. . . It has been a wonderful opportunity to throughout the FLM project also pointed