Institutional Capacity Protocol Innovation

Laura Bush 21^st Century Librarians Grant Program

Telephone Interview Protocol

Institutional Capacity Programs: Non-Diversity Theme

Instructions to Interviewer

One workday prior to telephone interview, send a reminder confirmation email to the respondent.

Prior to the interview, read archival data for this grant project to identify and become familiar with what is known about it. This interview builds on data obtained from archival documents. Information that is known from archival data will not be sought again in this interview, unless clarification is requested in the text of the protocol.

Prior to the interview, plan and tailor the interview protocol to satisfy remaining information needs. Review the tailored protocol and mentally rehearse its execution. Consult the case selection matrix document and consider identified “unique aspects” and “additional considerations” to shape the interview.

This telephone interview protocol is a guideline for discussion, not a script for recitation. Keep the intent of the study and of the research questions in mind as you use probes to delve further into a particular topic for clarification or richness.

Keep track of time, and pace questions to end the interview on time. Sometimes interviewees will not have a lot to say in response to a particular question. Do not spend excessive time probing for an answer. Move on when you are confident that the provided answer is sufficient and complete.

Introduction (5 minutes)

Hello, this is <<NAME>> from ICF International calling on behalf of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. Is this <<NAME OF POC WITH WHOM THE INTERVIEW WAS COORDINATED>>?

We are interviewing recipients of grants from the Institute’s Laura Bush 21^st Century Librarians grant program (LB21 for short). The interviews are designed to learn more about grant recipients’ experiences with the LB21 grant program. I understand that your department received a Master’s Program Grant in <<YEAR>>. Is this correct?

I’d like to verify that you are the primary point-of-contact for your organization’s LB21 grant project that began in <<INSERT YEAR>>. Are you knowledgeable about the grant project that your organization completed with LB21 funds?

• [IF YES: CONTINUE INTERVIEW.]

• [IF YES, BUT NOT A GOOD TIME: SCHEDULE A CALL BACK INCLUDING DATE, TIME, AND PHONE NUMBER TO USE.]

• [IF NO: OBTAIN CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE GRANT PROJECT’S MAIN POINT OF CONTACT.]

Let me briefly review some administrative information and the Privacy Act Notification.

(Statutory Authority)

IMLS is authorized to collect this information under the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010.

(Purpose and Use)

As I mentioned in my initial email contact with you, the purpose of this interview is to better understand the ways in which the projects funded by LB21 grants pursued their goals and to learn more about the outcomes of the grant-funded projects. In particular, we want to learn what project methods, components, and features were used and how effective they were in helping to achieve the goals of the project. We would also like to learn about the lasting effects of the project, including project elements or curricular changes that persisted after the grant ended, changes to policy or practice, and effects on participants. The study we are conducting will help inform the awards made to future grantees and help ensure that the LB21 grant program continues to be effective in supporting and developing the field of Library and Information Science.

(Length of the Study)

The interview will take about one hour to complete. Is now still a good time to talk?

(Voluntary participation / Privacy act)

Your participation is strictly voluntary, and you may choose to end the interview at any point. Information gathered during this interview will be reported using a blended case-study format. That is, we will combine the information that you provide with information obtained from interviews with grant recipients that had similar project goals. Although we will avoid using the names of specific institutions and individuals, it may be possible for institutions or individuals to be identified from other project information that is reported. Of course, the purpose of this IMLS evaluation is to improve the grant program moving forward, by gathering information from all grantees included in this study. The goal is not to pinpoint particular weaknesses of your particular grant. In addition, none of your responses today will affect review of your current or future funding.

The OMB Control Number for this study is: XXXX-XXXX. The collection expires MONTH ##, 20XX.

Verification Questions:

Do you understand that your participation is voluntary? [Yes/No]

Do you understand that while we will make every effort to protect the identity of the program and will only report data in the aggregate, there may be combinations of data that will uniquely identify you to other institutions or individuals? [Yes/No]

Do you have any questions about this? [Yes/No]

Do you consent to continue with the interview? [Yes/No]

[INTERVIEWER AND TRANSCRIBER: Record responses to each question]

Thank you for agreeing to talk with me today.

In preparing for this interview, I have reviewed your grant report that was most recently submitted to IMLS.

USE OF FUNDING (15-20 minutes)

1. In your report, we interpret that your goals for initially pursuing the LB21 grant were <<enter goals>>.  Is this correct? 

• [IF YES]  Were there any additional goals you had in mind when pursuing the LB21 grant?

• [IF NO]  What were the goals you had in mind for your program when you initially pursued the LB21 grant?

2. Your final grant report mentioned that you used grant funds for <<enter funded elements identified in archival data>>. In what other ways did your program use the funding you received for this project? [Map to Research Questions 1-1, 1-2, 2-6]

• [construct list OF PROGRAM ELEMENTS, ENHANCEMENTS, ETC. from diversity section, archival DATA verification, and newly reported elements]

• priorizie list using previously idenitfied “unique aspects” and “additional considerations”

• examine each using question 5 AND ITS PROBES]

PRIMERS:

• Some examples might be: instructional resources, classroom activities, mentoring, internships, sponsored professional conference attendance, special student projects, scholarship programs, library partnership, training programs.

3. Was <<list element>> a new program element or was this an enhancement to an existing program? [Map to Research Question 1-2]

FOLLOW UP:

[IF NEW PROGRAM ELEMENT, ASK, THEN GO TO “FOR ALL” SECTION]

• Was <<list new element>> new just to your institution or was it new to the entire LIS field? [Map to Research Question 1-2]

• [IF NEW TO LIS FIELD] How do you think this has affected the LIS field so far?

• How do you anticipate it will affect the field in the near future?

[FOR ALL]

• Was <<list element/enhancement>> established within your institution or designed for implementation elsewhere? [Map to Resesarch Question 1-2]

• How was this conceived? For example, was it based on research evidence, personal or institutional experience? [Map to Research Question 1-2]

• Was this something the department had wanted to offer in the past but had been unable to offer due to budget constraints?

• How effective do you think <<list element/enhancement>> was? [Map to Research Question 2-6]

  • Why do you think it was effective? [OR] Why do you think it was not effective?

• How did you determine the effectiveness of this element/enhancement?

• Do you believe that <<list element/enhancement>> had a substantial effect on your program? [Map to Research Question 4-1]

  • Did it have a lasting effect on the curriculum (an effect that lasted after the grant was over)? [Map to Research Question 4-1]

    • [IF YES] How was the curriculum affected? [Map to Research Question 4-2]

  • Did it have a lasting effect on any administrative policies (an effect that lasted after the grant was over)? [Map to Research Question 4-1]

    • [IF YES] How were these policies affected? [Map to Research Question 4-2]

SUSTAINABILITY OF PROGRAMS (10-15 minutes)

4. Did the project as a whole, or any elements or enhancements created under the project, continue after the LB21 funds were expended? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

FOLLOW UP:

• [IF YES] How long did the project as a whole continue after the LB21 funds were expended? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

• [IF THE PROJECT DID NOT CONTINUE AS A WHOLE] How long did any of the elements or enhancements continue? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

5. We’ve talked about <<list all elements and enhancements>>. Were any of the features we have discussed today eliminated after the LB21 grant funds were expended and the grant was over? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

• Why were they eliminated?

6. Were any of these features sustained after the LB21 grant funds were expended and the grant was over? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

7. Which of these features were sustained after the LB21 grant funds were expended and the grant was over? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

FOLLOW UP:

• [IF THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE IS NAMED] Why do you believe that the project was sustained? [Map to Research Questions 3-1, 3-2]

• [FOR EACH ELEMENT OR ENHANCEMENT NAMED] Why do you believe that <<list element/enhancement>> was sustained?

• How was this element/enhancement sustained? [Map to Research Question 3-3]

  • [PRIMERS IF NEEDED] For example resources, partnerships, collaborations, internal or external funding.

  • How was the <<list resource, partnership, collaboration, or funding source>> obtained? [Map to Research Question 3-3]

    

    STUDENT OUTCOMES (10-15 minutes)

8. Has the use of LB21 grant funds affected enrollments of master’s and/or doctoral students in the LIS programs at your institution? [Map to Research Questions 5-1, 5-2]

FOLLOW UP:

• [IF YES] What has been the magnitude and nature of this influence?

• Has it affected the ability of master’s and/or doctoral students to remain enrolled in the LIS programs? [Map to Research Questions 5-1, 5-2]

• [IF YES] What has been the magnitude and nature of this influence?

9. Did your institutional capacity project address effective ways to track LB21 program participants over time? [Map to Research Question 8-1]

FOLLOW UP:

• What were your findings? [Map to Research Questions 8-1, 8-2]

• Were any new methods of tracking participants developed, or did you focus on testing existing methods?

• [IF NEW METHODS WERE DEVELOPED] How did you conceive of these methods?

• [IF NOT ALREADY MENTIONED] How effective were they?

• [IF NOT ALREADY MENTIONED] Based on your research, what is the state of the art in terms of administrative data collection for tracking LB21 program participants? [Map to Research Questions 8-2]

FINAL COMMENTS (5 minutes)

10. Those are all of the specific questions that I have for you. Are there any additional comments about the LB21 program you would like to share?

Closing Text:

Those are all of the questions that I have for you today. Thank you for taking the time to share your opinions and experiences with us.  Your thoughts are very valuable to our efforts to inform the Laura Bush 21^st Century Librarians Grant Program on these matters. If you would like more information or if you have any questions about this research, please contact XXX at ICF or YYY at IMLS. This contact information was also listed on the consent document we provided in the confirmation email. Once all interviews have been completed, you will receive a copy of the final report. It will be sent to the email we have on file for you.

OMB Control No.

Expiration Date: Page 1