CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

CAPAL’s Research Accelerator:

Building Community through Research Capacity

Agenda

• Program overview
• Session planning
• Building community
• Assessment of participants’ surveys
• Next steps
• Resources for attendees interested in running similar programming for their communities

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Program overview and development

• Prototype in summer 2023:
• 12 weeks of Belcher's Writing Your Journal Article in 12 weeks, adapted to the field of Library and Information Science (LIS)
• Proposed by the Research and Writing Community of Practice (CAPAL)  

​

• Desire to study the program's impacts: reconducting it with Ethics approval to perform surveys and follow an observation protocol

​

• Formalized the program with a participation certificate from CAPAL and developed under CAPAL’s Education and Professional Development Committee

​

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

What is the Research Accelerator program?

​

​

• The Research Accelerator (2025) was a six week program created to support librarians including: graduate LIS students, new LIS researchers, interested library staff in their research projects.

​

• Held virtually over the summer: free, a certificate was offered to participants who were CAPAL members and attended at least five out of the six sessions

​

• Recruitment largely done through CAPAL’s Listserv, emails sent to LIS programs in Canada, and word-of-mouth. (Spring 2025)

�

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Research Accelerator: July – August 2025

• Series of six 1.5-hour workshops over the summer of 2025

​

• Largely adapted from Laura Belcher’s Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success

​

• 35 participants

​

• Pre/mid/post/6 months post surveys to assess research readiness

​

• Discord page to encourage community

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Our summer

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

The participants

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Research Requirements at work

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Research Courses taken during their Studies

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Publication experiences 

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

A portrait

• Have an MLIS
• Research is not an expected part of their current employment
• Have already taken a research course
• Have already published

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

The Accelerator

Weekly content

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Sessions

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Week One:

Welcome to the Research Accelerator

• Demonstrate best practices for effectively giving and receiving feedback
• Brainstorm potential research questions based on own practice, research interests, and/or literature searching.
• Plan and manage writing, research and publishing projects.
• Identify wellness practices and resources.

​

Checking in

Weekly, we had a ‘how are you doing?’ fun scale. There was value in a regular anchor itself, and it informed the facilitators of the group’s mood.

​

Take-home activity

A weekly take-home activity supported in-program learning and manuscript advancement.

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Week Two: 

Designing Research: Setting the Stage for a Successful Research Project

• Compare various journals for suitability
• Identify an appropriate methodology 
• Understand and explain ethical considerations when planning a research project (ethics approvals)
• Evaluate the relevance of using Generative Artificial Intelligence in your research and writing workflow
• Identify and advance an argument

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Week Three: Working on Writing

​

• Discuss approaches to writing literature reviews
• Identify types of scholarly texts used for literature reviews
• Articulate claims for significance
• Create strong introductions, conclusions, abstracts and titles
• Share writing productivity tips

​

Mid-program survey

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Week Four: Developing Evidence and Interpretation 

​

• Discuss different types of data and their applicability to different research projects
• Examine how evidence and interpretation relate to each other; how they each have interdynamic, reciprocal value
• Understand the value of citation justice/ Assess quality and representation of different voices
• Analyze quality, relevance and placement of the evidence
• Discover Belcher’s reviewing methods (colours, symbols) for a visual representation of a manuscript dynamic (strengths, weaknesses, elements to add or delete

​

Writing Discussion session new format introduced - ‘ choose your own adventure/ pick what you need’ after mid-survey.

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Week Five: Strengthening our Structure 

​

• Differentiate between different types of structures in peer-reviewed papers
• Optimize different strategies for editing documents for comprehensiveness and clarity
• Identify a macrostructure for their paper (pre and post draft outlines)
• Write for your audience

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Week Six: Preparing for Publishing 

• Understand key reasons why articles/proposals get rejected
• Optimize work for submission
• Prioritize editorial suggestions to strengthen work
• Identify predatory journals
• Discuss any remaining questions.

​

Six-week end survey

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Fostering Connections

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

During and between sessions

The sessions were held online, on Zoom. Different activities fostered a sense of camaraderie and belonging. (Thompson & Carello, 2022; Pacansky-Brock, 2017)

​

• Ice breakers,
• Padlet (real-time collaborative web platform),
• Zoom whiteboards,
• Zoom chat,
• Zoom breakout rooms.

​

We also used Discord to cultivate relationships between session.

​

We followed the CAPAL Code of Conduct.

​

Between sessions: take-home activities encouraged using Discord and adding to Padlets.

Daily Ice Breakers - How are you today? Scales

Collaborative work with Padlet

Collaborative work with Zoom Whiteboards

Activity example: Where to submit a manuscript?

​

Find an existing LIS journal for these fictional articles with very descriptive titles.

Collaborative work with Zoom Whiteboards

Activity example: Where to submit a manuscript?

​

Results

​

Individual, reflective activities with Zoom Chat

​

​

​

​

For individual,

reflective activities.

​

​

Small group discussion and individual work with Zoom Breakout rooms

Discord

• Channels for introducing oneself, sharing productivity and wellness tips, resources, questions, reflexions.
• Used for accountability, bouncing ideas, sharing feedback in between sessions.
• Channels for working alongside other participants.
• Used for take-away activities.

Fostering connections and building community through discussions and engagement

We fostered both synchronous and asynchronous communication, including both formal and informal opportunities for discussion and engagement.

The lesson plans for sessions were organized in such a way to encourage relationship building among participants through small breakout rooms and group activities. Participants actively replying to each other in the chat allowed for enjoyable and fruitful connections.

These combined pathways for connection provided participants with opportunities to engage at their comfort levels.

​

On social forums and rituals

“Like some of our colleagues, we sometimes designate weekly themes for social forums such as “Pet Week,” “Hobby Week,” or “Favorite Song Week” where students post pictures of their pets, pastimes, and pleasures. Other instructors share weekly puzzles, inspirational quotes, or mindfulness activities. These types of social activities and rituals help humanize students and instructors and help class members develop a sense of community and connection.”

​

• Thompson, P., & Carello, J. (2022). Trauma-informed pedagogies : a guide for responding to crisis and inequality in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92705-9 (p.211)

​

Surveys / Results and Discussion

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Methodology

• Anonymous surveys - participants assigned a code
• Pre-program survey
• Mid-point survey
• Immediate post-sessions survey
• 6-month follow-up survey
• Observation protocol
• General interactions, chat engagement, activity involvement
• Individuals who did not consent to study were not observed
• Approved by UCalgary Research Ethics Board (Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (CFREB)
• Acknowledged by USask Research Ethics Board and by Concordia University’s Human Research Ethics Committee

Participants

• 36 out of 37 registrants consented to be in the study, n=36
• Those who attended 3 or fewer sessions were sent follow-up surveys but removed from post-session analyses

Table showing participant data

Most valuable session(s)

• n=15
• Some participants mentioned 2 sessions
• Comments that “most helpful” session was at point of need

Least valuable session(s)

n=15, 2 gave unrelated comments

• 3 respondents: the sessions they chose were because they were already skilled in that stage (e.g., writing), or personally past that stage of their research process (weeks 1 & 2).
• 2 respondents chose later sessions because they weren’t yet ready for that stage of research

Participants’ reported Skill Level

n=32

n=15

n=15

n=18

Participants’ reported confidence levels

n=32

n=15

n=15

n=18

How have your skills developed or grown?

• Improved their skills overall (9)
• “I feel like I now have a strong base on which to launch my research project”
• A “good refresher” (3)
• Feel motivated to research (3)
• “It's given me a lot of motivation for a new project I am working on”
• Gained confidence (4)
• Benefits of engaging with peers and facilitators (3)
• “I have more confidence after talking and learning with me* peers at different institutions”
• “Sustained engagement” from having a weekly commitment (1)

Knowledge Gaps Post-Program

n=15, many skipped

• Step-by-step information on ethics applications (1)
• More advanced for the advanced researchers (1)
• More support in initial stages of research (1)
• “I wish I would have had more time to discuss/participate in the Discord.” (1)

Publishing Outcomes

Immediate Post-Survey, n = 15

Q: Did you complete a draft during the program?

8 completed a draft

• Including research/grant proposals, a book chapter, an independent study project

7 did not complete a draft

• Some were not actively working on a project, and were attending to learn and acquire resources throughout the program

6-Month Follow Up, n = 18

Q: Have you successfully published/presented something as a direct result of this program?

​

Would you recommend this program to a colleague?

n=15

​

Those who dropped out of program

• Of 6 participants who attended 0-3 sessions, only 1 filled out the pre-survey
• The individual self-identified as “Strongly Agree” for confidence- and skill-level
• 1 participant who attended 0 sessions and did not fill out the pre-survey filled out the 6-month follow-up, but was removed from results

​

Facilitator Observations

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Facilitator Observations: Large Group Interactions�

​

​

• Many kept their cameras off
• Participants were slow to warm-up, but were engaged with the icebreakers
• Active participation in the formal whiteboard/brainstorming activities
• Initially they were less likely to speak up during informal conversation
• i.e. What did you discuss in the breakout room?
• Participants engaged more fully as the weeks progressed
• e.g., during Week 6 presentation on open access, chat was highly active

Facilitator Observations: Breakout Rooms

• Engagement varied across the board
• Some groups had a “leader,” some groups had quiet members, other groups had equal discussion
• Some discomfort from being “watched”
• Suggestion from survey: Have same breakout room groups for each session
• Positive: Less time spent on introductions, “shy” participants might come out of their shells
• Downsides: Prevents meeting new people, hearing new perspectives, loses benefits from repeatedly articulating research interests to people with diverse backgrounds
• Suggestion from survey: Have one-on-one breakout rooms
• Positives: Could help with time constraints, “shyness”
• Downsides: Unengaged participants become more disruptive to the learning of others

Facilitator Observations: Online format

• Keeping a facilitator in the main room during breakout rooms to greet stragglers

​

• Very little opportunity for one-on-one engagement between participants and the facilitators

• Technological issues!

​

Next steps

• For the program: 
• Aim to offer it every two years through CAPAL
• Certification was a good motivator
• Recruitment via the association and students groups 
• Facilitators will likely rotate, planning for tiered onboarding of new facilitators
• Teaching materials will continue to evolve and get better
• For the research: 
• Sharing the results in conferences, article
• Outcomes will shape the next iteration of the program - are you interested in co-facilitating the 2027 iteration? Contact us!

Resources to run A similar program in your community

• Teach this program – access via this Open Science Framework (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0): Power, H., Jones, R., & Gamache, É. (2026, May 25). Library and Information Science Research Accelerator. Retrieved from osf.io/q7xk2 
• The slides (6 weeks)
• Program (for participants, to for an association)
• Promotional material for participants recruitment

​

Are you interested in co-facilitating the 2027 iteration? Contact us!

​

​

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Bibliography

Belcher, W. L. (2019) Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success (2^nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6^th ed.). Sage.

Gamache, E., Power, H. & Jones, R. (2025) Summer of writing: Supporting the research and publishing needs of academic librarians. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 51(3) https://doi-org.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103028

Thompson, P., & Carello, J. (2022). Trauma-informed pedagogies : a guide for responding to crisis and inequality in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92705-9

​

​

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Questions??

Rhiannon Jones: rc.jones@ucalgary.ca

​

Éthel Gamache: ethel.gamache@concordia.ca

​

Helen Power: helen.power@usask.ca

CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0