The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

Information culture and academic empowerment: Developing a collective

mindfulness strategy for embedded librarianship
Marek Deja *, Magdalena Wójcik
Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Management and Social Communication, Institute of Information Studies, Łojasiewicza 4, 30-348 Kraków, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Librarians have changed their attitude towards their role in the academic community. Instead of acting solely as
Information culture mediators between information resources and the scientific community, they have become active members of
Collective mindfulness research projects and create innovation through information management, including through active participa­
Embedded librarianship
tion in the information culture of Research & Development projects. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate
Knowledge creation
Academic empowerment
the relation between information culture and conditions for work effectiveness in academic empowerment in
Innovation such projects. Our research framework describes the technique of diagnosing information culture and empow­
Structural empowerment erment in an academic environment which might be a support for librarians to achieve collective mindfulness in
Psychological empowerment project groups. Based on public data from the Integrated Information System on Science and Higher Education in
Research and development Poland “POL-on” we have narrowed the selection criteria for the R&D projects and conducted a survey. Our
findings describe information culture as a part of the academic empowerment framework, which we then discuss
in the context of the development of the collective mindfulness strategy that librarians can use to acculturate in
new R&D faculty teams to effectively support innovation. The innovation-oriented and pro-active information
culture is often balanced by striving for control in the project environment and that academics aim to reduce
uncertainty and risk – a common goal in collective mindfulness in innovation development. Embedded librarians
may use proposed measures of academic empowerment in R&D projects to collectively reflect on their roles and
to adjust their activities as silent mechanisms for achieving collective mindfulness.

Introduction
The role of the academic librarian has changed over the years along
with the development of science and education itself – starting out as a
collection guardian, moving on to a mediator between resources and
users, and ending up as an involved, full-fledged and necessary member
of the research team (Boom, 2017). The term “embedded librarian” (EL)
has been used in the literature to describe a member of the academic
community who is a professional information expert with knowledge of
the problems, needs and work environment of a specific group of users.
The main role of an embedded librarian as a member of the academic
community is to facilitate the process of effective information manage­
ment. As S. Nagarkar and D. Murari pointed out: “Instead of sitting in the
library, embedded librarians work outside the library in a group of other
domain experts. As a co-worker, they understand the information needs
of other group members and try to solve these needs immediately”
(Nagarkar & Murari, 2010, p. 375). Embedded librarians who wish to
work effectively with the academic community might then benefit from
learning about the information culture (IC) of the environment that they
want to support. Information culture is understood as the norms of in­
formation behaviours towards information management in workgroups
and organisations that facilitate conditions for effective information use
and knowledge creation (Abrahamson & Goodman-Delahunty, 2013;
Wright, 2013).
The information culture might influence the empowerment of aca­
demic staff as it influences the effective creation of new knowledge in
R&D projects. Thus, a link arises between the acculturation of embedded
librarians and the awareness of information culture in research groups.
Both issues – information culture and embedded librarianship – have
already been analysed in the subject literature, but there is lack of
publications that would combine both concepts and answer this ques­
tion: how can embedded academic librarians use the information culture
models in their work within the scientific community to better attend
users’ need? This diagnosed gap in the literature should be bridged.
Therefore, this article has the following purpose: to explore the useful­
ness of the 4R information culture model (Choo, 2013) in planning the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marek.deja@uj.edu.pl (M. Deja), magda.wojcik@uj.edu.pl (M. Wójcik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102276
Received 30 June 2020; Received in revised form 22 September 2020; Accepted 20 October 2020
Available online 10 November 2020
0099-1333/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
work strategy of an embedded librarian for supporting the process of
innovation in Research and Development (R&D) projects. This model
describes the information culture as a set of behaviours ensuring the
overall effectiveness of the organisation, and in the interpretation of this
model by Vick et al. (2015) it describes information behaviour in the
effective creation of new knowledge in R&D projects as those that
represent an innovation-oriented academic environment. However,
examining the direct relationship between information culture and
embedded librarianship is not possible without a proper framework that
would confirm that information culture influences academic empower­
ment. Our research goal is to first show the relation of information
culture and the psychological and structural empowerment of academic
staff (three-dimensional framework of academic empowerment) in
project groups creating innovative outcomes and new knowledge. Sec­
ondly, bearing in mind the results of our study, we combined the diag­
nosed areas of the influence of information culture on the academic
empowerment with the roles of embedded librarians in a conceptual
framework of creating collective mindfulness in R&D projects.
Information culture
Information culture is a broad, difficult concept to define and has
been discussed in the field of library and information science, as well as
other disciplines, such as psychology or management sciences, yet
different definitions, approaches and models of this concept are func­
tioning in tandem. While this multitude of approaches enriches scientific
research on the one hand, it does not facilitate systematic analysis on the
other. In this paper, the authors based their considerations on the 4R
model (Choo, 2013) in the interpretation of Vick et al. (2015). According
to Chun Wei Choo, two main dimensions that differentiate information
culture can be distinguished: Information Values and Norms and Infor­
mation behaviour. As Choo pointed out: “The Information Values and
Norms dimension differentiates between norms that emphasize infor­
mation control and integrity, and those that emphasize information
sharing and proactiveness” (…), while: “The Information Behaviours
dimension differentiates between behaviours that emphasize informa­
tion seeking and use about the environment the organization operates in
(external focus) and behaviours that emphasize information seeking
about the organization’s people and operations (internal focus)” (2013,
p. 776). These two dimensions intersect to form four basic types of
organisational culture: Result-oriented; Rule-following; Relationship-
based and Risk-taking (Choo, 2013).
In short, in a result-oriented culture, the goal of information man­
agement is to increase competitive advantage and the efficiency of op­
erations; external information is important, as is activity control. In a
rule-following culture, the purpose of information management is to
strengthen internal norms and regulations; process control and emphasis
on internal information are important. The purpose of information
management in a relationship-based culture is to strengthen communi­
cation and interaction, which is why sharing information is particularly
valued, as is the focus on internal information flowing from the orga­
nisation and its members. In a risk-taking culture, the purpose of in­
formation management is to support creativity and innovation, which is
why sharing information and proactivity are important, as is focusing on
external information that can bring new value.
In the interpretation of Choo’s theory by Vick et al. (2015) regarding
information culture in academic projects, the authors highlighted the
impact of information culture on knowledge creation processes based on
empirical research. Studies conducted on a group of twelve innovative
research teams operating at universities showed a strong relationship
between the university’s information culture and the information cul­
ture of the teams associated with it. Research has also shown that the
most popular types of information culture in the study group are rule-
following culture and risk-taking cultures, which in the context of
knowledge creation are related to the combination of knowledge process
and externalisation of knowledge (Vick et al., 2015). They created a set
2
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
of twenty information behaviours, which describe four types of infor­
mation culture from the 4R model in R&D projects depending on four
knowledge transformation processes from SECI model (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). We used descriptions of these behaviours in the
questionnaire to check whether such a model is useful in a country other
than Brazil and if it is, to what extent and what type of information
culture the academic staff represent in R&D projects.
The information culture of the organisation is an important factor in
knowledge creation processes and can add significant value to teamwork
projects. The ability to diagnose information culture and the awareness
of its relationship with other processes can therefore be extremely
important from the librarians’ point of view. Librarians who want to
effectively cooperate with the academic community and be an integral
part of it should first learn about the information culture of the envi­
ronment they wish to contribute to.
Academic empowerment and knowledge creation
The empowerment concept is discussed in the scientific literature
from the perspective of many disciplines and in different contexts. In
this paper, the authors focus on two dimensions: psychological and
structural, based on well-known and widely cited classic works in these
fields, namely the psychological empowerment model by Gretchen
Spreitzer (1995, 2007) and the structural empowerment model by
Heather Laschinger et al. (2004); Laschinger et al. (2016). According to
Spreitzer: “psychological empowerment is defined as a motivational
construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning, competence, self-
determination, and impact” (1995, p. 1444). The author pointed out
that empowerment means an active attitude in which employees feel
that they influence shaping their work environment and specifying
their role in it (Spreitzer, 1995).
In the research by Laschinger et al., the authors highlighted the
relationship between psychological and structural empowerment and
the perception of both these phenomena by employees and the level of
their job satisfaction and commitment (2004, 2016). As the authors
stated, “Changes in perceived structural empowerment had direct effects
on changes in psychological empowerment and job satisfaction. Changes
in psychological empowerment did not explain additional variance in
job satisfaction beyond that explained by structural empowerment. The
results suggest that fostering environments that enhance perceptions of
empowerment can have enduring positive effects on employees”
(Laschinger et al., 2004, p. 527).
Access to information may be related to work motivation and a sense
of empowerment. Both concepts highlighted the role of access to in­
formation as a factor in creating empowerment in the workplace. It can
be assumed that similar regularities can take place in the academic
environment – access to information, knowledge creation processes and
the shaped model of information culture may be related to empower­
ment. This hypothesis is supported by studies conducted on a group of
Spanish researchers. The authors, based on Kanter’s theory of structural
empowerment, conducted empirical research, which showed, among
others, that access to resources and opportunities, including informa­
tion, is important for building empowerment and job satisfaction
(Orgambídez-Ramos & Borrego-Alés, 2014). According to Kanter’s
theory in the interpretation of Orgambídez-Ramos & Borrego-Alés,
employees feel motivation to carry out tasks, the state referred to as
“power on”, in a situation when they: “(...) have access to lines of in­
formation, support, resources, and opportunities to learn and grow”
(2014, p. 29). For this paper, it was assumed that the information culture
can affect the empowerment of academic staff and influence effective
innovation and new knowledge by setting up different norms of
collaborative information behaviour that are considerate effective and
empowering for academics. To verify this hypothesis, an empirical
study was conducted.
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
Collective mindfulness in the context of embedded librarianship
To understand the role of collective mindfulness in the context of
embedded librarianship, it is necessary to first discuss the concept of
embedded librarianship in detail. Embedded librarianship is not a new
idea but has recently gained importance in the context of changes taking
place in the scientific community. It is worth noting that the term
“embedded librarianship” is used in many contexts. This paper focuses
on embedded librarians working in academia on research projects. The
authors believe that information culture and academic empowerment
issues discussed in this paper may be useful to a varying degree in
general librarianship work. As Blake et al. stated: “Embedded librari­
anship is a service model that moves librarians physically away from the
library building and places them where patrons work. ‘Embedded’ can
mean physical space within a school, academic department, or research
group, or librarians may be virtually embedded in online courses”
(Blake et al., 2016, p. 226).
A systematic analysis of the literature conducted by A. Abrizah, S.
Inuwa and N. Afiqah-Izzati showed that embedded librarianship as a
research topic is present and important in the scientific discourse. The
conclusions of the analysis show the complexity and multi-faceted na­
ture of the role of embedded librarian in the modern scientific, educa­
tional and professional environment (Abrizah et al., 2016). The most
important part of embedded librarianship is the idea of librarians being
close to users and having a thorough understanding of patrons needs,
problems and the environment in which they operate.
Wu and Mi (2013) in their embedded librarianship framework for
Health Sciences Librarians described the roles of librarians range from
service and resource provider, through collaborator and team member,
to research collaborator and educator (Wu & Mi, 2013). Librarians can
be deeply involved in collaborative information behaviour of the project
group. Their adaptation to the cultural conditions will therefore require
not only the awareness of information culture but also using methods of
acculturation, which are reflected in the idea of collective mindfulness.
In the subject literature, it is emphasised that to be able to successfully
fulfil their tasks, embedded librarians must have a proactive attitude, as
well as a variety of skills, not only professional, related to obtaining
information, but above all to personal and social competences, including
the ability – that may also be described as mindfulness – to closely watch
the environment in which librarians work and in which they participate.
A. Khan, A. L. Lederer and D. A. Mirchandani pointed out that “mind­
fulness refers to a flexible mental state of highly focused attentiveness. It
means openness to novelty, alertness to distinction, sensitivity to
different contexts, awareness of multiple perspectives, and orientation
in the present” (Khan, Lederer, & Mirchandani, 2013, p. 97). As E. B.
Swanson and N. C Ramiller emphasised, the idea of mindfulness is not
reserved for the individual but also shifts to the organisations (Swanson
& Ramiller, 2004, p. 555). In this context, collective mindfulness means
the group’s ability to notice, correctly analyse and interpret cues and act
accordingly to the diagnosed situation. This ability is particularly
important in environments that which can be described as “highly
complex and time sensitive” (Aanestad & Jensen, 2016, p. 15).
Given the dynamic, multidimensional development of the scientific
ecosystem, the avalanche growth of publications and pressure on the
effectiveness of scientific work, it seems that the academic environment
can be described in this way. Embedded librarians, who need to thor­
oughly understand the environment in which they operate, including
information culture (IC), must have well-developed collective mindful­
ness skills (CM), but to do so, they need to know what empowers aca­
demics in such a collective body of work. Studying the impact of
embedded librarianship on collective mindfulness is not the subject of
this paper, but it is an essential part of the interpretation of our results in
the context of practical implementation of our framework. Therefore, a
further examination should be taken by practitioners as an implication
of our research.
This paper aims to answer the following research questions:
3
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
1) What kind of information behaviour of academic staff indicates the
presence of a pro-innovative information culture that might support
academic empowerment in R&D projects?
2) How does the concept of information culture of the academic par­
ticipants in R&D projects fit into the scope of academic
empowerment?
3) What is the relation between structural empowerment, psychological
empowerment and information culture in innovative R&D projects?
4) How can the concept of information culture be used by librarians to
get more involved in the academic community as embedded
librarians?
5) How to include information culture diagnosis into a collective
mindfulness strategy to empower academics in R&D projects?
Method
The data collection methods used in this study was a questionnaire
survey. The Web-based survey questionnaire (Appendix), developed in
the MS Office 365 Forms platform, consisted of forty-eight closed
questions and required approximately twenty minutes to complete. In­
dividuals reported the degree to which each assertion applied to them on
a seven-point Likert scale (7 –strongly agree; 1 –strongly disagree).
The questionnaire consisted of three sections on:
1) Information culture – twenty questions divided into five dimensions
of Choo’s 4R model: the primary goal of information management
[PGIM]; information values and norms [IVN]; information behav­
iours in terms of information needs [IBN], information seeking [IS],
and information use [IU], one question for each type of the culture:
Result-oriented [RO]; Rule-following [RF]; Relationship-based [RB]
and Risk-taking [RT] (Choo, 2013; Vick et al., 2015)
2) Psychological empowerment – twelve questions divided into four
dimensions in Spreitzer’s model Meaning [MEA], Competence
[COM], Self-Determination [SEL], Impact [IMP] (Spreitzer, 1995)
3) Structural empowerment – twelve questions split into four di­
mensions of Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire (Op­
portunity [OPP], Information [INF], Support [SUP], Resources
[RES]) (Laschinger et al., 2004, 2016).
Structural empowerment is treated as an independent variable
because for the respondents the conditions of work effectiveness (CWE)
– a crucial part of structural empowerment – are an aspect of their work
that they can assess regarding its frequency of occurrence rather than
acceptance per se (Laschinger et al., 2004, p. 538; Laschinger et al.,
2016, p. 352). It is more of a macro perspective on the social-cultural
conditions or context that might enable empowerment and effective
behaviour in the workplace (Spreitzer, 2007). Academic staff may refer
to the acceptance of certain behaviour in their information culture or
the mental state regarding their work as psychological empowerment,
but in the case of structural empowerment, they are subject to partic­
ular CWE as a set of empowering structures or policies (Eylon &
Bamberger, 2000, p. 356). The academic empowerment framework
(Fig. 1) is based on a synergistic relationship of information culture
(behaviours), psychological empowerment (cognitions) and structural
empowerment (conditions).
This research aims to explore four types of information culture based
on five attributes of information culture in Choo’s 4R model (Fig. 1) and
the relations of this model to the empowerment factors in the self-
reported academic empowerment framework (Fig. 1).
We first verified whether the information behaviours described by
Vick et al. (2015) in the 4R Choo (2013) model (Appendix) reflect the
actual state of information culture in R&D projects in Polish science.
Next, we checked whether there was a relationship between the condi­
tions for work effectiveness of structural empowerment and the infor­
mation culture indicating the interdependence of these two concepts.
Finally, we checked whether the information culture can also affect
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of academic empowerment.
psychological empowerment and whether these three domains of aca­
demic empowerment can be considered together as one coherent
research framework for the embedded librarianship roles in creating a
collective mindfulness strategy. All information behaviours and ques­
tions regarding empowerment were included in a survey, whose full list
of items is included in the Appendix.
Data collection
Based on public data from the Integrated Information System on
Science and Higher Education in Poland “POL-on” (https://polon.
nauka.gov.pl/polon/) we narrowed the selection criteria for the R&D
projects conducted down to the six areas of the GBARD classification
that employ more than four researchers and have a budget of over
500,000 PLN (around 120,000 USD). These criteria indicate that these
projects should be implemented in permanent organisational structures
for a minimum period of 12 months. The studied project groups were
classified into six categories in two main areas compliant with Frascati
Manual 2015 (OECD, 2015, p. 335): 12. General advancement of
knowledge: R&D financed from general university funds (GUF), 13.
General advancement of knowledge: R&D financed from sources other
than GUF. Our selection criteria address these groups of projects as being
the most focused on creating innovation and implementation of new
knowledge, which was also the goal of information behaviour noted by
Vick et al. (2015).
The data collection procedure was carried out by sending invitations
to participate in the survey to 1051 project managers with the research
profile specified above (Table 1). The project managers were asked to
send a survey to key research staff. A questionnaire was then forwarded
to research staff that met the following criteria: scientific and research
employees, including doctoral students (employed in the project), who
actively participate in research work and achieve the project’s objec­
tives, and who are not administrative employees. In total 93 research
teams joined the study, with 731 valid responses obtained.
Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS) version 26 was
used for data analysis. Statistical significance p was measured at above
the 0.05 and 0.01 levels. The conducted reliability tests for the whole
and each part of the questionnaire demonstrated high Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients – α = 0.918 for the entire questionnaire, and from 0.772 to
0.899 for each of its three sections representing the three academic
4
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
empowerment domains. The same exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
procedure was carried out for each section of the questionnaire, 1) to
check whether the models show the original structure of the factors, and
2) to next perform a correlation analysis of rotated factors and adjust the
linear regression model representing the relations of the information
culture and psychological empowerment variables to structural
empowerment as a set of independent variables in our model. The
number of factors to be retained was determined by using a two-step
analysis. Firstly, we followed the factor selection criterion with an
eigenvalue of greater than one. Secondly, we applied a scree plot test, in
which it was possible to select factors on the steep part of the eigenvalue
plot. The factors were extracted using a principal components analysis
(PCA) with Varimax rotation.
Results/findings
Tables 2, 5 and 8 show the results of the exploratory factor analysis
(PCA with Varimax rotation) for all three main domains of academic
empowerment (IC, PE, SE). Only factor loadings above 0.60 were
included. Loadings below this threshold indicate a small impact of
variables on a given factor, which could then translate into distorted
results regarding the correlation of these factors with other elements of
the academic empowerment model.
Based on the above criteria, not all information behaviours derived
from the 4R model describing the four types of information culture were
included in the academic empowerment framework. In contrast, the
structural empowerment and psychological empowerment models
maintained their original structure in the analysis. To answer the first
research question (“What kind of information behaviour of academic staff
indicates a presence of a pro-innovative information culture that might sup­
port academic empowerment in R&D projects?”) the following table of
rotated factors presents a new interpretation of information culture in
R&D projects as those that represent an innovation-oriented academic
environment (Table 2). This set of information behaviours has the po­
tential to influence collective mindfulness and innovation in R&D pro­
jects along with other factors of academic empowerment in the
presented model.
Innovation-oriented information culture
The results of information culture diagnosis in R&D projects reveal
five new components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted
for 64.59% of the common variance (Table 2). Those components are:
M. Deja and M. Wójcik The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276

Table 1 Table 2
Sample profile (N = 731) Information culture factor analysis (rotated component matrix and grouped
N %
variables)
Categories Factors and items* (α = 0.872) Factor
Gender
loading
Female 312 43%
Male 396 54% Revaluation of information sources (α = 0.723) Factor 1
I’d rather to not say 23 3% RO4 The team seeks external information about market 0.805
research in every sprint for a new product.
Age
RT4 Groups seek information about the partner company for 0.764
18–24 10 1%
evaluation and proposal of new ideas.
25–34 221 30%
RF5 Registration of internal weekly meetings for retrieval 0.677
35–44 298 41%
and future use.
45–54 127 17%
Innovation scrutiny (α = 0.809) Factor 2
55–64 59 8%
RT5 Patent databases are used to identify new opportunities 0.848
65+ 16 2%
for innovation.
Academic and work-related degree RB5 Information use is guided by group discussions about 0.830
Licentiate’s Diploma 10 1% surveys in scientific databases.
Engineer’s degree 16 2% Knowledge alteration (α = 0.683) Factor 3
Master’s Diploma 90 12% RT2 New results are re-examined to eliminate 0.778
Master’s and Engineer’s degree 55 8% contradictions.
PhD 178 24% RT1 Team members are involved in managing information 0.683
PhD with Engineer’s degree 101 14% related to the intellectual property of the project, to
Assistant Professor 120 16% generate a patent application.
Assistant Professor with Engineer’s degree 7 1% Performance information management (α = 0.782) Factor 4
Assistant Professor with Medical degree 2 <1% RO1 The innovation project is based on an agile method for 0.862
Associate Professor 47 6% goal achievement.
Professor 105 14% RO3 The project is divided into tasks that are delegated and 0.634
organized into sprints.
The OECD Frascati classification of science and technology (FOS) – Respondents fields
Creating knowledge relations (α = 0.651) Factor 5
of science
RO2 Every accurate information is documented and 0.841
Natural Sciences 422 58% presented on a website.
Engineering and Technology 178 24% RT3 The need for external information – participation of 0.690
Medical and Health Sciences 119 16% researches – no team members.
Social Sciences 7 1%
Humanities 5 1% Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
The OECD Frascati classification of science and technology
Chemical sciences 153 21% a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
*
Mathematics 31 4% Result-Oriented (RO), Risk-Taking (RT), Rule-Following (RF), Relationship-
Physical sciences 89 12% Based (RB).
Biological sciences 177 24%
Materials engineering 48 7%
The first dimension – Revaluation of information sources – refers to the
Health sciences 19 3%
Earth and related environmental sciences 22 3% general collective mindfulness idea of information-based adaptation to
Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information 66 9% current project situation. In this factor we propose the inclusion of team
engineering initiatives to seek external information about market research in the
Chemical engineering 28 4%
iterative sprints to support the results of innovation. Revaluation should
Mechanical engineering 7 1%
Medical engineering 7 1% also consist in the adoption of a more risk-taking approach towards
Other medical sciences 84 11% seeking information about and from the partner companies in order to
keep up with external needs in the project environment. Also, to balance
Years of employment in the academia and science sector
<5 147 20% such an external information orientation it is necessary to implement a
<10 141 19% rules-following approach for safety reasons by always openly recording
<20 295 40% meetings – for monitoring past discussions and further retrieval and use.
88 12%
<30
In particular, the latter practice proved significant in collaborative tasks
<40 46 6%
>40 14 2%
to ensure the integrity of information processes (Table 3).
The second dimension in the information culture domain – Innova­
Years of employment in the current project
tion scrutiny – corresponded with crucial strategic use of collective
<6 months 30 4%
<2 years 494 68% mindfulness, i.e. employees dealing with the unexpected or with a
<5 years 165 23% “novel elements and that taking anything for granted in a routine-like
>5 years 42 6% way is a risky endeavour” (Aanestad & Jensen, 2016, p. 20). In gen­
Government budget allocations for R&D (GBARD) eral, to avoid the unexpected, employees must take a risk with caution
12.1 R&D related to Natural Science 118 16% and maintain solidarity in the decision making process. Information
12.2 R&D related to Engineering Science 96 13% about innovation is, in that case, a key factor of success. In R&D projects,
12.3 R&D related to Medical Science 111 15%
academics must often identify new opportunities for innovation by using
13.1 R&D related to Natural Science 196 27%
13.2 R&D related to Engineering Science 101 14% patent databases, but equally important is the use of such information in
13.3 related to Medical Science 109 15% group discussions about the content of scientific databases and taking
actions based on such collective work (Table 3).
The third dimension – Knowledge alteration – also refers to the
Revaluation of information sources, Innovation scrutiny, Knowledge
strategy of “anticipating unexpected events” but it is based on “the
alteration, Performance information management, Creating knowledge
reluctance to simplify” behaviour (Swanson & Ramiller, 2004, p. 555).
relations. As part of such a framework of information culture, it was
Knowledge alteration is based on the first instances of this strategy:
possible to extract eleven information behaviours supporting innovation
“Taking nothing for granted” (Aanestad & Jensen, 2016, p. 20). In this
in R&D projects (Table 2). All factors fit into an acceptable range of
dimension, innovation is achieved by project managers listening to the
Cronbach’s α above 0.65 (DeVellis, 2016).

5
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
Table 3
Information culture descriptive statistics
Categories Rotated factors and items Mean
Revaluation of information sources
The team seeks external information about market 4.57
research in every sprint for a new product.
Groups seek information about the partner company 4.95
for evaluation and proposal of new.
Registration of internal weekly meetings for retrieval 5.51
and future use.
Innovation scrutiny
Patent databases are used to identify new 5.37
opportunities for innovation.
Information use is guided by group discussions about 5.25
surveys in scientific databases.
Knowledge alteration
New results are re-examined to eliminate 5.63
contradictions.
Team members are involved in managing 6.36
information related to the intellectual property of the
project, to generate a patent application.
Performance information management
The innovation project is based on an agile method 5.51
for goal achievement.
The project is divided into tasks that are delegated 5.95
and organized into sprints.
Creating knowledge relations
Every accurate information is documented and 5.08
presented on a website.
The need for external information – participation of 5.75
researches – no team members.
voice of the academic staff and taking a small risk by entrusting them
with the process of eliminating contradictions in project discoveries.
One element of such a practice is to involve researchers in managing
information related to the intellectual property of the project. This is the
most common and predictable behaviour, whose goal is to generate a
patent application as soon as possible in a safe, evaluative and
empowering way.
The fourth dimension – Performance information management – is
represented by two variables of Choo’s (2013) result-oriented culture
and it fits into the second part of the Aanestad and Jensen (2016) col­
lective mindfulness strategy – “Seeking disconfirmation before confir­
mation”. The goal in performance information management is to spread
awareness of knowledge gaps and to contrast this with the possibility of
delegating a task between groups or subcultures within a project that
might subsequently confirm current research results. The sprint per­
formance control in agile project management requires a constant and
regular information flow about the results achieved and their compli­
ance with the project plan (Mithas et al., 2011).
The fifth dimension – Creating knowledge relations – is an element of
supporting innovation through information, especially when there is a
need to define the mutual adjustments and the dependencies between
academic staff culture and the system they are subject to (Swanson &
Ramiller, 2004). Reassuring the team that all accurate information is
documented and presented on a website might be a crucial function of
an embedded librarian in creating knowledge relations between aca­
demics and the external environment within the scope of communi­
cating project results. Also, a critical part of the collective mindfulness
strategy should be empowering academic staff by making them
constantly aware that they are a part of a larger and open system of the
academic knowledge network and the need for external information. In
more problematic situations it might be also important to support
innovation by expounding the possibilities of external participation in
the project by researchers who are not team members.
To investigate the suitability of the sample for the analysis, the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was exam­
ined for each dimension of the academic empowerment framework. The
sample adequacy based on the KMO test in the information culture
dimension should be considerate as “meritorious” at 0.804 (Table 4).
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
The Cronbach alfa for the rotated factors and items was 0.872. On this
basis, we can conclude that the proposed framework of innovation-
SD oriented culture in academic empowerment should potentially very
well reflect the state of this culture in R&D projects. The presented
1.62 approach to information culture also corresponds with collective
mindfulness issues, in particular where the essence of creating innova­
1.57 tion in R&D projects involves awareness and the processes of collective
information use. The next stage of our research was to check how such
1.50
an innovation-oriented information culture can be related to empow­
erment factors in R&D projects, and which of the examined conditions
1.46 for work effectiveness in structural empowerment would correspond
with that culture.
1.49
Psychological academic empowerment
1.30
0.91
Table 5 shows the results of the PCA with Varimax rotation for the
psychological empowerment domain of academic empowerment.
Setting a cut-off point at 0.6 allowed for the extraction of the same factor
structure as in the original Spreitzer model, which means that this model
1.43
constitutes a highly comprehensive psychological empowerment scale
1.08 for academic staff, and returns very reliable results in R&D projects (α =
0.899). The sample adequacy based on the KMO test should be consid­
erate as meritorious at 0.791 (Table 7). The results show four compo­
1.71 nents with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 which collectively account for
1.07
74% of the common variance. These factors are: Impact, Meaning, Self-
Determination, Competence. There was no need to recode these factors.
Table 6 shows the mean scores given by respondents who indicated
their agreement with the given statements about the psychological
empowerment scale. The strongest agreement with statements related to
the Competence items showed that respondents had a high level of
confidence in their capabilities and skills regarding their duties in the
project. As we have shown in our further discussion of the results, this
confidence is strongly associated with a sense of meaningful work and
self-determination in psychological academic empowerment.
Structural academic empowerment
Table 8 shows the results of the PCA with Varimax rotation for the
structural empowerment domain of academic empowerment. As a result
of PCA, it was possible to extract the same factor structure as in the
original Laschinger model, which means that this model is also a very
comprehensive structural empowerment scale for academic staff and
returns very reliable results for R&D projects (α = 0.835) also. These
factors are: Support, Information, Opportunity, Resources. Collectively
these four factors account for 77.5% of the common variance. The
sample adequacy based on the KMO’s test should be considered as
meritorious at 0.780 (Table 10). Referring to the high scores of these
tests, we can assume that structural empowerment as a set of indepen­
dent variables in academic empowerment should potentially have a
significant impact on the state of information culture and psychological
empowerment in R&D projects.
Table 9 shows the mean scores given by respondents who indicated
the importance of the given structural empowerment factors that occur
in R&D projects. Access to project information had a very strong impact
on the general score of all conditions of work effectiveness (INF1–6.17;
INF2 = 5.85; INF3 = 5.78). Lower results were found in terms of access
to basic resources – time and the direct assistance of co-workers, which
indicates a high load of demanding tasks in R&D projects and may
Table 4
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test (information culture).
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.804
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 3995.778
df 120
Sig. 0.000
6
M. Deja and M. Wójcik The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276

Table 5 Table 8
Psychological empowerment factor analysis (Rotated component matrix and Structural empowerment factor analysis (Rotated component matrix and
grouped variables). grouped variables).
Dimension Factors and items (α = 0.899) Factor Dimension Factors and items (α = 0.835) Factor
loading loading

Impact (α = 0.900) Support (α = 0.917)

IMP1 My impact on what happens in my project/project 0.874 SUP2 Specific comments about things you could improve 0.918
group is large SUP3 Helpful hints or problem-solving advice 0.893
IMP2 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my 0.841 SUP1 Specific information about things you do well 0.868
project/project group
Information (α = 0.924)
IMP3 I have significant influence over what happens in my 0.757
INF3 Regarding the goals of top project management 0.908
project/project group
INF2 Regarding the values of top project management 0.905
Meaning (α = 0.871) INF1 Regarding the current state of the project 0.844
MEA3 The work I do is meaningful to me 0.923
Opportunity (α = 0.741)
MEA2 My job activities are personally meaningful to me 0.886
OPP2 The chance to gain new skills and knowledge on the 0.869
MEA1 The work I do is very important to me 0.657
job
Self-determination (α = 0.872) OPP3 Tasks that use all of your skills and knowledge 0.758
SEL2 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work 0.837 OPP1 Challenging work 0.734
SEL3 I have considerable opportunity for independence and 0.811
Resources (α = 0.722)
freedom in how I do my job
RES2 Time available to accomplish job requirements 0.857
SEL1 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do 0.774
RES1 Time available to do the necessary paperwork 0.771
my job
RES3 Acquiring temporary help when needed 0.746
Competence (α = 0.782)
COM3 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job 0.817 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
COM2 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my 0.769 Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
work activities a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
COM1 I am confident about my ability to do my job 0.739

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table 9
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
Structural empowerment descriptive statistics.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Dimension Rotated factors and items Mean SD

Support
Table 6 Specific comments about things you could improve 4.97 1.59
Psychological empowerment descriptive statistics. Helpful hints or problem-solving advice 5.30 1.48
Specific information about things you do well 5.40 1.49
Dimension Rotated factors and items Mean SD
Information
Impact The goals of top project management 5.78 1.44
IMP1 My impact on what happens in my project/project 5.71 1.29 The values of top project management 5.85 1.37
group is large The current state of the project 6.17 1.06
IMP2 I have a great deal of control over what happens in 5.56 1.40 Opportunity
my project/project group The chance to gain new skills and knowledge on the 5.75 1.00
IMP3 I have significant influence over what happens in my 5.64 1.70 job
project/project group Tasks that use all of your skills and knowledge 5.65 1.10
Challenging work 5.48 0.97
Meaning
Resources
MEA3 The work I do is meaningful to me 5.49 1.52
Time available to accomplish job requirements 5.08 1.09
MEA2 My job activities are personally meaningful to me 5.66 1.36
Time available to do the necessary paperwork 4.73 1.36
MEA1 The work I do is very important to me 6.23 1.06
Acquiring temporary help when needed 4.73 1.31
Self-determination
SEL2 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my 5.93 1.33
work
SEL3 I have considerable opportunity for independence 5.97 1.25 Table 10
and freedom in how I do my job Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test (structural empowerment).
SEL1 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do 6.11 1.09
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.780
my job
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 5276.660
Competence df 66
COM3 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job 6.13 0.80 Sig. 0.000
COM2 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform 6.09 0.95
my work activities
COM1 I am confident about my ability to do my job 5.98 1.06 information culture dimension. We can assume that a stronger depen­
dence on agile technique, work division and the self-reporting of results
might correlate with access to such time-related resources. Looking at
Table 7 the correlation plot (Table 11) a clear relationship between the high
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test (psychological empowerment). level of access to information and the IC and PE factors is noticeable.
This requires in-depth analysis, including an investigation of the effect
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.791
Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square 6904.867 of information culture and psychological empowerment on structural
df 66 empowerment in linear regression analysis.
Sig. 0.000

Academic empowerment framework for collective mindfulness

affect the overall work efficiency of academic staff (RES1 = 4.73, RES2
= 5.08). This might be caused by a strong dependence on the Perfor­ The analysis of the correlation scree plot (Table 11) draws attention
mance Information Management factor which has a high score in the to the many significant correlations between the information culture,

7
M. Deja and M. Wójcik The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276

Table 11
Correlations between the information culture, structural empowerment, psychological empowerment variables. Average and high level correlations are in bold.
RIS ISC KA PIM CKR OPP INF SUP RES MEA COM SEL IMP

RIS 1 0.340** 0.309** 0.378** 0.233** 0.084* 0.010 0.123** 0.196** 0.298** 0.126** − 0.091* − 0.020
ISC 0.340** 1 0.385** 0.293** 0.264** 0.172** 0.168** 0.253** 0.207** 0.344** 0.057 0.056 0.154**
KA 0.309** 0.385** 1 0.220** 0.323** 0.228** 0.429** 0.358** 0.204** 0.260** 0.336** 0.167** 0.316**
PIM 0.378** 0.293** 0.220** 1 0.061 0.071 0.089* 0.180** 0.418** 0.251** 0.152** − 0.145** − 0.095*
CKR 0.233** 0.264** 0.323** 0.061 1 0.098** 0.197** 0.236** 0.287** 0.140** 0.231** 0.205** 0.221**
OPP 0.084* 0.172** 0.228** 0.071 0.098** 1 0.430** 0.263** 0.054 0.306** 0.311** 0.382** 0.342**
INF 0.010 0.168** 0.429** 0.089* 0.197** 0.430** 1 0.427** 0.205** 0.446** 0.472** 0.461** 0.590**
SUP 0.123** 0.253** 0.358** 0.180** 0.236** 0.263** 0.427** 1 0.267** 0.293** 0.331** 0.221** 0.185**
RES 0.196** 0.207** 0.204** 0.418** 0.287** 0.054 0.205** 0.267** 1 0.234** 0.158** 0.069 0.094*
MEA 0.298** 0.344** 0.260** 0.251** 0.140** 0.306** 0.446** 0.293** 0.234** 1 0.508** 0.401** 0.413**
COM 0.126** 0.057 0.336** 0.152** 0.231** 0.311** 0.472** 0.331** 0.158** 0.508** 1 0.411** 0.416**
SEL − 0.091* 0.056 0.167** − 0.145** 0.205** 0.382** 0.461** 0.221** 0.069 0.401** 0.411** 1 0.694**
IMP − 0.020 0.154** 0.316** − 0.095* 0.221** 0.342** 0.590** 0.185** 0.094* 0.413** 0.416** 0.694** 1
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 12
Structural academic empowerment regression model 1.
Dependent variable Independent variables Std β Significance R R2 F Significance

Structural academic empowerment Revaluation of information sources 0.112 0.002 0.535 0.286 58.047 0.000
Innovation scrutiny 0.090 0.013
Knowledge alteration 0.359 0.000
Performance information management 0.199 0.000
Creating knowledge relations 0.181 0.000

Table 13
Structural academic empowerment regression model 2.
Dependent variable Independent variables Std β Significance R R2 F Significance

Structural academic empowerment Revaluation of information sources 0.100 0.002 0.681 0.464 59.859 0.000
Innovation scrutiny 0.060 0.069
Knowledge alteration 0.233 0.000
Performance information management 0.204 0.000
Creating knowledge relations 0.111 0.000
Meaning 0.164 0.000
Competence 0.154 0.000
Self-determination 0.161 0.000
Impact 0.107 0.009

psychological empowerment and structural empowerment factors. We
look for relationships between the variables at the intersection of all
three academic empowerment dimensions to answer the second
research question: How does the concept of information culture of the ac­
ademic staff in R&D projects fit into the issue of academic empowerment?
The general inference is that structural empowerment factors have
the most significant impact on all psychological empowerment factors,
but also quite common relations with information culture factors. The
main variables of structural empowerment that correlate with infor­
mation culture are in the Information factor which has a very strong
impact on Knowledge alteration and every factor in the psychological
empowerment dimension. Similarly, Knowledge alteration variables
have a significant relationship with the sense of the importance of the
performed work (MEA; 0.260), on the certainty regarding the compe­
tence and skills of academic staff (COM; 0.336) and a sense of impact on
the results achieved in the project (IMP; 0.316). A small but significant
correlation also occurs between Knowledge alteration and autonomy in
tasks undertaken in R&D projects (SEL).
Information culture factors might depend on structural empower­
ment factors and also influence psychological empowerment, especially
in case of the meaning of work, where all five factors show significant
correlations (Table 11). Not only does Knowledge alteration have an
impact on psychological empowerment but Creating knowledge re­
lations – internally and externally – has a small but significant influence
on all four psychological empowerment factors. This means that for the
librarian involved in the process of innovation, it will be very important
to strengthen the project’s effectiveness by reassuring project employees
about stable communication with the external scientific community.
To answer the third research question (“What is the relation between
structural empowerment, psychological empowerment and information cul­
ture in innovative R&D projects?”) we performed multiple regression
analysis of structural academic empowerment on innovation-oriented
culture and the psychological empowerment of academics. Table 12
shows the first regression model with R2 adjusted at 0.29 while the F
value for the model R2 is significant at <0.01. The standardised
regression coefficients of all factors of information culture are significant
at <0.05, meaning that this dimension of academic empowerment rep­
resents a significant proportion (29%) of variance in structural
empowerment.
On this basis we can conclude that all elements of innovation-
oriented information culture will have a clear impact on the structural
empowerment. Academic staff in R&D projects have indicated that
when new results are re-examined to eliminate contradictions in inno­
vation and team members are involved in managing information related
to the intellectual property of the project to generate a patent applica­
tion, structural empowerment increases, in particular in terms of access
to information on the project development and in the scope of getting
support from colleagues. (See Table 12.)
Table 13 shows the second regression model with R2 adjusted at
0.46 while the F value for the model R2 is significant at <0.01. The

8
M. Deja and M. Wójcik The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276

Table 14
Collective mindfulness strategy for embedded librarians in R&D projects.
Collective Achieving academic empowerment Embedded librarianship roles Embedded librarianship duties Achieving collective mindfulness
mindfulness (Spreitzer, 2007; Vick et al., 2015) (Laschinger et al., 2016; Wu & Mi, (Wu & Mi, 2013) (Aanestad & Jensen, 2016)
principles 2013)
(Aanestad &
Jensen, 2016)

Preoccupation Revaluate information sources to
with failure support the sense of meaningful work
by nurturing group relations and joint
knowledge discovery.
Reluctance to Increase innovation scrutiny to
simplify support the sense of the influence of
each employee on what happens in a
project and to increase the visibility of
meaningful job activities by
involvement in group discussions
about surveys in scientific databases
and new opportunities for innovation.
Sensitivity to Support researchers autonomy and
operations determine how academics want to
increase their chances to master new
skills necessary for their job by
initiating group
re-examination of new results (to
eliminate contradictions in research
tasks), and by
involving team members in managing
information related to the intellectual
property of the project.
Commitment to Get involved in performance
resilience information management to support
awareness of the work being done
among academic staff by
implementing an agile methods for
goal achievement and common
recognition of tasks that are delegated
and divided into sprints.
Deference to Create knowledge relations to link
expertise internal and external project
environment, increase the sense of
competence and self-determination in
open and transparent work conditions
with great impact on innovation by
documenting and presenting website
information about achievements and
by looking for non-team members who
can add new values or inspire the
team.
Engaging in teamwork as a service
provider, resource purchaser and
collection developer to improve
problem-solving discussions based on
relevant sources.
Supporting scrutiny as a speaker and
lecturer regarding the content of
information sources and query results
gained by the team to improve all
CWE dimensions, especially
opportunity to gain new knowledge,
skills and setting challenging work
for the team.
Get involved as a team member,
collaborator, co-presenter, co-
instructor, library liaison, librarian
on call to create conditions for better
access to
specific comments about things that
team members could improve,
problem-solving advice and
information about things that went
well.
Promote your image as faculty
member in the library context,
educator and information specialist
to increase chance to be further
included in the PIM process and have
an impact on time available to
accomplish job requirements or to do
the necessary paperwork or provide
temporary help when needed by
academic staff.
Get involved in faculty work in an
academic department or college, Put
yourself in the position of a
researcher sharing space with faculty
across disciplines or a co-author and
research collaborator to
better understand specific comments
about things that could be improved
or spread problem-solving advices in
specific information about things that
goes well, which team members share
during work.
Collection development to support Constant observation, tracking,
research efforts by providing helpful and judgment of small failures,
hints, enriching the discussions on near misses, and indicators of
current issues, and reducing the time trouble.
spent on paperwork and self-help.
Develop and provide stand-alone, Taking nothing for granted,
one-off lecturing; seeking disconfirmation before
Gain a supporting role in education confirmation, seeking complexity
and research; rather than simplifying
Develop a web-based library understandings.
resource guide;
Support the information
transparency regarding goals, values
in a project and about current state
of the project.
Develop and maintain a Being aware of interdependencies
collaborative workspace for a by continuous communication and
research project; information exchange between
Maintain institutional repository; various parties of the organisation.
Customize references and research
consultation services;
Provide on-call or one-on-one
research services;
Support the information
transparency regarding project
management values and goals.
Share digital and physical work The necessity to improvise
space with academic staff located in routines.
the environs of academic
community;
Go to laboratories to conduct
internal survey on information
needs;
Provide specialised, customised, and
personalised services for each task
and relevant information need.
Get involved in the decision-making Seek out appropriate expertise,
process in setting up and reaching override higher authorities if
strategic goals; necessary.
Co-author manuscripts and
collaborate in grant applications and
conducting research; Develop and
provide community outreach
programs.

standardised regression coefficients of all information culture and
psychological empowerment factors are significant at <0.05, apart
from Innovation scrutiny (0.069), meaning that the IC and PE di­
mensions of academic empowerment combined represent a significant
proportion (46%) of variance in structural empowerment. These two
regression models have shown that information culture is an important
part of academic empowerment, but mostly when taking into account
its impact on the psychological empowerment we can say that there is a
very clear relation of information behaviours in the information cul­
ture domain with the structural empowerment. Based on the results of
the second linear regression model we can now consider these three
domains of academician empowerment as a coherent framework
affecting efficiency and innovation in an R&D project.
Discussion and conclusion
As noted earlier, academic librarians’ understanding of the rela­
tionship between information culture and psychological and structural
empowerment can help to properly grasp the specifics of a particular
research environment, and thus enable librarians to fully and effectively
immerse themselves in their scientific environment and better help their
users. Based on the empirical research and analysis of the subject liter­
ature, a collective mindfulness strategy for embedded librarians can be
developed as a substantial result of the conducted research (Fig. 2). The
purpose of developing the model is to organise the results of analysis and
develop a ready to use tool for librarians, which can be applied to in­
crease the efficiency of embedded librarians work.
The discussion of the results was broken down into two stages. Due to
the significant modifications of the 4R model based on the exploratory
factor analysis results, we must first consider our results in terms of the
role of pro-innovative information behaviour in creating academic
empowerment. Secondly, bearing in mind our results, we must answer
the final two research questions posed.
In our study, we used an analogy to existing research models. In the
case of information culture, this analogy concerned the 4R model
(Choo, 2013) and information behaviours consistent with this model

9
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
Fig. 2. Collective mindfulness strategy for embedded librarians.
proposed by Vick et al. (2015). In the analysis, it turned out that the
information culture in R&D projects in Poland could not be represented
by all twenty behaviour proposed in their model which was based on
qualitative research and interviews conducted in Brazil. This seems to
confirm that the internal information culture of the organisation differs
depending on the geopolitical conditions of a given country (Choo,
2013; Oliver, 2004, 2008).
Guided by our results in the EFA, we had to reduce the 4R model and
propose a more representative-like model of innovation-oriented in­
formation culture based on five dimensions: Revaluation of information
sources, Innovation scrutiny, Knowledge alteration, Performance in­
formation management, and Creating knowledge relations. These five
dimensions organise eleven information behaviours of academic staff in
R&D projects that describe our interpretation of empowering informa­
tion culture. One should state that such innovation-oriented and
empowering cultures correspond mainly with externally oriented and
pro-active types of culture in the original Choo 4R model – result-
oriented and risk-taking, where rule-following and relationship-based
cultures only sporadically support innovation and the creation of new
knowledge.
Choo et al. referred to such an approach as “the active concern to
think about how to obtain and apply new information to respond quickly
to business changes, and to promote innovation in products and ser­
vices” (Choo et al., 2006, p. 495). Our reconfiguration of the 4R model
reflects very well the nature of pro-activeness in R&D projects, which
aims to reduce uncertainty and risk – a common goal in collective
mindfulness in innovation development (Elbanna & Murray, 2009).
Information behaviour in result-oriented culture should then increase
the competitive advantage of the project group, their focus on external
information and gaining control in the project environment. To provide
balance, the information behaviour in risk-taking culture should support
the creativity and innovation of academic staff, which is why external
10
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
sharing information and proactivity are so important in bringing fresh
added value to the project results.
The reconfiguration of the 4R model for innovation-oriented infor­
mation culture as a part of an academic empowerment framework was
necessary in order to discuss the problem of collective mindfulness
strategy and the roles of embedded librarians in innovation in R&D
projects. Our results correspond primarily with research into organisa­
tional information culture and its impact on information use outcome
(Abrahamson & Goodman-Delahunty, 2013; Choo et al., 2006). The
information use outcomes suggested by Choo et al. (2006) and Abra­
hamson and Goodman-Delahunty (2013) are very similar to the condi­
tions for work effectiveness that we include in our framework of
academic empowerment. In our case, the outcome is more general – the
academic empowerment and conditions for work effectiveness within it
– and the proposed IC model already includes both pro-innovative in­
formation behaviours and information use outcomes on creating new
knowledge in R&D projects (Vick et al., 2015).
Earlier studies on the impact of information culture on information
use (outcome) have shown that information behaviour in the area of
information sharing, pro-activeness, transparency, integrity and infor­
mality have a significant impact on the construction of new knowledge
and new meanings and the transformative act of shaping decisions and
influencing others (Abrahamson & Goodman-Delahunty, 2013). Abra­
hamson & Goodman-Delahunty demonstrated that information culture –
especially in the case of pro-activeness – accounts for 29% of the com­
mon variance in the achievement of the information use outcomes
regarding knowledge creation. Choo et al. (2006, p. 506) revealed an
even greater impact of information culture on such an outcome in law
firms with 38% of the variance in the organisation’s ability to achieve
information use outcomes. Our reinterpretation of information culture
regarding conditions for work effectiveness in R&D projects also indi­
cated the significant impact of information culture, accounting for 29%
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
of the variance in condition of work effectiveness. An added value of our
study is a more holistic perspective on the problem of academic
empowerment in R&D projects due to the inclusion of psychological
empowerment factors, which together with innovation-oriented be­
haviours in IC dimensions accounted for 46% of the common variance in
the achievement of Conditions for Work Effectiveness in the academic
empowerment in R&D projects. Thanks to our holistic approach to
diagnosing information culture, embedded librarians will not have to
join project groups “in the dark”, but with an awareness of pro-
innovative information culture and the associated collective mindful­
ness strategy that will help them demonstrate their full capabilities
regarding their information competence.
In the developed collective mindfulness strategy for embedded li­
brarians, all the elements analysed in this paper have been taken into
account – i.e. information culture in a new, redefined approach, which
we described in this article, structural and psychological empowerment
components, as well as the concepts of embedded librarianship and
collective mindfulness (Fig. 2). Starting with embedded librarian roles in
R&D projects, it is noteworthy that the provision of services as an
embedded librarian can take place on various levels. In the model
developed by Lin Wu & Misa Mi, the authors distinguished 5 levels of
embedded librarianship for Health Sciences Librarians, taking the de­
gree of integration with the research community as the main criterion.
30% of the surveyed R&D employees were employed in health science
projects, and the Wu and Mi model is generally useful outside of med­
icine too because it focuses on methodically broad roles of embedded
librarians. In this model, the roles of librarians range from service and
resource provider, through collaborator and team member, to research
collaborator and educator (Wu & Mi, 2013). In our proposal, based on
the research and analysis of the literature on the embedded librarians
work subject, the role of an embedded librarian was divided into four
basic categories of structural empowerment: Information, Resource,
Support and Opportunity.
The proposed matrix compares the collective mindfulness principles
with the methods of achieving academic empowerment to determine
embedded librarianship roles in the process of creating a collective
mindfulness strategy (Table 14).
The main goal of this matrix is to combine five information culture
dimensions in our academic empowerment framework with five col­
lective mindfulness principles by Aanestad and Jensen (2016) and five
levels of embedded librarians duties by Wu and Mi (2013) into one
coherent strategy for embedded librarians. To achieve collective mind­
fulness in an R&D project, librarians need to follow each of five rules by
first recognising the dimensions of information culture and supporting
academic empowerment, but to do so they need to gradually implement
embedded librarianship activities and acquire specific roles for these
levels in an R&D project. The first and last columns of Table 14 create a
sort of clamp that fastens the CM principle with the CM level in the R&D
project. This “clamp” encloses the factors of academic empowerment,
which semantically correspond to the five levels of activities and roles
undertaken by embedded librarians and can potentially affect the factors
of structural empowerment in the project.
The conducted research illustrates the complexity and multidimen­
sional character of the role and tasks of an embedded librarian in the
contemporary, dynamically changing scientific ecosystem. The
embedded librarians must not only focus on providing high-quality
services but must be also an active participant in the scientific com­
munity and a keen observer who can properly analyse and diagnose this
environment, as well as influence it and initiate positive changes. We
have shown that modern embedded librarians, to properly perform their
11
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
role in the community, must have a deep understanding of the infor­
mation culture of their research environment, as well as knowledge of
the mechanisms of the psychological empowerment and the conditions
for structural empowerment in the academic context. In this way, the
librarians can gradually co-create academic mindfulness by following
the principles of CM and performing various tasks as full-fledged,
involved members of the academic community.
Research and practical implications
It would first be necessary to explore this strategy empirically to test
its effectiveness and answer the following questions. Do the proposed
domains of academic empowerment correspond with the work practice
of embedded librarianship in this process? How does the management of
R&D projects use these embedded librarian roles to support innovation,
and do the librarians try to empower academic staff in this process?
Assuming that we can describe and differentiate levels of academic
empowerment, is academic empowerment linked to collective mind­
fulness? In the case of projects where librarians are involved in research
development, do their roles affect collective mindfulness directly or
through academic empowerment and information culture?
In the research dimension, the conducted study can not only inspire
empirical research but can also create a framework for theoretical
considerations about the role of the embedded librarian in non-obvious
and contexts less frequently described in the subject literature related to
diagnosing information culture, building collective mindfulness and
creating academic empowerment. This can provide new contexts for
scientific consideration and thereby facilitate the development of
theoretical reflection on embedded librarians.
In practical terms, embedded librarians may use proposed measures
of academic empowerment in R&D projects to collectively reflect on
their roles and the information culture in which they conduct research or
to adjust their activities as silent mechanisms for achieving collective
mindfulness. Embedded librarians can use their knowledge on academic
empowerment to assess the extent to which this three-dimensional
framework is compatible with the demands regarding their roles in
innovation, including by involving collective mindfulness as the main
output of their work. This may not only translate into an increase in an
embedded librarian’s work efficiency but may potentially also have a
large social impact, primarily in the context of building a positive image
of a librarian in a broadly understood academic environment as well as
the close and distant environment of the university.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Activity Marek Deja Magdalena Wójcik
Conceptualization X X
Methodology X X
Software X –
Validation X X
Formal analysis X –
Investigation X X
Resources X
–
Data Curation – –
Writing - Original Draft X X
Writing - Review & Editing X X
Visualization X X
Supervision X X
Project administration NA NA
Funding acquisition NA NA
M. Deja and M. Wójcik The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276

Appendix A. The Academic Empowerment Questionnaire

Dimension Question Indicators/Statements Scale

ID

Primary goal of information RB1 Informal meetings encouraging written brainstorming. 7. Strongly Agree – 1.
management RT1 Team members are involved in managing information related to the intellectual property of the Strongly Disagree
project, with the goal of generating a patent application.
RF1 Information is controlled by the norms established by the partner company (or granting
institution).
RO1 The innovation project is based on an agile method for goal achievement.
Information values and norms RB2 Presentation of project information in a common language.
RT2 New results are re-examined in order to eliminate contradictions.
RF2 Laboratory notebooks are controlled by the team leader.
RO2 Every accurate information is documented and presented on a website.
Information behaviours in terms of RB3 Project documentation available in a virtual communication system.
information needs RT3 Need of external information – participation of researches – non team members.
RF3 Standardization of project information and monthly reports to the partner company.
RO3 The project is divided into tasks that are delegated and organized into sprints.
Information seeking RB4 Group level discussions for every new information.
RT4 Groups seek information about the partner company for evaluation and proposal of new ideas.
RF4 Team members seek internal information via laboratory notebooks.
RO4 Team seeks external information about market research in every sprint for a new product.
Information use RB5 Information use is guided by group discussions about surveys in scientific databases.
RT5 Patent databases are used in order to identify new opportunities for innovation.
RF5 Registration of internal weekly meetings for retrieval and future use.
RO5 The performance is evaluated in the end of every sprint, resulting in a new version of the
product.
Opportunity OPP How much of each kind of opportunity do you have in your present job? 7. More than a lot - 1.
OPP1 Challenging work Absolutely none
OPP2 The chance to gain new skills and knowledge on the job
OPP3 Tasks that use all of your own skills and knowledge
Information INF How much access to information do you have in your present job?
INF1 The current state of the project
INF2 The values of top project management
INF3 The goals of top project management
Support SUP How much access to support do you have in your present job?
SUP1 Specific information about things you do well
SUP2 Specific comments about things you could improve
SUP3 Helpful hints or problem solving advice
Resources RES How much access to resources do you have in your present job?
RES1 Time available to do necessary paperwork
RES2 Time available to accomplish job requirements
RES3 Acquiring temporary help when needed
Meaning MEA1 The work I do is very important to me 7. Strongly Agree – 1.
MEA2 My job activities are personally meaningful to me Strongly Disagree
MEA3 The work I do is meaningful to me
Competence COM1 I am confident about my ability to do my job
COM2 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities
COM3 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job
Self-determination SEL1 I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job
SEL2 I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work
SEL3 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job
Impact IMP1 My impact on what happens in my project/project group is large
IMP2 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my project/project group
IMP3 I have significant influence over what happens in my project/project group

References organization. Journal of Information Science, 32(6), 491–510. Retrieved from https
://search.proquest.com/docview/224652605?accountid=11664.
DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage
Aanestad, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2016). Collective mindfulness in post-implementation IS
publications.
adaptation processes. Information and Organization, 26(1–2), 13–27.
Elbanna, A., & Murray, D. (2009). Organizing projects for innovation: A collective
Abrahamson, D. E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). The impact of organizational
mindfulness perspective. In AMCIS 2009 proceedings (paper 276. Cancún).
information culture on information use outcomes in policing: An exploratory study.
Eylon, D., & Bamberger, P. (2000). Empowerment cognitions and empowerment acts:
Information Research, 18(4) (paper 598).
Recognizing the importance of gender. Group & Organization Management, 25(4),
Abrizah, A., Inuwa, S., & Afiqah-Izzati, N. (2016). Systematic literature review informing
354–372.
LIS professionals on embedding librarianship roles. The Journal of Academic
Khan, S. A., Lederer, A. L., & Mirchandani, D. A. (2013). Top management support,
Librarianship, 42(6), 636–643.
collective mindfulness, and information systems performance. Journal of
Blake, L., Ballance, D., Davies, K., Gaines, J. K., Mears, K., Shipman, P., … Burchfield, V.
International Technology and Information Management, 22(1), Article 6. Retrieved
(2016). Patron perception and utilization of an embedded librarian program. Journal
from https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/jitim/vol22/iss1/6.
of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 104(3), 226.
Laschinger, H., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of
Boom, D. (2017). The embedded librarian: Do more with less. In Managing knowledge and
the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of
scholarly assets in academic libraries (pp. 76–97). IGI Global.
Organizational Behavior, 25(4), 527–545. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.256.
Choo, C. W. (2013). Information culture and organizational effectiveness. International
Laschinger, H., Read, E., & Zhu, J. (2016). Employee empowerment and organizational
Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 775–779. Retrieved from https://search.
commitment. In J. P. Meyerm (Ed.), Handbook of employee commitment (pp.
proquest.com/docview/1441441893?accountid=11664.
319–332). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Choo, C. W., Furness, C., Paquette, S., van den Berg, H., et al. (2006). Working with
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management
information: Information management and culture in a professional services
capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 237–256.

12
M. Deja and M. Wójcik
Nagarkar, S., & Murari, D. (2010). Embedded librarian: A new role for library and
information professionals. In Proceedings of the national conference-on empowering
library professionals in managing the digital resources and providing extension activities
held at the St Agnes college, Mangalore (pp. 375–381).
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research
and experimental development, the measurement of scientific, technological and
innovation activities. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en
Oliver, G. (2004). Investigating information culture: A comparative case study research
design and methods. Archival Science, 4(3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10502-005-2596-6
Oliver, G. (2008). Information culture: Exploration of differing values and attitudes to
information in organisations. Journal of Documentation, 64(3), 363–385. https://doi.
org/10.1108/00220410810867588
Orgambídez-Ramos, A., & Borrego-Alés, Y. (2014). Empowering employees: Structural
empowerment as antecedent of job satisfaction in university settings. Psychological
Thought, 7(1), 28–36.
13
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 47 (2021) 102276
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2007). Toward the integration of two perspectives: A review of social-
structural and psychological empowerment at work. The handbook of organizational
behavior. C. Cooper et J. Barling, Dir. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Swanson, E. B., & Ramiller, N. C. (2004). Innovating mindfully with information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 553–583.
Vick, T. E., Nagano, M. S., & Popadiuk, S. (2015). Information culture and its influences
in knowledge creation: Evidence from university teams engaged in collaborative
innovation projects. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3),
292–298. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1676128181?accou
ntid=11664.
Wright, T. (2013). Information culture in a government organization: Examining records
management training and self-perceived competencies in compliance with a records
management program. Records Management Journal, 23(1), 14–36. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09565691311325004
Wu, L., & Mi, M. (2013). Sustaining librarian vitality: Embedded librarianship model for
health sciences libraries. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 32(3), 257–265.