Graduate student intellectual journeys: a functional method to identify library service gaps

Introduction

Libraries dedicate significant time to exploring the needs of undergraduate students and developing an array of support services for this population. The literature includes studies related to improving reference services (Ismail, 2010; Pellegrino, 2012) and improving instructional practices (Cook-Sather, 2014; Flierl et al., 2018), renovating spaces (Kelly and Young, 2017; Yoo-Lee et al., 2013), and usage of interlibrary loan services (Frank and Bothmann, 2008; Schulz, 2001) by undergraduates. In comparison, there is far less research related to how libraries can support graduate education (Doan and Rassibi, 2018; Rempel et al., 2011; Rod-Welch, 2018). Given that the needs of graduate students are often more complex due to the range of their educational, research, and personal experiences (Nesheim et al., 2006; Hardré and Hackett, 2015), it is imperative that libraries develop service models for this population that are diverse as well as supportive (O'Clair, 2013; Fong, 2017; Forbes et al., 2017; Shanks and Arlitsch, 2016; Stitz, 2018). Studies in fields outside of library and information sciences reveal that students struggle during their graduate education (Foot et al., 2014; Gardner, 2008; Schoot et al., 2013) suggesting that despite the variety of fast-track or traditional educational term offerings, the graduate training experience is a complex undertaking for many students. Closer examination of the challenges graduate students face can help uncover opportunities for librarians to develop stronger and more durable service models that can help support graduate students during this intense educational training.

Library research studies commonly employ surveying techniques to gather information about user needs, but lack of resources plus survey fatigue (Porter et al., 2004) makes it extremely difficult for organizations to gather input from users. This project purposely avoided surveys and instead began by investigating graduate students’ experiences through examining the requirements and aspects that make up the graduate education process. The project study required a close review of the movements students make as they work through a graduate degree. The study was initially guided by the curricular mapping practices (Castro Gessner and Eldermire, 2015) that have traditionally been used to track information literacy pathways in programs. In this context, the curricular mapping approach revealed itself too singular in scope and did not allow for a full examination of all facets of graduates’ experiences. In response to this, the researcher used journey mapping, a widely tested and effective user experience tool (McKelvey and Frank, 2018), to capture the totality of the user experience throughout the graduate training process. Journey mapping’s main function is to offer a visualization of the process that a person goes through to accomplish a goal (Gibbons, 2018). The practice of journey mapping operates by asking participants to detail their actual experiences (Kaplan, 2019) which helps safeguard against librarians’ perceived ideas (Nolen et al., 2012) of what the graduate student user experience entails. The outcome of using this mapping methodology resulted in the charting of a complete map of the graduate educational experience and provided an outside-in versus inside-out visualization of the pain points students experience along their path. Finally, the practice of journey mapping revealed possible support areas that have traditionally been missed by the library (Kaplan, 2016).

Background of graduate landscape

Completion of the PhD signals that an individual is deemed an independent scholar who is capable of contributing research and scholarship in their chosen disciplinary area. Since the first PhD in the US was conferred in 1861 (Yale University, n.d.), the research doctorate has become inclusive to applied and professional degrees. Despite many having successfully attained the award, the research literacies that signal doctoral achievement remain obscure and scholars continue to struggle with developing clear and tangible measures for the competencies that represent attainment of the degree (Yazdani and Shokooh, 2018).

Time to degree is an important topic across higher education (Shapiro et al., 2016) and is particularly salient for graduate studies. The average completion time for different PhD programs varies by discipline. According to data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates conducted by the National Science Foundation, an approximate median range to attain a degree is between 6.2 years for the Physical and Earth Sciences fields and up to 12 years for the field of Education (NSF NCES, 2018).

Along with time to degree, graduate persistence and attrition trends are an important area for universities to track and manage. A longitudinal study surveying 1992–1993 graduates 10 years after attaining their bachelor’s degree indicated that the top three reasons graduate students had for leaving a program were: change in family status (30%), conflicts with their job and military duties (17%), and dissatisfaction with the program (16%) (Nevill and Chen, 2007). The general category of other reasons for not completing a program ranked second overall (26%). This latter category comprised situations that resulted in students abandoning their studies that were not able to be folded into a major theme. While the authors did not provide further description for this highly ranked factor, it suggests that graduate school is not only in itself an independent endeavor but also an individual and contextually situated experience.

The existence of non-intellectual or systemic influences are already suitably covered in the literature, and while outside of the scope of this study, deserve a brief mention because they can possibly account for graduates’ inability to complete or even start their courses of study. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, n.d.) compiles informative reports and tables of data related to education including tuition and required fees, student loan debt trends, graduation rates, demographics of students in different disciplines, parents’ educational background, socio-economic status, age, family status, race/ethnicity and gender. These data are too complex and difficult to offer generalized inferences, but it is illustrative for prospective students, parents, graduate school administrators, and policymakers as it can provide guidance about type of school to attend, inform about enrollment financials, or draw attention to opportunities for new funding initiatives. While enrollment, persistence, and completion will always be influenced by external life factors, successful candidates are capable of persisting despite the complexity and ambiguity that are part and parcel of graduate studies.

Graduate administrators per the nature of their duties focus largely on completion and failure rates. For years national failure rates hovered around 40–50%. These numbers were highly distressing to the graduate education community and sparked investigations such as The PhD Completion Project (Council of Graduate Schools, 2008). Academic mentors experience first-hand the struggles plaguing aspiring professionals and doctoral students. Mental health officials report rising concern due to stress in this student population. In a national survey (American College Health Association, 2020) data collected indicated a combined scoring range of 73.4% for moderate-high levels of stress among graduate students during the last twelve months. Increasing studies demonstrate there is a high prevalence of stress and anxiety amid the graduate student population (Evans et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019). Medical experts caution that sustained levels of stress lead to chronic stress which is often associated with depression (Fuchs and Flügge, 2011). This concern exists not only for the trainee’s mental wellbeing but also for the financial investment to the graduate education enterprise made by academic members, policymakers, and society. For a population with many apportioned responsibilities, it is not easy to identify the factors that put them in peril of not successfully completing their degrees. Academic faculty are calling for universities to recognize the need to support graduate students and offer intervention strategies to help students manage stress and successfully complete their degrees (Evans et al., 2018).

Research gathered based on exit surveys of degree completers offers firsthand data about institutional characteristics that influence success (Council of Graduate Schools, 2009). One of six major program factors, the program environment, was particularly distinctive for its focus on the factors that influence integration or alienation between the student and the graduate school, department, and discipline. The program environment can be more fully defined through the lens of disciplinary discourse practices that exemplify the attitudes, behaviors, tools and activities, and cultures that shape and represent a discipline and enable effective engagement with others in that community (Airey and Linder, 2009; Becher, 1987). In the context of graduate education, disciplinary discourse practices are analogous to the socialization that happens along the path to professionalism within the discipline. Discourse practices differ between disciplines so teasing out the socialization that happens within disciplines can provide methods for alleviating some of the struggles encountered by students along their path to become independent scholars. Simmons (2005) framed librarians as disciplinary discourse mediators advancing critical information literacy using principles of genre theory for undergraduates. Green and Macauley (2007) later took a holistic view of the graduate learner positioned within a disciplinary backdrop. These studies consider the importance of socialization in disciplines yet solely focus on the information literacy domain. A review of the literature revealed that no other studies appear to have considered using the disciplinary discourse framework in combination with journey mapping to evaluate the entirety of graduate education in the provisioning of library services.

Local context

The University of Arizona (UArizona), the flagship institution in the State of Arizona, is a large public, land-grant institution located in the southern part of the state. UArizona is also recognized as one of the nation’s top 20 public research institutions. Enrollment numbers for the last 3 years indicate a steady rise in matriculation for both undergraduate (2019 = 35,801, 2020 = 36,503, and 2021 = 38,528) and graduate students (2019 = 10,117, 2020 = 10,429, and 2021 = 10,943). In the same way that student population increases so have the academic offerings. There are over 130 individual colleges, departments and programs currently offering graduate programs in more than 150 areas of study.

UArizona faculty leading graduate training programs do their best to convey the institutional support available to students, including university library support. During admittance prospective graduate students are carefully screened by academic faculty which provides some measure of certainty that candidates possess the intellectual capacity to earn a higher education degree. Faculty make their best determination on who will succeed based on measurable metrics such as GPA or GRE; yet according to faculty, intangible personal characteristics, such as resilience, courage, and the ability to manage high levels of abstraction, are just as critical for success and not as easily assessed during the application process. While the faculty endeavor to ensure that students receive timely program information and support to succeed, irrespective of discipline, graduate faculty indicate facing a significant challenge in how to effectively communicate what it takes to get through graduate education.

Like many research institutions, the University of Arizona Libraries (UAL) have endeavored to develop services and support for graduate students (Covert-Vail and Collard, 2012) and similarly has struggled to connect graduate students to these services (Barton et al., 2002; Gibbs et al., 2012; Kuruppu and Gruber, 2006). Along with the challenges related to connecting graduate students to available services, declining budgets and staff turnover have resulted in multiple library reorganizations which have undoubtedly caused disruption in service to graduate students. The latest reorganization resulted in the creation of two small departments with only a small number of liaisons serving both undergraduate and graduate constituents. This study was undertaken to identify opportunities to develop systematic and sustainable library services for graduate students. It takes a different approach from previous studies in its framing of discussions with academic faculty. The data gathered were used to compile a detailed map of the processes and requirements that make up graduate education at the University of Arizona. In addition, the data were used to explore distinct disciplinary discourse practices that shape graduate students' research identity. This approach to the data helped to identify what faculty perceive as the greatest struggles for graduate students and provide evidence of the key places within the intellectual journeys of graduate students to pinpoint worthwhile areas for librarians to focus their efforts to establish missing support structures. The resulting maps have been designed to be able to be adapted and used by libraries at any institution that offers graduate degrees.

Design and methodology approach

The purpose of this project was:

1. To get a clearer picture of the graduate education experience across disciplines through conducting interviews with well informed individuals in graduate education

2. Identifying patterns within the graduate educational experience

3. Identifying points of need within the graduate educational experience

4. Identifying gaps in current library service offerings based on the data uncovered

Faculty recruitment occurred via email invitations. The main criteria for participation consisted of knowledge of graduate curriculum and requirements as well as experience mentoring graduate students through their graduate training. Twenty-two faculty from a variety of disciplines at UArizona ranging from sciences, social sciences, and humanities agreed to participate in semi-structured one-on-one hour-long interviews. Research suggests that this sample size is suitable for valid themes to arise through saturation (Guest et al., 2006). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed followed by an applied thematic analysis technique (Guest et al., 2012; Vinyard et al., 2017). Two researchers independently engaged in an iterative process of reading the transcripts and generating codes, then met to discuss and come to agreement on the coding. Coding led to themes which provided a deeper dive and clearer picture of graduate education. The qualitative data formed stories, which contextually positioned the graduate student in disciplinary environments, providing specific information about stakeholders, roles, behaviors, and struggles. NVivo (QSR International, 1999), a qualitative data analysis tool, aided in the work.

The research design purposely avoided surveying users about needs as well as querying about library services. Instead, this study utilized journey maps, a practice adopted from user research, which concentrates on placing a lens on a user’s interactions in order to understand the totality of the graduate educational experience (Nielsen Norman Group, 2018). Journey models also served as communication tools to flowchart interactions that students carry out (Figure 1). The construct of these came from extensive liaison experience serving a diverse graduate student base as well as a basic familiarity with academic requirements. The schemas helped faculty visualize the graduate processes such as the written comprehensive journey, scholarly writing journey, and thesis journey and served to gently guide discussion during interviews. The movability of the charts allowed faculty to remove, rearrange, edit, or add missing journeys or activities. This approach allowed the researchers to assemble an enhanced picture of the myriad dealings and experiences of graduate students and helped to crystalize a deeper understanding of the assumed roles by graduates. In addition, this approach clarified the perceived successes and challenges that take place throughout a graduate student's academic training.

Findings

Discussion

Faculty that are well versed in the graduate education enterprise proved extremely valuable in this exercise with journey maps. The journey maps served as a communication mechanism that visually captured the processes common in the graduate educational enterprise and provided a close and holistic view of the graduate student’s activities and helping to expose high and low experiences. Focus on the latter can serve as opportunities to develop support structures that lessen the low points and improve the journey interactions. The benefit of this approach was illuminating because it revealed not only similarities in disciplinary discourse practices and requirements but more importantly the differences. This is one extremely critical point for libraries to consider because it differentiates programs and their needs and services, and shapes decisions for customized versus one-size fits all models. Scalable services are invaluable because they help address staffing and resource shortages but fail when they do not meet or match disciplinary needs. One valuable product that libraries can use to organize services is the mockup of editable final journey maps that will help safeguard against overlooked needs and potential services (Figure 3).

Most journeys appear to overlap and take place simultaneously over multiple years. A graduate students’ busiest workload occurs during years 2–5 because there are up to 3 journeys happening at the very same time. During this period, students are often finishing coursework, working through a TAship, beginning research, and studying for comprehensive examination all at once. These students’ attention and time is very limited, so it is no surprise to learn that there is a lack of awareness of library services. Normally libraries aim to reach graduate students during orientation. Although this is not a bad approach, it is not ideal since students do not tend to utilize research services until later in their journeys. Since there is a high likelihood that students will not remember all of the support that libraries make available to them, orientations may not be the best time to provide graduate students with information on library services. Given the pressures that graduate students face, most are simply thinking about the current or next immediate stage in their journey, not looking months or years down the road. Therefore, it would be wise for libraries to invest time in considering when the appropriate time is to approach graduate students with information and services that support their academic activities within the various intellectual journeys. Generating a timeline for the occurrence of key disciplinary journeys will better prepare librarians to offer assistance at the right time, when students experience most typical hardships in their critical development stages.

Once libraries determine the best time to reach users, appropriate and recognizable language must be used to ensure the uptake of services. Interview data confirmed lack of faculty familiarity with library services such as reference or one-on-one help, information literacy, or data management plans. Libraries often promote services to graduate students through the lens of the research lifecycle, moving forward, it would be advantageous to promote services based on the students’ intellectual journeys, which will have a higher chance of resonating with intended users.

By aligning services to journey points where students struggle, libraries can build missing support structures that will help graduate students successfully navigate their academic disciplines. The identified areas where most students struggle require advanced research literacies and epistemological growth, in other words, they comprise professional skills-based activities where significant development occurs. It is during the first three journeys that the graduate student is under careful evaluation by their committee. These activities and experiences are all new to these students thus requiring that individuals place a lot of trust in the direction and advice given by these mentors. One untapped strategy for libraries would be to directly connect with dissertation committees to promote library services. The scholars that make up the graduate committee rest at the center of critical stages and form the official academic authority with responsibility to assess the knowledge and induct the novice scholar into a discipline. Committees tend to exert more intense scrutiny at the start of the educational journeys and loosen and transfer control to the student through the progression of their training. Each individual dissertation committee holds full authority in how they operate. Not all committees operate similarly, even within a single department, so librarians should explore the practices in their areas.

Along with providing a clear map of disciplinary practices, these models can serve as visual communication and negotiation tools by mentors in their training with graduate students. During the interviews one faculty member immediately noticed the value of this visual tool for both stakeholders, stating,

This is so great. I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot lately because I do interdisciplinary work with colleagues from completely different disciplines and as we think about how we mentor students together, it turns out our students may have really different paths through these programs.

For the student, the maps can provide a useful guide to identify tasks, a tool to calculate and input deadlines, but mostly these maps can empower nascent scholars with topics to bring to their mentors or committees to assess progress, identify barriers, and resolutions that will advance their research.

It is important for librarians to be familiar with graduate student journeys in their disciplines. Though the educational stages are mostly the same, not all disciplines conduct research in the same way. Certain important considerations must be made by librarians prior to the provision and promotion of research services. Thoughtful design, support, and delivery of services are necessary for those disciplines whose disciplinary discourse practices do not produce scholarly works and instead require professional licensure or the passing of a standardized exam. Librarians can use the editable journeys to figure out what support is needed and design services accordingly.

Conclusion

The variability of systemic factors, including the diversity of experiences students bring into and carry throughout their PhD programs, make it difficult to create a single structure that can support all graduate students across their training. Stakeholders in graduate education, in particular potential employers, often voice concern that educational training alone is not enough to adequately prepare students for their future professional roles (Maxwell et al., 2010; Succi and Canovi, 2020). In response, departmental or in rarer instances institutions, often attempt to address that void through professional development offerings (Polson, 1999; Haladay et al., 2007). As often is the case, lack of resources prevents these valuable programs from taking shape and being sustained in a systematic way. Devos et al. (2017) report that the most instrumental factor for graduate students completing their degree was the concept of forward progress. In that way, framing the graduate experience and orienting library graduate support through the lens of disciplinary intellectual journeys achieves a forward moving action-oriented approach that supplements and addresses structural inequities. It does this by leveling off some disparities and providing consequential support at meaningful points in a student’s journey. Journey maps offer librarians a higher vantage point from which to view graduate students’ experiences and develop programs and services that will help support these students along their intellectual paths. Ideally the maps can be used by libraries as a means of establishing a campus wide, sustainable, systematic, and actionable means of identifying and removing barriers across graduate education which will allow students to progress toward successful completion of their degrees while also positively influencing persistence and attainment numbers.