The Research Lifecycle

and the Future of Research

Libraries:
A Library of Apps
Gabriela Castro Gessner, Erin Eldermire, Neely Tang, and Kornelia Tancheva*

Introduction
Academic libraries have traditionally supported the research lifecycle, a term that describes the cyclical research
process—from idea to implementation to dissemination and back to idea. The role of the library in this process
has typically been concentrated in two aspects of the research lifecycle, specifically, the acquisition of materials
(via purchasing or borrowing agreements), and the search for information (via teaching, reference, or finding
sources to support researchers), often with a special emphasis on teaching students to locate reliable information
sources. Yet, does “search” for information equal “research”?
Stamatoplos1 notes that many academic librarians tend to “equate student research with processes of infor-
mation searching.” Genuine research experiences, he continues, “entail real hands-on experience in research
conception, design, conduct, and dissemination and make inherent contributions to a discipline.” In other
words, research is about much more than finding and evaluating knowledge sources, the traditional focus of
information-literacy initiatives. Research is about asking questions, about synthesizing ideas, and about creative
problem solving. These are the skills of research that are also valued by employers. Clearly, being able to assess
the quality of the information one has on hand is a necessary skill, but this skill alone is insufficient to justify the
existence of today’s academic library. Instead of focusing on this relatively narrow facet of research, academic
libraries should provide services at multiple stages of the research lifecycle. In fact, the research lifecycle ought
to drive the library’s response to the question, “what should we do?”
Vaughan et al.2 parsed out the research lifecycle into five general areas and elaborated on library services that
support those areas, such as the library’s traditional role in finding literature to assist the development of ideas;
learning about grant seeking tools; preparing data managements plans for grant proposals; managing citations
during the process of conducting research; and depositing research output in repositories (table 1).
Although Vaughan et al.,3 involved forty-four librarians in identifying services in relation to the research
lifecycle, their list does not include certain aspects of the research lifecycle that researchers regularly engage in,
such as thinking (what we call brainwork below), note-taking and writing for publication. This comes as no
surprise, as one would be hard pressed to find examples of library services or programs that cater to these less
tangible aspects of the research lifecycle. But why hasn’t the library traditionally been involved in these prac-

* Gabriela Castro Gessner is Research and Assessment Analyst at Cornell University Library, agc24@cornell.edu;
Erin Eldermire is Head, Flower-Sprecher Veterinary Library at Cornell University Library, erb29@cornell.edu; Neely
Tang is Off-Site Public Services Librarian at Cornell University Library, nt243@cornll.edu; Kornelia Tancheva is As-
sociate University Librarian for Research and Learning Services at Cornell University Library, kt18@cornell.edu.

533
534 Gabriela Castro Gessner, Erin Eldermire, Neely Tang, and Kornelia Tancheva

TABLE 1
Stages of the research life cycle and supporting library services
Research Idea Funding Proposal Conducting Disseminating
Lifecycle Stage Development
Library Services Find sources Find funding Prepare data Manage Select journals
sources management citations
plan
Adapted and modified from Vaughan et al., 2013.

tices? Is it because there is no role for the library in these components of the research lifecycle? Or is this an area
that needs exploration?
To address these questions, our team asked researchers at Cornell University, from undergraduates to senior
faculty, to log their activities and whereabouts for a day of research, after which we interviewed them. This paper
describes our findings as they relate to the research lifecycle and proposes a vision for the library of the future
that takes into account current research practices of dedicated researchers.

Project Description
We conducted 21 in-person interviews with “serious researchers” at Cornell University in the spring of 2015. We
defined “serious researchers” as those individuals who were actively engaged in research at the time of the study.
We expected faculty to be engaged in research activities by default; we screened graduate students by asking
whether their own research was underway at the time of the study, and undergraduates had to be involved in
the production of their own honors thesis. Interviewees included nine faculty members, nine graduate students,
and three undergraduate students from Anthropology, Biomedical/Veterinary Sciences, English, Government,
History, Information Science, Latin American Studies, Management, and Natural Resources (table 2).

TABLE 2
Participant researcher distribution
Humanities Social Sciences Sciences Total
Groups M F M F M F  
Faculty (senior) 1 1 1 3
Faculty (junior) 1 1 1 1 2 6
Graduate students 1 2 3 2 1 9
Undergraduate students 2 1 3
Total 2 6 2 5 2 4 21

A team member met with each interviewee for a 15-minute introductory session, during which they ex-
plained the purpose of the study and gave the interviewee a map and a form on which to record their move-
ments and activities for their research day. Follow-up interviews were, in most cases, scheduled the day im-
mediately following the recording day; in a few cases, two days separated the recording day and the interview
day. Two team members conducted each interview, either in the library or another agreed-upon location. The
interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Interview transcripts were coded using a schema that was developed by the research team working with
Nancy Fried Foster, anthropologist with Ithaka S+R. Further details on the process for developing the coding

ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N

 The Research Lifecycle and the Future of Research Libraries 535

schema can be found in Tancheva et al.4 Research activities and allied concepts were categorized into nine codes
as illustrated in table 3 below.
Each transcript was manually coded by two independent coders, and where coding differences occurred,
we agreed to retain rather than discard codes. When coding was complete, we scanned the coded manuscripts
and each member re-read all the transcripts to review or apply assigned codes to ensure consistency and sum-
marized the results.
In the fall of 2016 for the purposes of this paper, we used coding software (MaxQDA 12) to review our pre-
viously assigned codes and re-analyzed the transcripts, tallying code frequencies both in the aggregate and by
participant groups. Since our interests were in exploring research activities beyond those traditionally supported
by libraries, we focused our attention on only five of the original nine codes: academic activities, brainwork,
seeking information, self-management/discipline and technology.

TABLE 3
Thematic codes and related research activities and concepts
Code Name Subcodes, related activities and concepts
Academic activities* • note-taking
• writing (including production, editing, formatting, etc.)
• managing information (including storing and organizing information)
• field- and/or lab-work
Brainwork* • thinking and sensemaking, (understand, translate, figure out, etc.)
Circum-academic • networking (conferences, hall-way conversations, lunches, etc.)
activities • use of social media for academic purposes
Library Resources • Use of library resources online
• Use of library resources physically (in building, books, print, etc.)
Obstacles • interruptions in academic/research work
• problems and their workarounds
Seeking • information seeking for academic purposes
information* • information seeking for non-academic purposes (weather, cooking,
entertainment, etc.)
• reading
Self-discipline / • Tactics employed to manage researchers’ own habits (going
Self-management* paperless, turning devices off, etc.)
Space • Work environment—location, setup, noise, space, etc.
Technology* • presence or absence of
• hardware
• software
Note: * denotes codes discussed in this paper.

Findings and Discussion

The complete findings of the original study are detailed in Tancheva et al.5 The most important , and most per-
tinent to the research cycle and the role of academic libraries in it, among them include the distinction between
research and search, the interrupted and yet continuous nature of research and of search(ing), the ubiquity and
flexibility of technology, and the self-management practices invoked by all researchers to accomplish their work.
In our interviews, we found that research is simultaneously linear, in its overarching goal from idea to
manuscript; and chaotic, as researchers constantly negotiate tasks and move from one activity to another.

MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND

536 Gabriela Castro Gessner, Erin Eldermire, Neely Tang, and Kornelia Tancheva

Our interviews revealed not only that researchers distinguish between search and research, but that they
are constantly engaged in a fluid and non-linear mix of search, research, and marginally related academic
activities.
Adapting Vaughan’s et al.6 model as in table 4 below, the practices of researchers summarized into five
codes can easily be distributed over the entire research lifecycle. This helps to convey the linearity of research
and also where similar activities fit different goals. What is not conveyed is that similar activities, such as
note-taking, for example, enjoy different degrees of intensity or focus depending on the researcher’s goals,
which may explain the idiosyncratic practices and constant task negotiation that researchers referred to in
their interviews.

TABLE 4
Areas of the research life cycle, supporting library services (Vaughan et al.’s stages at top), and
research activities of serious researchers (authors’ codes below gray band)
Research Idea Funding Proposal Conducting Disseminating
Lifecycle Development
Stage
Library Find sources Find Prepare data Manage Select journals Source:
Services funding management citations (Vaughan
sources plan et al)
Codes Research Activities
Academic note-taking note-taking managing note-taking managing Source:
Activities managing managing information managing information this
information information writing information writing research
writing writing
field-/lab-
work
Brainwork (B) B B B B B
Seeking SI SI SI SI SI
Information
(SI)
Self-discipline SD SD SD SD SD
(SD)
Technology T T T T T

In what follows, we detail in depth the five activities gleaned from our participants and aim to unpack the
research process into distinct behavioral practices that may help us develop customizable library services that
support researchers in most, if not all, aspects of the research lifecycle. Although our sample was small and it is
difficult to draw conclusions about differences in the research processes of undergraduate students, graduate stu-
dents, and junior and senior faculty, we did look for variations based on the professional stage our interviewees
were in. Our main focus fell on the overall population, however, and in the aggregate, activity distribution was
highest for academic activities and lowest for brainwork (fig. 1).

Academic Activities
Academic activities refer to the activities in the pursuit of scholarly endeavors related to research and the pro-
duction of knowledge, and not surprisingly, was the most frequently activity described. These activities encom-

ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N

 The Research Lifecycle and the Future of Research Libraries 537

FIGURE 1
Research activities by their frequency from 21 interviews

1200

1000 954 950

777
n (code frequency)

800

600

400 315

200 137

0
Academic Seeking Technology Self-Discipline Brainwork
Activities Information
Research Activities by Code

pass note-taking, writing, managing information and conducting field- or lab-work, and are generally difficult
to extricate from specific research goals since they spill into many aspects of the research process. In the course
of our interviews, participants exemplified these fuzzy lines by talking about academic activities in the course of
engaging in all these tasks, as stated by this faculty member:

…. then I stopped for a little bit, and I read the articles that I had printed. And then I sort of started
to formulate, like, an outline of what I would want to talk about in the presentation. And I kind of
went back and forth between reading the articles and sort of making notes about how I wanted to
structure the lecture. (Junior Faculty, sciences).

Differences in code frequencies among groups are not significant since group size varies between three
and nine participants, but overall, it’s evident that for all four groups (undergraduate, graduate, junior faculty,
senior faculty), managing information and writing were the two activities they engaged in the most (n=316 and
n=259, respectively; table 5). Within groups, senior faculty seem more or less to be balancing both writing and
managing information, while junior faculty spent more time writing than managing information. Graduate stu-
dents, our largest participant group, spent almost equal time writing and taking notes, but occupied more time
in information management activities, as did undergraduates. Differences between groups could be based on
stage in their academic life or in their research goal. It is worth noting that information management activities
go beyond the use of citation software, but include practices that allowed participants to handle information in
various ways, such as choosing not to print articles or saving items in temporary storage for later consumption.
In other words, managing information is broader than traditionally defined for current library services.

MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND

538 Gabriela Castro Gessner, Erin Eldermire, Neely Tang, and Kornelia Tancheva

TABLE 5
Code frequencies for academic activities for all participants
Academic Activities
Group Non- Note-Taking Managing Writing Field-/Lab-
specific Information Work
Faculty (senior) 8 15 44 36 5
Faculty (junior) 30 48 68 96 13
Graduate students 36 97 159 95 12
Undergraduate 58 34 45 32 23
students
Total 132 194 316 259 53
Note: We calculated averages for all code frequencies based on the numbers of participants per group, but the
averages do not significantly change the ratios, except in a few instances and only minimally. For clarity and
continuity we show and discuss frequencies in tables and charts and throughout the paper.

Seeking Information
Although activities deemed as seeking information were categorized separately from other academic activities,
such as writing or managing information, they are an integral component of any academic endeavor as exempli-
fied by the high frequencies for both the academic activities and seeking information categories. Coding these
tasks separately was, in some ways, a library-centric approach, since librarians not only organize knowledge and
provide discovery systems to support scholarly activities, but provide online and physical access to the research
materials used.
The acts or tasks of seeking information included discovery and acquisition of information related to aca-
demic activities, such as finding articles, images, data sets and/or citations in support of research and knowledge
production by way of search engines, library catalogs, databases or experts in a particular field (e.g. in person, via
email or via list serves). An effort was made to distinguish seeking information in the pursuit of academic activi-
ties from those used in non-academic endeavors, such as consulting sources about the weather, shopping, enter-
tainment or food websites. The almost constant activity of checking email or catching up on social media (twitter,
Facebook, Instagram, etc.) was coded as academic or non-academic depending on the context provided by par-
ticipants, such as, for example, whether they utilized twitter or Facebook primarily for academic reasons or not:

…then I open the email, and then I open Safari and then there’s Facebook. So I turn it off and I kept
working just on the hard copy, no distractions until 11:50 when I turn the phone back on because
I wanted to use the thesaurus app to look up different types of words. (Undergraduate student,
humanities)

In specific instances, where it was clear that these information seeking activities were in pursuit of allied
academic activities, such as contacting publishers, organizing conferences or engaging with other scholars, the
activities were coded as circum-academic activities.
Since participants were explicitly asked to pick a day of research for recording research activities, it is not
surprising that seeking information related to academic endeavors (n=469) has a higher frequency than non-
academic (n=368) information seeking behaviors. What may be surprising, however, is that information seeking
for non-academic activities follows closely in code frequency. This underscores a theme that emerged from our

ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N

 The Research Lifecycle and the Future of Research Libraries 539

TABLE 6
Code frequencies for seeking information for all participants
Seeking Information
Group Non-specific Academic Non-Academic
Faculty (senior) 5 71 40
Faculty (junior) 23 104 118
Graduate students 69 220 146
Undergraduate students 16 74 64
Total 113 469 368

interviews that information seeking activities are fluid and researchers engage in finding information on a vari-
ety of things throughout the day, both academic and non-academic, even when it is an intentionally dedicated
research day. In fact, to some degree it helps explain the number of self-monitoring practices that all researchers
tapped into to keep them focused on their intended goals for research (see section under Self-Discipline).

Technology
The use of technology is inescapable and permeates everything researchers do. In our interviews, technology
applied broadly to the use of hardware (phones, computers, tablets, etc.), software (Zotero, GIS, LaTex, etc.),
social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc), online spaces and websites (Library, Google, Pandora, Netflix,
NY Times, etc.), as well as the deliberate use of more traditional technological tools, such as pencils, notebooks,
post-its, planners, etc.
Technology in all its forms is both an enabler and a dis-
TABLE 7
Code frequencies for technology for
rupter. As an enabler in the research process it allows research
all participants to take place outside of library walls and outside of campus—
Group Frequency where research, in essence, becomes portable. Thus the academ-
ic activities of seeking information, note-taking, writing and
Faculty (senior) 68
managing information are literally located all in one space—a
Faculty (junior) 219
connected device—facilitating the ability to multi-task, whether
Graduate students 368
in practice or in theory. In fact, when our interviewees referred
Undergraduate students 122
to multitasking, they often couched it in terms of technological
Total 777 enabling or disruption:

I’m sure that it started on Twitter and then that I like read an article, and then found myself click-
ing on something else, and then all of a sudden it was 12:00, and I was like, Oh. (Junior faculty,
humanities).

Interestingly enough, constant connectivity afforded by technology provides a sense of linearity in the re-
search process since scholars can stop and resume where they left off regardless of where they are located in
space. They can begin searching for an article using a computer at home, bookmark an article via Twitter in their
phones on the bus, and complete the search process on campus by obtaining research materials (articles, books,
images) delivered to their computers or offices. Connectivity and rapid switching between tasks, information,
tools and applications were nearly universal.

MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND

540 Gabriela Castro Gessner, Erin Eldermire, Neely Tang, and Kornelia Tancheva

In terms of writing, multiple interviewees reported favoring specific software because of its formatting or
organizing capabilities (LaTeX and Scrivener, for example), and many mentioned moving away from Microsoft
Word. In spite of the benefits researchers perceive in their personal software choices, these choices sometimes
incur a cost in terms of effort when it comes to reformatting content in order to work with others, as this gradu-
ate student in the humanities explained:

When I’m ready for it to be pretty, I will compile directly from Scrivener into a Rich Text file,
and then convert it to Word, and then do final formatting. […]they say everything plays better if
you compile it for a Rich Text file, and then open the RTF in Word and re-save it as a DOC file.
(Graduate Student, humanities)

Our research found that there is rarely any one application or system that is adequate for the tasks at hand,
for all team members. Instead, researchers often use a combination of multiple systems that they know will
work best for them and/or their collaborators.

Self-Discipline
In an interesting way, technology and self-discipline are intricately connected. We heard ample evidence of the
disruption that technology makes possible simply by being available, to the point where many scholars actively
sought to discipline themselves in the use of technology for non-academic purposes during active research time.
But we also heard how scholars employ technology itself to curb their behavior or help them exercise self-control
and not wander away from academic activities. The need to discipline their focus led to our development of a
code to document those instances of self-management.
The focus on managing activities was not only for the duration of short-term tasks, such as not checking
email while writing or reading an article, but also as a means to help researchers maintain a separation between
their professional and personal lives. The strategies employed varied tremendously depending on need and re-
search objective, as illustrated by the comments below. All researchers engage in practices to direct their focus
to their intended goal, but graduate students seem to employ far more techniques for self-control than other
researchers (table 8).

…notification comes to my Gmail address, which I don’t check during the day because I don’t want
interruptions from my personal life when I’m trying to work (Junior Faculty, social sciences)

I go there into my research space on the sixth floor and I just breathe or write. It’s a very good hid-
ing place and I need hiding places,” (Junior Faculty, humanities)

I have a lot of notebooks, sometimes that’s what gets me inspired to write, to like start writing if I’m
in a slump is to get like a new [LAUGH] a new notebook, or like a new pen, like a nice gel pen or
something. (Graduate Student, humanities)

So I started using that [Kanban—time management tool] at 11:15 when I started my editing task
for my friend at another school and I marked my usual focused chunk as a 25-minute chunk, but
I frequently work over that to finish some task before clicking, yes, I’ll take a break now. (Graduate
Student, humanities)

ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N

 The Research Lifecycle and the Future of Research Libraries 541

TABLE 8 Brainwork
Code frequencies for self-discipline for all One of the most intangible aspects of the scholarly re-
participants search cycle is the act of thinking and reasoning. Much
Group Self-discipline/ of it is assumed, taken for granted, or simply expected
Self-management as part and parcel of being an academic in a research
Faculty (senior) 13 university. But thinking, understanding, making sense,
Faculty (junior) 111 processing, synthesizing and developing new ideas
Graduate students 123 pervades all or most of the research activities in which
Undergraduate students 68 scholars engage. In our analytical coding process we
Total 315 aimed to capture the instances in which scholars men-
tioned or in the course of their conversations conveyed
aspects of thinking, although we recognize that in doing so, we effectively underrepresented this in our analysis.
Nonetheless, by acknowledging its existence and recognizing it as an important activity we may be able to pin-
point areas of potential support not usually considered.
In comparison to all coded segments, brainwork was significantly underrepresented relative to other codes.
All groups talked about thinking in some form or another, but most talked about thinking in relation to seeking
information for academic related activities. This was the case for all groups, except for junior faculty, who ap-
parently talked more about thinking in relation to writing. And unlike other groups, as was mentioned earlier,
junior faculty were the only group that engaged more in writing academic activities than other groups.
Some additional observations about potential dif-
ferences between researchers depending on their ca- TABLE 9
Code frequencies for brainwork for all
reer stage include the fact that in conducting academic
participants
activities, graduate students tend to spend more time
Group Brainwork
managing information, while activities in search of
materials (seeking information), junior faculty appear Faculty (senior) 9
to spend more time than other groups. While the rea- Faculty (junior) 48
sons for these differences would perhaps not be evident Graduate students 57
in our interviews, coupled with the findings of the id- Undergraduate students 23
iosyncratic search process and that of technological Total 137
flexibility, they clearly point to the need to customize
services in support of the research cycle.
Finally, it is worthwhile looking at some of the code frequencies (and their sub-codes) for specific activities
encompassed in thematic codes, not in the aggregate, but separately, as illustrated in fig. 2.
The fact that the three top code frequencies are technology, seeking academic information and seeking non-
academic information dovetails very well with one of our original study’s findings, i.e. the ongoing uninterrupt-
ed flow of seeking information underpinned by technology. While the fact that technology defines the research
process will not come as a surprise, our interviews uncovered that the proliferation of technologies results in
heightened value for personal choices that work for the person, in the particular context, for the particular task
at hand, and the choices vary and are continuously adapted and updated as new technologies appear.
Our interviews found that the uninterrupted flow of seeking information and the entanglement of academic
and non-academic information seeking both contribute to a reality that research is not a discrete process that
can neatly fit in a step-by-step process. On the contrary, research is fluid, constant, and idiosyncratic.

MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND

542 Gabriela Castro Gessner, Erin Eldermire, Neely Tang, and Kornelia Tancheva

FIGURE 2
Total code frequencies for codes and sub-codes from high to low from all participants

900
777
800
700
n (code frequency)

600
500 469

400 368
316 315
300 259
194
200 137
100 53

0
Technology Seeking Acad Seeking non- Managing Info Self-Discipline Writing Note-Taking Brainwork Field/Lab work
Info Acad info

Conclusion
Our project underscored that research begins everywhere. People are connected, both to each other and to the
world around them, in an environment that is growing more dynamic every day. Due to this information ubiq-
uity and constant connectivity, the research life cycle has more ports of entry than it once did. Technological
flexibility and portability allows different aspects of research to be carried out in a variety of media and become
amalgamated into the preferred workflow of each researcher and their desired objective. No less important are
the blurred lines between tools for professional academic needs and administrative tasks and personal life, such
as email, Twitter, and time-management tools, to name a few. How can libraries support these emerging and
evolving research practices?
As librarians, we understand the research lifecycle and we already provide services to support aspects of it,
as outlined by Vaughan et al.,7 but the complexity is in the increasingly idiosyncratic and individual research
processes. Stamatoplos8 proposed that libraries should provide services at multiple points along the research
lifecycle; we agree, and suggest that libraries provide customizable services. Libraries play an important role in
facilitating discovery and access to information. As our interviews underscored, the evolution of technology
has both enhanced and challenged researchers in these two arenas. Our data and analysis support the creation
of a library of apps to meet the challenges of researchers working in an ever-changing digital and technological
environment. We need to help make the information in our library systems usable in our digital world by con-
necting our various resources to the software and hardware that our researchers use to perform their brainwork.
Libraries are in a unique position to advocate for our patrons and negotiate interoperability between end user
technology and our database and information vendors, and should.
Though we cannot make our library catalogs everything to everyone, we can help to customize it to the
needs of the individual researcher by providing them with apps that would make their research process easier.
Researchers spend a lot of time creating workarounds or expending tremendous efforts searching efficiently,
taking notes, and organizing their data. One avenue for this is for researchers to approach library developers
and create applications that would optimize our library systems for the researcher’s work flow or help connect
personal chosen technologies to library systems in a more seamless manner. Such applications could benefit the
researcher by saving time or adding value. Some examples of applications that might be developed would be
mapping and visualization applications applied to personal collections housed within the researcher’s custom-

ACRL 201 7 • AT T H E H E L M: L E A DI N G T RANS FO RMAT IO N

 The Research Lifecycle and the Future of Research Libraries 543

ized catalog experience. These easy to use applications could support brainwork by providing a different view
of the work the researcher has amassed within the library’s customized website. The goal would be to create a
personalized library that would support the researcher’s unique work style and needs. To make customization a
possibility, the library will need to work with vendors to allow more flexible access to their product in a manner
that will not infringe on their aims.
We believe libraries play an essential role in the research lifecycle beyond material acquisitions and search
aid. Our interviews demonstrated the idiosyncratic, interrupted and fluid nature of research, underscoring the
need for a similar solution since one size does not fit all. Though searching for information for both academic
and non-academic materials were the most common activities our researchers performed, it was facilitated and
supported by technology, often in support of the other aspects of the research lifecycle, such as managing infor-
mation, writing, note-taking, brainwork, and field- or lab-work. If research is the currency by which universities
are recognized, do libraries not have a responsibility to support the research process as it relates to our core ac-
tivities? The budget, workforce, and technology investments will be substantial, but our observations provide us
with some guidance on how to effectively direct these investments for the research library of the future.

Notes
1. Stamatoplos, A. “The Role of Academic Libraries in Mentored Undergraduate Research: A Model of Engagement in the Academic
Community.” College & Research Libraries 70, 3 (2009): 236. doi:10.5860/crl.70.3.235
2. Vaughan, K.T.L., B. E. Hayes, R.C. Lerner, K.R. McElfresh, L. Pavlech, D. Romito, L.H. Reeves, and E. N. Morris. “Develop-
ment of the Research Lifecycle model for Library Services.” Journal of Medical Library Association 101, 4 (2013): 312, figure 1.
doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.013
3. Ibid.
4. Tancheva, Kornelia, G. Castro Gessner, N. Tang, E. Eldermire, H. Furnas, D. Branchini, and G. Steinhart, “A Day in the Life of a
(Serious) Researcher. Envisioning the Future of the Research Library,” Ithaka S+R, (March 8, 2016), http://www.sr.ithaka.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/SR_Report_Day_in_the_Life_Researcher030816.pdf
5. Ibid.
6. Vaughan et al.
7. Ibid.
8. Stamatoplos

MARCH 22–25 , 201 7 • B ALT IMO RE , MARYLAND