Radford, M. L., Kitzie, V., Mikitish, S., Floegel, D., & Connaway, L. S. (2019). Trending now: Recasting services to support scholarly identity work. Paper presented at ACRL 2019 Conference, April 11, 2019, Cleveland, Ohio.

1. Trending Now: Recasting Services to
Support Scholarly Identity Work.
Stephanie Mikitish, Ph.D., Rutgers University
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. Rutgers University
Vanessa Kitzie, Ph.D., University of South Carolina
Diana Floegel, MLIS, Doctoral Student, Rutgers University
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D., OCLC
ACRL 2019, Cleveland, OH
April 11, 2019

2. Today’s Agenda
Scholarly Identity (SI) Introduction
Research Summary
Results – Major themes
Recommendations
This Photo by Unknown
Author is licensed under
CC BY-NC-ND

3. Definition & Problem Statement
• Scholarly identity (SI) = scholars’ efforts to build &
promote reputation, networks, & research
• SI constructed w/ digital tools & academic social
networking sites (SNS)/platforms/metrics
• Shift in types/features of SI platforms
• SI concerns related to
• Effort
• Uncertainty
• Confusion

4. Scholarly Identity Platforms
- ResearchGate
- Academia.edu
- Google Scholar
- ORCID
- Twitter
- Personal Websites
…and more!

5. Literature Review
• Defining scholarly identity
(Bringham, 2016)
• SI digital platform functions
(Akers et al., 2016)
• User engagement
(Kjelberg et al., 2016)
• Potential library interventions
(Reed et al., 2016)

6. Research Questions
RQ1: What, if any, practices do academic librarians
engage with to assist Ph.D students & faculty with
managing SI?
RQ2: How can SI-related assistance become a larger part
of academic librarians’ services to Ph.D students & faculty?

7. Method
Exploratory!
30 semi-structured
interviews
- 10 Ph.D students
- 10 faculty
- 10 librarians
Recruited via
SCHOLCOMM &
CRTNET listservs

8. Demographics
N=30
Gender Ethnicity Age
Female (20, 67%) White (19, 63%) 26-34 (16, 53%)
Male (9, 30%) African/Black American (3, 10%) 35-44 (5, 17%)
Non-binary (1, 3%) Asian (3, 10%) 45-54 (3, 10%)
Hispanic (2, 7%) 55-64 (3, 10%)
White/Latinx (1, 3%) 65+ (3, 10%)
Other (2, 7%)

9. Librarian Demographics
n=10
Gender Ethnicity Age
Female (80, 80%) White (8, 80%) 26-34 (3, 30%)
Male (2, 20%) Asian (1, 10%) 35-44 (3, 30%)
Other (1, 10%) 45-54 (2, 20%)
55-64 (2, 20%)

10. Method Continued
• Qualitative coding
Constant comparisons
(Charmaz, 2014)
Emic/etic coding (Miles &
Huberman, 1994)
• Developed initial typology
• NVivo software
• 4 coders - high intercoder
reliability

11. • Methods for Assessing Impact using SI Tools
• Motivations/Benefits of SI Work
• Downsides/Drawbacks of SI Work
• Magic Wand Question
• Library support/roles (& potential
opportunities)
Will describe sub-themes & provide examples for each of
these.
Major Themes

12. Use of SNS
SNS/Platform Librarians
(n=10)
Faculty/Ph.D
Students (n=20)
Total
(N=30)
Twitter 90% (n=9) 85% (n=17) 87% (n=26)
Facebook 80% (n=8) 60% (n=12) 66% (n=20)
ResearchGate 40% (n=4) 80% (n=16) 66% (n=20)
Instagram 60% (n=6) 65% (n=13) 63% (n=19)
Academia.edu 30% (n=3) 75% (n=15) 60% (n=18)
ORCID 90% (n=9) 30% (n=6) 50% (n=15)
Snapchat 20% (n=2) 25% (n=5) 23% (n=7)
LinkedIn 20% (n=2) 10% (n=2) 13% (n=4)
Tumblr 10% (n=1) 10% (n=2) 10% (n=3)

13. Major Theme –
Methods for Assessing
Impact using SI tools
Sub-Theme Librarian
Percent/n
Faculty/Ph.D
Student Percent/n
Impact connected to analytics/altmetrics 90% (n=9) 70% (n=14)
Other ways to assess impact 70% (n=7) 0
I think the identity is broader, and then impact is
sort of like a piece of that…The impact is why it
matters, or more like how you convince others
that it matters. – L-01

14. Major Theme –
Motivations/Benefits of SI Work
Sub-Theme Librarian
Percent/n
Faculty/Ph.D
Student Percent/n
Disseminating academic activities 10 (100%) 14 (70%)
Connecting with other researchers 9 (90%) 17 (85%)
Increase impact 8 (80%) 6 (30%)
Facilitate getting tenure/promotion 8 (80%) 3 (15%)
Access conferences, academic
opportunities, resources, etc.
7 (70%) 5 (25%)
Share open access materials 6 (60%) 4 (20%)
Be up to date 5 (50%) 2 (10%)
Collaborate with research projects/teams 5 (50%) 1 (5%)
Find research collaborators 5 (50%) 1 (5%)

15. Example –
Connect with researchers
It can be harder to stay in contact with
people that are not using them, which
can be problematic, because some
people don't like using them. But when I
think about collaborating on a project, I
think about people I see active on social
media. – L-101

16. Example –
Tenure and promotion
The obvious motivator is tenure…For tenure, I need
professional reviewers, so I need a scholarly
identity. I'm trying to build and maintain a national
presence so other experts are aware of [my] work
if they're asked to review. – L-11
“Reviewers are people and they and they are
not perfect, they may be impressed
by…something that they saw on the media or
on social media.” – L-50

17. Major Theme –
Drawbacks of SI Work
Sub-Theme Librarian
Percent/n
Faculty/Ph.D Student
Percent/n
Time constraints 100% (n=10) 30% (n=6)
Confusion 100% (n=10) 15% (n=3)
Concern regarding for-profit
business models
90% (n=9) 30% (n=6)
Damage to reputation 30% (n=3) 50% (n=10)
Too much effort 30% (n=3) 15% (n=3)
Tracking/surveillance 20% (n=2) 25% (n=5)

18. Example –
Time constraints
Everyone feels overworked and feels we need to
stop doing things, but nobody agrees on what to
stop, so we keep doing things and don’t [drop]
anything. This is one of those things people are
afraid to add or reluctant to add. Some don’t
have the time or don’t want to learn. They think
it’s too complicated and don’t like math, so they
throw all the questions to me. – L-46

19. Example –
Confusion
[If a researcher had] a ResearchGate score of
700, but…[a journal in which they had published]
only [had] an impact score of 1, where do you
put the emphasis? – L-50

20. Major Theme –
Magic Wand Question
Sub-Theme Librarian
Percent/n
Faculty/Ph.D
Student Percent/n
Proxy-maintained profile 60% (n=6) 0
Streamline update process 40% (n=4) 15% (n=3)
[Proxy would update] at least quarterly. – L-01
I think it’s the individual’s responsibility – F-84

21. Major Theme –
Library support/roles
and opportunities
Sub-Theme Librarian
Percent/n
Faculty/Ph.D
Student Percent/n
Workshops 100% (10) 10% (2)
Individual consultations 70% (7) 10% (2)
Copyright 40% (4) 15% (3)
Open access 30% (3) 15% (3)

22. Example –
Support
I think a multi-modal approach is best. Some
people want basic instructions, and others want
hands-on experience. I try to give people multiple
points of access and different ways to engage to
figure out what’s best for them. – L-11
I haven't found it to be the most effective LibGuide.
It's not people needed directions, the issue is
people need a strategy. LibGuides horrible for
coaching people on strategy. – L-73

23. Example –
Support
It’s important to find the community and engage
with the community where they are already. – L-50
I think it's important for people that work in libraries
to use these services themselves before they can
really teach them…This can be tricky for tools that
aren't as used in the library world to see how other
people use those services and [how] best [to] teach
them. – L-101

24. Recommendations
Effort-related
• Know your audience & have a general understanding of where
scholars in certain fields are creating and maintaining SI profiles
• Know benefits/drawbacks of different tools. Consider
designating at least one expert for major platforms.
Uncertainty-related
• Investigate faculty & Ph.D. student concerns and areas where
their perceptions of SI tools may differ.
• Understand & be prepared to discuss benefits of SI tools beyond
(alt)metrics.
Confusion-related
• Spend some time discussing copyright in SI workshops.

25. Future Research Directions
The exploratory nature of this research suggests a number of future
directions…
• Further identify barriers, ethical quandaries, & strategies to
negotiate these
• Identify key practices/strategies to establish & maintain SI
• Develop materials to assist w discovering & using digital tools
• Further explore relationships, offerings, & programs with
academic librarians

26. Thanks & Questions?
Stephanie Mikitish, Ph.D. (mikitish@scarletmail.rutgers.edu)
Marie L. Radford, Ph.D. (mardford@comminfo.rutgers.edu;
@MarieLRadford)
Vanessa Kitzie, Ph.D. (KITZIE@mailbox.sc.edu; @vkitize)
Diana Floegel, Ph.D. student (diana.floegel@rutgers.edu;
@floeginator)
Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D. (connawal@oclc.org;
@LynnConnaway)

27. References
Akers, K. G., Sarkozy, A., Wu, W., & Slyman, A. (2016). ORCID author identifiers: A primer for
librarians. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 35(2), 135-44.
Brigham, T. J. (2016). Online professional profiles: Health care and library researchers show
off their work. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 35(4), 440-48.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Greifeneder, E., Points, S., Blanford, A., Attalla, H., Neal, D., & Schlebbe, K. (2017).
Researchers’ attitudes towards the use of social networking sites. Journal of
Documentation, 74(1), 119-136.
Kjelberg, S., Haider, J., & Sudin, O. (2016). Researchers’ use of social network sites: A
scoping review. Library & Information Science Research, 38, 224-234.
Nández, G., & Borrego, À. (2012). Use of social networks for academic purposes: A case
study. The Electronic Library, 31(6), 781-791.

28. References
Nicholas, D., Herman, E., Jamali, H., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C.,
Dobrowolski, T., & Pouchot, S. (2015). New ways of building, showcasing, and
measuring scholarly reputation. Learned Publishing, 28, 169-183.
Ortega, J. L. (2015). Relationship between altmetrics and bibliometric indicators across
academic sites: The case of CSIC’s members. Journal of Infometrics, 9, 39-49.
Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia.edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral
& Social Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 165-69.
Reed, K., McFarland, D., & Croft, R. (2016). Laying the groundwork for a new library service:
Scholar-practitioner & graduate student attitudes toward altmetrics and the
curation of online profiles. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice,
11(2), 87-96.
Ward, J., Bejarano, W., & Dudás, A. Scholarly social media profiles and libraries: A review.
Liber Quarterly: The Journal of the Association for European Research Libraries,
24(4), 174-204.