Slides from a symposium exploring the role and experiences of librarians and learning developers in building communities of practice for researchers.Uses two case studies from De Montfort University (Leicester, UK) onexperiences of building a virtual CoP (wiki-based) and a face-to-face writing group. Symposium was led by Katie Fraser (now University of Leicester), and content contributed by Melanie Petch and Jo Webb (both De Montfort University).

2. Building research student
communities: is there a role
for library and learning
services?

3. Research students at De Montfort
University
• Research students across all faculties
• Increasing numbers
• Mixture of full-time, part-time, home, EU
and international
• ‘6-week rule’ part-time courses
• Institutional audit of research degrees

4. Introduction to library research support
• Library is integrated library and learning development
service (plus e-learning)
• Core activity
– Staffed from within existing resources
– Some Roberts project funding
• Dedicated research student spaces
• Committee membership
– Research Training Sub-Committee
– Higher Degrees Committee
• Mandatory deposit of etheses

5. Library support for research students
• Research Training Programme
– Central provision established 1998
– Mandatory induction
– Literature searching and reference management
(mandatory, pre-transfer)
– Advanced Endnote / reference software (optional)
– Current awareness (optional)
• Institutional audit of research degrees
• Evaluation (e.g. PRES)
• Subject librarian support
• Demand for English language, writing support and
maths and stats

6. Issues about research student use of
the library
• Level of physical use
• Spaces and opportunities for research
students to interact
– No physical Graduate School
• Minority group (when compared to
undergraduates and taught
postgraduates)
• Different needs and expectations?

7. Comparing Practice:
Research Support
• Colleagues with experience of other
universities:
– What research support does your
university offer?
– How does the library fit into this?

8. Communities of Practice
• Learning as apprenticeship (Lave &
Wenger, 1991)
– Community practicising an activity
– Legitimate peripheral participation
– Moving towards more active participation

9. Multiple Communities of Practice
• PGR students can be viewed within
multiple communities:
– of academics
– of professionals
– of disciplinary experts
– of PGR students

10. Comparing Practice: Communities
of Practice
• Colleagues with experience of other
universities:
– Are current PGR student communities:
• Focused on activities?
• Focused on the student experience?
• Disciplinary?
• Other

11. Benefits of Communities of
Practice
• Support for those on periphery
• Allows for situated learning
• Shared developmental experience

12. Difficulties with ‘centralised’
Communities of Practice
• CoPs are emergent, not prescribed
(Schwen & Hara, 2003)
• Students need become ready to engage
(Janson et al., 2004)

13. DMU Experience
• Two Communities of Practice supported
by Department of Library Services
– One face-to-face, focused on writing
activities, looking to move into an online
arena
– One online, focused on the experience of
PGR students

14. Case Study 1: The Writing Group
for Research Students

15. Outline of discussion
 How much impact has the Writing Group for
Research Students had upon the research
community at DMU?
 Can a cross-disciplinary writing group offer
participants legitimate and meaningful
opportunities to develop the practice of academic
language and culture?

16. The rationale
 20% increase in the number of students enrolling
on research degree programmes since 2007
 Significant numbers of research students tapping
into writing and more general academic support
services
 A recent survey to measure the levels of
confidence students have in their writing showed
that 96% identified with one or more writing
‘anxieties’.

17. Aims of the group
 To increase the output of writing
 To improve the quality of writing
 To empower students to become confident and
scholarly writers
 To empower students to become confident and
scholarly readers of their own work and the work of
others

18. The writing group method
 Set monthly writing objectives
 Discuss ‘hot’ writing topics identified by the group
or complete a research-related writing activity
 Complete a peer-review activity which involves
group members discussing work-in-progress

19. The group demographic
 8 regular members (attending two or more
meetings)
 5 out of 8 members are female
 Regular members span four faculties:
 Business and Law 12%
 Humanities 25%
 Health and Life Sciences 38%
 Art and Design 25%

20. Measuring the impact
 Small impact at institutional level involving 1.5% of
the research student body
 Measurable and meaningful impact within the group
itself:
 100% of respondents felt more motivated to write
 100% of respondents felt more confident about the
academic writing conventions at doctoral level
 Social aspects of the writing group seen as being
positive

21. Does the writing group offer
legitimate participation?
 To what extent can an inter-faculty approach work
towards building an effective community of practice?
 How far can the practice of writing unite students in
a community of practice?
 Can a centrally-located community have currency
with a wider academic community?

22. Case study 2: The Research Wiki

23. Format of Wiki
• http://dmuresearcherwiki.wik.is/
• Captures breadth of research student
experience
• Student accounts
• Contribution by comment
• Presented previously by Rush (2009) at
LILAC 2009

24. Experience of Use
• Introduced to students at research
induction
• Small numbers sign up
• Very little use of system
• Why?

25. Feedback from a student
• "I think the strengths of a wiki are that it
is NOT centrally controlled but everyone
can make a direct contribution."
• "The wiki-engine implemented seems to
be very professional... [but] I would
really like... to communicate with my
peer-research-students rather than the
library staff."

26. Does the wiki offer legitimate
peripheral participation?
• To what extent is the software holding
students back?
• Is there information students will share
formally?
• Still a useful resource!

27. Group discussion
• Split into groups
• Pick a case study (ours or personal)
• Discuss the questions on the following
slide

28. Points for discussion
• What could you do to support your
chosen CoP?
• What difficulties / challenges / risks are
associated with your strategy?
• To what extent does your approach
allow legitimate participation?
• What kinds of CoP can libraries
support?

29. Contacts
• Dr Katie Fraser, Information Librarian,
University of Leicester
KCF5@le.ac.uk
• Dr Melanie Petch, Writing Support Lecturer,
De Montfort University
mpetch@dmu.ac.uk
• Jo Webb, Head of Academic Services, De
Montfort University
jwebb@dmu.ac.uk