University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2017 Causes Of Satisfaction And Disatisfaction For Diversity Resident Librarians – A Mixed Methods Study Using Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory Jason Kelly Alston University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Alston, J. K.(2017). Causes Of Satisfaction And Disatisfaction For Diversity Resident Librarians – A Mixed Methods Study Using Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4080 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAUSES OF SATISFACTION AND DISATISFACTION FOR DIVERSITY RESIDENT LIBRARIANS – A MIXED METHODS STUDY USING HERZBERG’S MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORY by Jason Kelly Alston Bachelor of Arts University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2005 Master of Library Science North Carolina Central University, 2008 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Library and Information Science College of Information and Communications University of South Carolina 2017 Accepted by: Paul Solomon, Major Professor Nicole Cooke, Committee Member Karen Gavigan, Committee Member Dick Kawooya, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Jason Kelly Alston, 2017 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION To my three grandmothers, Lela Richardson Alston, Edna T. Kelly Anderson, and Mildred Suggs Blount, who lived to see me begin my Ph.D. process, but were not able to see me complete it. I thank you for the way I was raised, and for the values you instilled into myself and the rest of the family. The life lessons you all taught your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren laid the foundations for all of us. All of the good things that we do are a tribute to your legacies. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must acknowledge my biological mother M. Rena Anderson and other mother figures: Florence Harrison, Leslie Madden, Rosa Watkins, Yolanda Bostic, Debbie Kearny-Scott, Miranda and Ceneida. Biological father Clifton C. Alston and other father figures: Jerome Offord, John Madden, William Evans, J.R. Smith, Walter Anderson. My siblings Tanika, Atari, and Aneudis, my ten nieces and nephews, and multitudes of aunts, uncles, and cousins. Also my brothers and sisters in Zeta Phi Beta Sigma, especially my line brothers Fury, Cyntelle and Norman, plus M. Clayton Barrier and Devaris Davis. The faculty, staff and students at USC SLIS with special thanks to my committee members as well as Sam Hastings, Jennifer Arns, Kendra Albright, Elise Lewis, Carolyn Delton, Sarah Keeling, Chuck Curran, Angela Wright, Zamir, Anmol, Sara, and Maria. The supportive former coworkers I had at Midlands Technical College, Forsyth Public Library, the Henderson Daily Dispatch, Wagoner Dining Hall, and especially UNC-Greensboro, of which there are too many to name in this limited space. Also, professional supporters from NC Central University, ARL, BCALA and elsewhere. My transcription team, especially Rachel Hillcoat, Mia Mitchell and Derrick L. Thompson. Finally good friends, of which I want to name more, but I only had one page: Jessica Thompson, Mike and Mishelle Dixon, Anya Davis, Crissi, Robert Greene, Aki, Christal, Keyatta, Kelvin Watson, Lori Ruffin, Natalie M. Smith, Renee Johnson, Jon Adams, Bambadjan, Tanika Martin, Angela Hamlin, Rosalyn Erves, and Eli (R.I.P.) iv ABSTRACT Diversity residency librarian programs are post-MLIS programs aimed at providing recently graduated professionals with real work experience, with the expressed goal of recruiting and retaining a more-diverse workforce in professional librarianship. This mixed-method study is one of the first empirical studies examining diversity residencies, which – at the time of this writing – have existed for more than 30 years. The study identifies concerns raised in the mostly anecdotal literature about diversity residencies, and 102 individuals identified as current or former diversity resident librarians participated in the quantitative portion of the study. In the quantitative portion of this study, there were four factors derived from the literature that correlated positively and significantly with the residents’ overall views of their residency experiences. Those four factors were: 1. Quality of effort as perceived by the resident that administration and/or residency coordinators dedicated to garnering support for the residency from library faculty and staff. 2. Perceived quality of assessment practices of the residency program. 3. Level of professionalism of job duties expected of the diversity resident. v 4. Perceived effectiveness of the residency in preparing the diversity resident for his or her next professional appointment. In the qualitative portion of this study, 11 current or former diversity residents were interviewed and six emergent themes arose wherein diversity residents encountered satisfaction or dissatisfaction when certain elements were present in the residency experience. The six emergent themes were: 1. Knowledge of who the residents are, what the residency is, and why it was established combats institutional hostilities and confusion, reducing resident dissatisfaction. 2. Diversity residents can avoid dissatisfaction with appropriate guidance and support from coordinators, supervisors, and administrators. 3. Opportunities to perform meaningful, challenging, and innovative work can generate satisfaction in diversity residents. 4. Job dissatisfaction occurs with lack of assessment, unpreparedness, and failure to communicate residency intent to residents. 5. Satisfaction emerges when a resident achieves growth and “advancement” during the term that appears to improve future job outlook. 6. Effective mentorship practices can remove job dissatisfaction during the residency appointment. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iv ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................15 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................46 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND HERZBERG FRAMING .................................................................64 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................185 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................213 APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT QUESTIONS ............................................................233 APPENDIX B – QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW BASE QUESTIONS .............................................240 APPENDIX C – IRB LETTER ..............................................................................................243 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Herzberg-based Motivations and Hygienes Comparison Table ........................45 Table 4.1 Distribution of Overall Residency Ratings ......................................................164 Table 4.2 Survey Results for First Two Statements to RQ1 ............................................165 Table 4.3 Survey Results for the Last Three Statements of RQ1 ....................................166 Table 4.4 Survey Results for First Three Statements of RQ2 ..........................................167 Table 4.5 Survey Results for the Last Three Statements of RQ2 ....................................168 Table 4.6 Survey Results for Statements Related to RQ4 ...............................................169 Table 4.7 Survey Results for the First Three Statements of RQ5 ....................................170 Table 4.8 Survey Results for the Second Three Statements of RQ5 ...............................171 Table 4.9 Survey Results for Statements Related to RQ6 ...............................................172 Table 4.10 Survey Results for the First Three Statements of RQ7 ..................................173 Table 4.11 Survey Results for the Second Three Statements of RQ7 .............................174 Table 4.12 Survey Results for Statements Related to RQ8 .............................................175 Table 4.13 Survey Results for Statements Related to RQ9 .............................................176 Table 4.14 Survey Results for Statements Related to RQ10 ...........................................177 Table 4.15 Survey Results for Statements Related to RQ11 ...........................................178 Table 4.16 Spearman’s Rho Correlation Values for RQ1 Survey Questions. .................179 Table 4.17 Spearman’s Rho Correlation Values for RQ2 Survey Questions