The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

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

Academic libraries and DEI initiatives: A quantitative study of

employee satisfaction
Lauren Geiger *, Carrie P. Mastley, Melanie Thomas, Eddie Rangel
University Libraries, Mississippi State University, United States

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

Keywords: This survey study explored employees' of academic libraries, specifically R1 and R2 Doctoral Universities in the
Academic libraries United States, attitudes regarding their overall level of satisfaction with the implementation of diversity, equity,
Diversity, equity, and inclusion and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at their places of work in regard to the promotion of DEI culture at their in­
Employee attitudes
stitutions, the ability to pursue DEI work in their day-to-day work, and the alignment of their personal values
Library personnel
Quantitative analysis
with their libraries, universities, and surrounding communities. The findings suggest that while most respondents
felt there was acceptable buy-in from library and university employees, library and university leadership must
provide meaningful support for DEI, or library employees will become dismayed and experience low morale.
Findings also indicate that while the institutional culture within one's library and university may be supportive of
DEI work, threats to the promotion and tenure process could be a deterrent. Finally, respondents also reported
overall comfortability in incorporating DEI work into their day-to-day lives. While the results are not general­
izable to institutions outside of the parameters of the current study, this study sheds some perspective on the LIS
community's response to DEI issues.

Introduction
Conversations surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, is
not a new concept in academic libraries. Since the 1900s, there have
been broad discussions regarding diversifying the workforce, increasing
opportunities for those who have historically been marginalized by the
profession, and reflecting our communities of users through professional
papers, white papers, conference presentations, poster sessions, policy
changes, and informal conversations. DEI is generally discussed through
specific lenses such as mentorship, employee retention, hiring practices,
and the promotion and tenure process. General overviews of academic
librarians' opinions on DEI, however, are far less common.
Based upon the research instrument used in Heady et al.'s (2020)
paper “Contributory Factors to Academic Librarian Turnover: A Mixed-
Methods Study,” the authors created a survey to gather qualitative and
quantitative data about how academic librarians perceive DEI initiatives
at their respective libraries and universities. The authors selected Heady
et al.'s (2020) research instrument and paper as a model because Heady
et al.'s holistic approach to viewing a singular topic generates a broad
conversation over how academic library employees currently feel. The
authors pulled three concepts from Heady et al.'s (2020) paper — work
environment, job duties, and personal factors — to organize the current
study and gain insights into perceptions of the professional and personal
implications of DEI work.
Koury et al.'s (2018) paper, “A survey of diversity and inclusiveness
initiatives at Carnegie Doctoral Research Institution libraries,” was also
an influence on this study. They surveyed Idaho State University's peer
institutions to see if their institution aligned with their peers regarding
DEI initiatives. Their results found that Idaho State University was like
their peers in that DEI work is being pursued, but lack of funding and
support were obstacles (p. 30). Similarly, the current study also sur­
veyed peer institutions to offer a better understanding of DEI issues
relevant to academic libraries.
The purpose of this study was to explore current academic library
employees' — specifically at R1 or R2 Doctoral Universities and at all
ranks (e.g., staff, faculty, administration, etc.) — attitudes regarding
their overall level of satisfaction with the implementation of DEI ini­
tiatives at their places of work. This survey differentiates itself from
similar studies and fills a gap in the literature by reviewing a broad range
of employees across ranks and at multiple institutions. This survey is also
more general in scope in that it moves beyond a specific DEI topic (e.g.,
retention or hiring practices) and approaches DEI more

* Corresponding author at: Mississippi State University, PO Box 5408, Mississippi State, MS 39762, United States.
E-mail address: lgeiger@library.msstate.edu (L. Geiger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102627
Received 6 June 2022; Received in revised form 5 October 2022; Accepted 7 October 2022
Available online 22 October 2022
0099-1333/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
L. Geiger et al.
comprehensively. While more general in its approach, this study may be
adapted for more localized inquiry at individual institutions as well as
models for future studies outside of the scope of R1 and R2 Doctorial
University libraries within the United States.
The intended audience for this survey was individuals employed
within the United States at academic libraries, specifically libraries
belonging to either R1 or R2 Doctoral Universities as defined by the
Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher Learning. Under the
Carnegie Classifications, institutions are considered Doctoral Carnegie
Research Universities if they confer at least 20 scholarship/doctoral
degrees within an update year, which occurs every three years. The
distinguishing feature between R1 and R2 institutions is their total
research output with R1s having “very high” research output and R2s
having “high” research output (ACE, 2022). Mississippi State University
is considered an R1 Doctoral University and the home institution of the
authors. The authors chose to examine these institutions as they wanted
to collect data from peer institutes to cultivate positive change for aca­
demic libraries.
Based on the literature and current events, the following research
questions were pursued:
R1: Do individuals working at academic libraries feel like their li­
braries and institutions promote a DEI culture?
R2: Do individuals working in academic libraries feel that they are
given opportunities to pursue DEI initiatives in their daily work?
R3: To what extent do individuals working in academic libraries feel
that their personal values align with their libraries', institutions', and
surrounding community's DEI culture?
Literature review
There is no shortage of literature about diversity, equity, and inclu­
sion in academic libraries or libraries in general. Wiegand and Davis'
(1994) Encyclopedia of Library History notes some library initiatives
surrounding DEI and how they succeeded or failed. Several essays in the
work detail how issues concerning race and sexual orientation took
considerable time to gain consistent momentum, while others, like
gender, were more readily accepted, though change did not immediately
occur (Josey, 1994; Maack, 1994; Thistlethwaite, 1994). Specifically
relating to academic libraries, Love (2001), Gulati (2010), and Cruz
(2019) discuss 20 years of DEI work in terms of assessment and inter­
sectionality. Cruz (2019) specifically notes that many programs she
found were no longer active (p. 266).
In 2014, Morales et al. authored an essay envisioning how academic
libraries and librarians could advocate for diversity, equity, and social
justice to strengthen the profession and stay relevant in an ever-
changing society (p. 448). Their hope for academic librarians to
address diversity, equity, and social justice in their profession can be
seen in much of recent literature, from hiring practices and retention to
case studies reflecting organizational culture regarding DEI. Many of the
articles explored below have narrower foci than the present study, with
few looking at general views and ideas of comprehensive DEI initiatives
or culture in academic libraries.
Retention
Retention of employees, especially from underrepresented pop­
ulations, is commonly found in the literature. Riley-Reid (2017) dis­
cusses how understanding explicit and implicit barriers in a library and
overcoming them may cultivate an environment that encourage staff
and faculty of color to stay. Andrade and Rivera (2011) use several
surveys and climate studies to understand their library's climate
regarding DEI in their hiring practices. They used the information to
develop a plan for an increasingly diverse and diversity-competent
workforce by creating cultural competencies for their employees to
master and incorporate in hiring practices. Finally, Alabi's (2018)
2
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627
literature review addresses the action items white librarians can un­
dertake to aid in the recruitment and retention of Black and Indigenous
People of Color (BIPOC) professionals. The author suggests white li­
brarians should not only engage with current diversity initiatives but
also call into question their own unconscious biases and actively
participate in antiracist activities to make the Library and Information
Science (LIS) profession more welcoming to BIPOC librarians.
Mentorship
Mentorship is discussed throughout the literature as a powerful tool
to aid in the retention of library employees. However, Kung et al. (2020)
found that DEI initiatives accounting for retention typically focus on
early-career librarians (p. 99). Support for middle- and late-career li­
brarians is lacking. Riley-Reid (2017) also concludes her article by
arguing that libraries are not utilizing retention tools effectively and that
without support “faculty of color who may be dealing with a racially
hostile or isolating environment edge closer toward desertion” (p. 395).
Both Kung et al. (2020) and Riley-Reid (2017) underscore the significant
role mentorship plays in retention in that it gives employees a support
system for navigating hostile situations and environments. Sanchez-
Rodriguez (2021) echoes this thought by asserting that mentorship and
succession planning are linchpins to closing the diversity gap in City
University of New York's libraries.
Job expectations and workplace hostility
The literature notes that rigid job expectations – especially those
related to promotion and tenure – contribute to employees viewing their
work environments as hostile or isolating. For instance, Lehan et al.
(2020) compares higher education to a game that all employees must
play, even if they do not know the rules. They go on to point out that
“there are clear winners and losers, as evidenced by who tends to remain
in the game and advance through the ranks and who does not” (Lehan
et al., 2020, p. 167). While not all employees of academic libraries have
tenure-track positions, many fear retribution if they speak up about is­
sues of concern (Riley-Reid, 2017, p. 395; Ramonetti & Pilato, 2019, p.
9).
Furthermore, Lumley's (2020) case study found that 50 % of their
participant sample believed that traditional ideas of librarianship,
including neutrality, were more important than social justice efforts.
This high-stress environment combined with non-supportive peers and/
or administration can make implementing DEI initiatives challenging
and sometimes dangerous, especially for employees belonging to
marginalized groups. Finally, Kendrick (2017), while not directly
related to DEI, discusses how low morale can be damaging to librarians,
especially if they do not have healthy coping strategies. Hostile or
isolating environments, confusing job expectations, and lack of effective
communication with administrators were all cited as reasons for low
employee morale.
Library and university collaboration
Scholarly discussion regarding working with external campus de­
partments and upper administration is limited. One example is Lehan
et al.'s (2020) survey, which revealed that university departments
typically work on DEI efforts simultaneously but rarely collaboratively.
Thus, a lack of interaction between groups results in missed opportu­
nities for addressing systemic issues cohesively and as a united front.
Departments themselves may see results, but the overall atmosphere of
their institution may remain stagnant (Lehan et al., 2020, pp. 172, 175).
Redd et al. (2020) describe their institution's approach to collaboration.
Clemson's Vice President for Strategic Diversity Leadership charged the
University's seven colleges as well as the University Libraries with
developing diversity strategic plans in alignment with the University's
institutional strategic plan. The University created a system to make
L. Geiger et al.
these plans shareable between colleges and developed a functionality
allowing for linking between similar goals and initiatives.
Ramonetti and Pilato's (2019) article describes their institution's
establishment of an Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity committee, which
was charged with developing a diversity mission statement in alignment
with the University's strategic plan. Their work highlights the impor­
tance of campus-wide collaboration in diversity initiatives, especially
regarding student participation. Redd et al. (2020) and Ramonetti and
Pilato's (2019) articles discussed the importance of word choice and
language in their respective tasks. Fife et al.'s (2019) study reiterates this
idea in that it outlined the definitions assigned to DEI terms, and, thus,
was crucial for library administration in determining how confident and
comfortable they felt in implementing DEI initiatives.
Climate surveys
Climate surveys conducted by academic libraries to assess attitudes
toward DEI initiatives are also noted in the literature. For example, Peet
(2021) describes a cross-institutional antiracist audit to address the
disconnect between intention and action regarding DEI work in li­
braries. The author reports that the participants – S + R Ithica; Bing­
hamton University, NY; and the University of Delaware – intend for this
audit to make library practices more supportive of BIPOC employees and
students. Further, Royse et al. (2006) discuss the climate survey un­
dertaken at the University of Tennessee Libraries to assess the willing­
ness of employees to engage with diversity initiatives. Fear of retribution
for speaking honestly about DEI issues and concerns about the value of
DEI work were the two major themes represented within the responses.
Dali et al.'s (2021) survey investigating DEI professional develop­
ment events found that, while personal growth of employees was
feasible, this is often the most difficult goal to achieve. The authors also
note that institutional changes were also not easily achieved. Figueroa
and Shawgo (2022) reflect some of Dali et al. (2021) and Royse et al.'s
(2006) findings in their paper discussing how the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill might transition to an anti-racist library.
Through the implementation of a 21-day racial equity challenge, Fig­
ueroa and Shawgo (2022) found that, while change on a larger scale
generally starts with individual actions, they cannot solely rely on the
information gathered by those who partook in the challenge. Instead,
they must also work to gain information from those who were afraid to
participate (p. 35).
Current study
Common phenomena of DEI and social justice work is lack of follow
through and superficial programming as noted in the work of Wiegand
and Davis (1994) and Cruz (2019) respectively. For instance, calls for
change and action appear after incidents and tragedies, but efforts often
wane once other issues arise. These phenomena were at the forefront of
the researchers' minds after Derek Chauvin, a Minneapolis police officer,
murdered George Floyd in May 2020. At that time, researchers Geiger
and Mastley were working on an article regarding retention in academic
libraries. Conversations about these phenomena led the researchers to
shift their attention to conducting a DEI survey study on academic li­
brary employee attitudes since no similar study could be found in hopes
of producing an article that might promote further research and schol­
arly conversation. Thus, the current study adds to this body of literature
by exploring academic library employees' attitudes regarding their
overall level of satisfaction with the implementation of DEI initiatives at
their places of work. The survey is similar to the climate studies con­
ducted at singular institutions but broadened in terms of audience to
report more generalizable data.
Methodology
The researchers collected data by way of an online survey
3
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627
questionnaire mediated by the Qualtrics survey platform (see Appendix
A for survey). The questionnaire included 29 items and featured a
mixture of quantitative and qualitative questions. However, for the
purposes of the current study, only quantitative data are reported.
Heady et al.'s (2020) survey tool used in their article “Contributory
Factors to Academic Librarian Turnover: A Mix Methods Study”
informed the creation of the current study's survey instrument. In
particular, the current research team used this as a model for organizing
the survey into three themed sections in relation to academic library
employees' work environment, job duties, and personal factors. Each
section aligned with a specific research question: section 1, work envi­
ronment, aligned with R1; section 2, job duties, aligned with R2; and
section 3, personal factors, aligned with R3. The quantitative portion of
the survey asked survey participants to respond using a Likert scale to
indicate to what extent they either agreed or disagreed with any given
statement.
As previously mentioned, the intended audience for this survey was
individuals employed within the United States at academic libraries,
specifically libraries belonging to either R1 or R2 Doctoral Universities
as defined by the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions of Higher
Learning since Mississippi State University is considered a R1 Doctoral
University. Mississippi State University's Promotion and Tenure Docu­
ment includes a list of 171 R1 or R2 Doctoral Universities (last updated
in 2010); this list serves as a tool for tenure-track faculty to identify
possible external reviewers for their tenure dossiers (Mississippi State
University Libraries MSUL, 2020). The researchers used this document
as their survey distribution list given its comprehensiveness and because
the institutions listed share similar characteristics to the researchers'
organization.
To distribute this survey, the research team contacted the library
deans or directors at each institution and asked them to distribute an
invitation to the survey to their employees. The researchers also posted
the survey to numerous professional groups' listservs, including: the
American Library Association's Member List; the Association of College
and Research Libraries; the Society of American Archivists' Announce­
ment List and College and University Archives Section; the Southeastern
Library Association; the Mountain Plains Library Association; the Pacific
Northwest Library Association; the Southeastern Archives Association;
the Reference and User Services Association; and the New England Li­
brary Association. In addition, the researchers also posted the call to two
Facebook groups: Library Think Tank - #ALATT and Archivists Think
Tank.
Data collection took place from March to June 2021. The completion
rate of this survey was 48.82 % with 289 participants completing the
survey out of 592 total participants. It is unknown which specific
Doctoral Universities from the survey distribution list participated as
this information was not tracked.
The Qualtrics survey platform records and organizes collected data
using descriptive statistical analysis tools. These tools automatically
calculate the total number of responses for each survey item as well as
the distributions for each Likert scale response. Once the data collection
period ended, these pieces of data were downloaded from the Qualtrics
platform and stored in an Excel spreadsheet stored in a shared folder
using Microsoft Teams, which is username and password protected. The
researchers analyzed these numbers to identify patterns relative to the
study's research questions.
To disaggregate the data by demographic information (see Appendix
B for a full breakdown of demographic data), namely by race/ethnicity
and gender, the researchers used the Microsoft Excel sort feature to
organize the data by demographic groups and manually calculated how
respondents from different racial/ethnic backgrounds and genders
responded to survey items directly answering the study's three research
questions. The research team made the conscious decision to disaggre­
gate the data into three racial/ethnic groupings, BIPOC, white, and not
specified, and four gendered groupings, men, women, transgendered/
non-binary/non-conforming/self-described, and not specified. The
L. Geiger et al.
research team acknowledges that choosing to group all marginalized
communities into one respondent group is problematic as each com­
munity has its own characteristics, identity, and distinct issues. It is not
the intention of the current study to contribute to the muddling of people
groups or the erasure of experiences. Instead, the researchers wanted to
illustrate the difference of responses reported by marginalized groups
and white/cis-gendered participants while maintaining respondent
privacy and safety. The research team made this decision based on the
work of researchers such as Samarati and Sweeney (1998) and Frederick
(2021) to report meaningful data but in such a way to protect the pri­
vacy and identities of respondents. According to Frederick (2021):
When anonymity or confidentiality are promised, researchers are
obligated to report data in such a way that respondents cannot be
reidentified by the audience. This generally means only reporting
aggregated data, assigning pseudonyms to quotes, and reporting
subgroup data when there are at least a minimum number of re­
spondents. In our research, we typically use a rule of thumb of 10
respondents for subgroup analyses … If results are reported with
fewer than 10 respondents in a given subgroup, readers familiar with
the population could be able to guess how particular individuals
responded to the survey. Even if their guesses are inaccurate, such
guesses could have real impacts on survey respondents … It is the
researcher's responsibility to make sure this does not happen espe­
cially if the survey is intended to be anonymous or confidential.
(Frederick, 2021, para. 4–5)
The research team carefully considered these points raised in Fred­
erick's (2021) article and ultimately decided it would be socially irre­
sponsible to report demographic data for each marginalized racial/
ethnic and gender groups as most included less than ten respondents.
Furthermore, Frederick (2021) also indicates that statistical analyses of
demographic data “should only be performed if there are at least 30
participants in each subgroup” (para. 6). Given that no marginalized
racial/ethnic or gender group met this threshold, the researchers were
concerned that any conclusions drawn from this form of data analysis
would be inaccurate, which further contributed to the researchers' de­
cision to group the demographic data as previously described. However,
even after clustering marginalized gender groups, this threshold of at
least thirty respondents was still not met. The researchers ultimately
made the decision to move forward with disclosing the data with the
understanding that the results rendered cannot produce any definite or
generalizable conclusions regarding marginalized gender groups.
Even though the current study posed no known risks to participants,
several precautions were taken to collect data ethically and ensure pri­
vacy. First, this project was submitted to Mississippi State University
Institutional Review Board for approval. The project was granted
exempt determination in February 2021 (Protocol ID IRB-20-521).
Furthermore, informed consent was sought from each participant
before beginning the survey. In order to enter the survey, each partici­
pant had to confirm that they understood the survey's procedures, that
their participation was voluntary, and that they were at least 18 years of
age. Furthermore, the study collected demographic information and
allowed participants to leave their emails for follow-up questions. While
the current study did not utilize contact information, the data were
extracted from Qualtrics and stored on password-protected software.
Results
While the results of the qualitative portion of the survey will be re­
ported later, the researchers have summarized responses to the open-
ended question, “How do you personally define DEI?” to contextualize
the quantitative results below. The researchers coded the respondents'
239 answers into four categories: positive, neutral, futile, and negative.
Overall, 93.72 % of responses were positive, 1.67 % were neutral, 3.77
% were futile, and 0.84 % were negative.
4
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627
Of the 239 responses, 17.99 % were from BIPOC respondents, 79.08
were from white respondents, and 2.93 % of respondents did not
disclose their race or ethnicity. The breakdown of the data between the
BIPOC and white groups were similar to the total responses. For the
BIPOC respondents, 81.4 % of definitions were positive, 4.65 % were
neutral, 11.63 % were futile, and 2.33 % were negative. For white re­
spondents, 96.3 % of definitions were positive, 1.06 % were neutral,
2.62 % were futile, and 0.53 % were negative. Those who did not
disclose their race or ethnicity were the outliers with all responses being
positive.
In terms of gender, 24.69 % identified as men, 65.27 % identified as
women, 4.6 % identified as transgendered/non-binary/non-
conforming/self-described, and 5.44 % chose to not disclose their
gender. The breakdown by gender slightly differs from the overall re­
sults and the racial and ethnicity viewpoint. For the men's responses,
91.53 % were positive, 5.08 % were neutral, 3.39 % were futile, and
there were no negative responses. For the women, 94.23 % were posi­
tive, 0.64 % were neutral, 3.85 % were futile, and 1.28 % were negative.
For transgendered/non-binary/non-conforming/self-described (T/NB/
NC/SD), 90.91 % were positive, and 9.09 % were futile. Those who did
not disclose their gender only had positive definitions.
Do individuals working at academic libraries feel like their libraries and
institutions promote a DEI culture?
The first research question measured whether academic library
personnel feel that their libraries and institutions promote a DEI culture.
Based upon the survey responses, it appears that individuals working at
academic libraries somewhat feel that their libraries and institutions
promote a DEI culture. In response to the statement, “I am satisfied with
the current DEI culture of my library,” 7.63 % of respondents strongly
agreed, and 31.68 % somewhat agreed that they are satisfied with the
current DEI culture in their library. 26.34 % somewhat disagreed and
16.03 strongly disagreed and 18.32 % of respondents neither agreed nor
disagreed.
When asked about their satisfaction with the current DEI buy-in from
their institutions' library administration, library faculty, library staff,
and immediate co-workers — that is, colleagues with whom employees
work closest, regardless of category — the answers were mixed as
illustrated in Fig. 1 and Table 1. In terms of library administration,
26.62 % strongly agreed, 26.98 % somewhat agreed, 15.47 % neither
agreed nor disagreed, 19.78 % somewhat disagreed, and 11.15 %
strongly disagreed. When reporting on library faculty, 19.85 % strongly
agreed, 31.62 % somewhat agreed, 26.10 % neither agreed nor dis­
agreed, 19.12 % somewhat disagreed, and 3.31 % strongly disagreed.
When asked about library staff, 15.58 % strongly agreed, 34.42 %
somewhat agreed, 30.43 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 15.58 %
somewhat disagreed, and 3.99 % strongly disagreed. Last, when
considering their satisfaction with their immediate co-workers, 31.05 %
strongly agreed, 38.27 % somewhat agreed, 19.86 % neither agreed nor
disagreed, 8.66 % somewhat disagreed, and 2.17 % strongly disagreed.
Summarized in Table 2 are the respondents' opinions on satisfaction
with inclusivity within their libraries' administration, faculty, and staff.
Based on the responses, participants were more likely to report satis­
faction with the inclusivity of their libraries' staff members than mem­
bers of the administration or faculty. For example, when asked to report
on their satisfaction with inclusivity among administration, 17.63 %
strongly agreed, 21.58 % somewhat agreed, 16.55 % neither agreed nor
disagreed, 23.74 somewhat disagreed, and 20.50 % strongly disagreed.
When asked the same question in regard to faculty members, 12.82 %
strongly agreed, 22.71 % somewhat agreed, 22.71 % neither agreed nor
disagreed, 23.81 % somewhat disagreed, and 17.95 % strongly dis­
agreed. Finally, when considering staff members, 14.80 % strongly
agreed, 29.60 % somewhat agreed, 23.83 % neither agreed nor dis­
agreed, 21.66 % somewhat disagreed, and 10.11 % strongly disagreed.
In response to the statement, “I am satisfied with my direct
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

120
106

100 95
86 86 84
80 74 75
71

60 54 55 55
52
43 43 43
40
31
24
20
9 11
6

0
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
Disagree

Library Administraon Library Faculty Library Staff Immediate Co-workers

Fig. 1. Satisfaction with current DEI buy-in from library personnel.

Table 1
Satisfaction with current DEI buy-in from library personnel.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

Library administration 74 (26.62) 75 (26.98) 43 (15.47) 55 (19.78) 31 (11.15) 278

Library faculty 54 (19.85) 86 (31.62) 71 (26.10) 52 (19.12) 9 (3.31) 272
Library staff 43 (15.58) 95 (34.42) 84 (30.43) 43 (15.58) 11 (3.99) 276
Immediate co-workers 86 (31.05) 106 (38.27) 55 (19.86) 24 (8.66) 6 (2.17) 277

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

Table 2
Inclusivity levels in library's personnel.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total

Administration 49 (17.63) 60 (21.58) 46 (16.55) 66 (23.74) 57 (20.50) 278

Faculty 35 (12.82) 62 (22.71) 62 (22.71) 65 (23.81) 49 (17.95) 273
Staff 41 (14.80) 82 (29.60) 66 (23.83) 60 (21.66) 28 (10.11) 277

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

supervisor's current commitment to DEI initiatives,” 38.82 % of partic­
ipants strongly agreed, 30.69 % somewhat agreed, 14.08 % neither
agreed nor disagreed, 11.91 % somewhat disagreed, and 6.5 % strongly
disagreed. Furthermore, when asked about their satisfaction with the
current morale in their libraries regarding DEI initiatives, 9.06 %
strongly agreed, 27.54 % somewhat agreed, 25.72 % neither agreed nor
disagreed, 22.46 % somewhat disagreed, and 15.22 % strongly
disagreed.
Finally, when given the statement, “I am satisfied with the history of
DEI initiatives from my library and university,” respondents showed
some dissatisfaction with the history of library and university DEI ini­
tiatives; however, there seemed to be greater dissatisfaction with the
university's history of DEI initiatives, compared to that of the library.
Table 3 shows that when considering their satisfaction with the history
of DEI initiatives from their libraries, 13.31 % strongly agreed, 24.82 %
somewhat agreed, 16.91 neither agreed nor disagreed, 25.18 % some­
what disagreed, and 19.78 % strongly disagreed. In contrast, when
considering their universities' histories, 9.03 % strongly agreed, 22.74 %
somewhat agreed, 16.97 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 29.96 %
somewhat disagreed, and 21.30 % strongly disagreed.
Figs. 2 and 3 and Tables 4 and 5 summarize the responses of library
personnel grouped by race/ethnicity and gender categories in response
to, “I am satisfied with the history of DEI initiatives from my library and
university.” Overall, respondents in each group expressed greater
satisfaction with their library's history of DEI initiatives over those of
their university. The 47 respondents who identified as BIPOC reported
comparable percentages regarding their attitudes about the history of
DEI initiatives by both their library and university. BIPOC employees
reported 6.38 % strongly agreeing and 21.28 % somewhat agreeing that
they were satisfied with the history of DEI initiatives from their uni­
versity. 14.89 % neither agreed nor disagreed. 34.4 % somewhat dis­
agreed with the statement and 23.4 % strongly disagreed. Compared
with the attitudes about the history of initiatives from their library, 4.06
% of BIPOC employees strongly agreed, 25.53 % somewhat agreed, and

Table 3
History of DEI initiatives from libraries and universities ungrouped.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total

Library 37 (13.31) 69 (24.82) 47 (16.91) 70 (25.18) 55 (19.78) 278

University 25 (9.03) 63 (22.74) 47 (16.97) 83 (29.96) 59 (21.30) 277

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

5
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

60 54
51 51
50 47
42
40 37
33 34
28
30

20 16 14
12 15
10 1111
10 77
23 2 21 34 11
00
0

Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Strongly Disagree:
Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:
Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Strongly Agree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Strongly Agree:

Strongly Agree:
Respondents: BIPOC Respondents: White Respondents: Racial/Ethnicity Not
Specified

Library University

Fig. 2. History of DEI initiatives from libraries and universities grouped by race/ethnicity.

50 45 47
43 46
45
40 36
35 30
29
30 28
25 21
20 17 17
12 13 1313
15 11
910 10
10 6 6 56
33 4 43
5 2 22 11
00 1 01 11
0
Somewhat Agree:

Strongly Disagree:
Strongly Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Agree:

Somewhat Agree:

Strongly Disagree:
Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Strongly Agree:

Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Agree:

Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:
Neither Agree nor Disagree:
Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Respondents: Men Respondents: Women Respondents: Respondents: Gender

Transgendered/Non- Not-Specified
Binary/Non-Conforming/Self-
Described

Library University

Fig. 3. History of DEI initiatives from libraries and universities grouped by gender.

Table 4
History of DEI initiatives from libraries and universities grouped by race/ethnicity.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total

BIPOC: library 2 (4.26) 12 (25.53) 7 (14.89) 15 (31.91) 11 (23.4) 47

BIPOC: university 3 (6.38) 10 (21.28) 7 (14.89) 16 (34.04) 11 (23.4) 47
White: library 28 (14.29) 51 (26.02) 33 (16.84) 47 (23.98) 37 (18.88) 196
White: university 14 (7.18) 51 (26.15) 34 (17.43) 54 (27.69) 42 (21.54) 195
Race/ethnicity not specified: library 2 (25) 0 2 (25) 3 (37.5) 1 (12.5) 8
Race/ethnicity not specified: university 2 (25) 0 1 (12.5) 4 (50) 1 (12.5) 8

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

14.89 % were neutral. Nearly 32 % of BIPOC employees somewhat with the library's history of DEI initiatives over those of the university.
agreed and 23.4 % strongly disagreed that they were satisfied with the For example, 7.18 % of the white respondent group strongly agreed that
statement on history of library DEI initiatives. they were satisfied with their university's history of DEI, while 26.15 %
Among white respondents, there appears to be greater satisfaction somewhat agreed that they were satisfied with their library's history of

6
L. Geiger et al.
Table 5
History of DEI initiatives from libraries and universities grouped by gender.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree
Men: library 11 (17.74) 17 (27.42)
Men: university 6 (9.68) 12 (19.35)
Women: library 17 (10.24) 43 (25.9)
Women: university 10 (6.06) 45 (27.27)
T/NB/NC/SD: library 0 1 (10)
T/NB/NC/SD: university 0 2 (20)
Gender not specified: library 4 (30.77) 2 (7.69)
Gender not specified: university 3 (23.08) 2 (015.38)
Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.
DEI initiatives. Among the eight respondents who did not disclose their
race or ethnicity, 25 % reported strongly agreeing with their library's
history of DEI initiatives and 0 % among that group somewhat agreed,
25 % neither agreed nor disagreed. 37.5 % of the race/ethnicity un­
disclosed group somewhat agreed, and 12.5 % strongly disagreed that
they were satisfied with the history of DEI initiatives by their library.
Regarding their opinions about the university's history of DEI initiatives,
25 % of the race/ethnicity undisclosed respondents reported strongly
agreeing that they were satisfied with the university's history of DEI
initiatives.
Of the library employees identifying as a man, 17.74 % strongly
agreed that they were satisfied with their library's history of DEI ini­
tiatives, 27.42 % somewhat agreed, and 14.52 % were neutral. Nearly
21 % of men respondents somewhat disagreed and strongly disagreed,
respectively, that they were satisfied with their library's DEI initiatives.
In comparison, 33.87 % of men respondents reported somewhat dis­
agreeing, and 20.97 % reported strongly disagreeing that they were
satisfied with the history of DEI initiatives of their university.
Women reported less satisfaction with the standing of their library's
history of DEI initiatives, with 28.31 % somewhat disagreeing that they
were satisfied and 18.07 % strongly disagreeing that they were satisfied.
Regarding satisfaction with history of DEI initiatives from the university,
6.06 % of library employees identifying as a woman strongly agreed,
27.27 % somewhat agreed. Women respondents reported agreeing
27.88 % and 21.82 % strongly disagreeing. Nearly 17 % neither agreed
nor disagreed.
Ten respondents identified as transgendered/non-binary/non-
conforming/self-described. None of these respondents strongly agreed
that they were satisfied with their library's history of DEI initiatives;
however, 10 % somewhat agreed. Thirty percent of respondents
expressed neutral satisfaction with their university's history of DEI ini­
tiatives. None of the transgendered/non-binary/non-conforming/self-
described respondents somewhat disagreed; however, 60 % strongly
disagreed with their library's history of DEI initiatives.
Thirteen more respondents declined to disclose their gender identi­
ties. Of these, 30.77 % reported strongly agreeing and 15.38 % some­
what agreeing with the statement on history of library DEI initiatives.
One respondent (7.69 %) neither agreed nor disagreed. There were
38.46 % who somewhat disagreed, and 7.69 % who strongly disagreed.
Comparing this group's attitudes on their university's DEI history, 23.08
% strongly agreed, and 15.38 % somewhat agreed, while 46.15 %
somewhat disagreed, and one respondent (7.69 %) strongly disagreed.
Do individuals working in academic libraries feel that they are given
opportunities to pursue DEI initiatives in their daily work?
According to the survey results, it seems that individuals working in
academic libraries ultimately feel the freedom to pursue DEI initiatives
in their day-to-day activities. For instance, when prompted with the
statement, “I believe my DEI work has not affected or will not affect my
potential for advancement or promotion negatively within the library,”
33.08 % of the respondents reported that they strongly agreed with that
statement, while 25.48 % indicated that they somewhat agreed and
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627
Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total
9 (14.52) 13 (20.97) 13 (20.97) 62
10 (16.13) 21 (33.87) 13 (20.97) 62
29 (17.47) 47 (28.31) 30 (18.07) 166
28 (16.97) 46 (27.88) 36 (21.82) 165
3 (30) 0 6 (60) 10
3 (30) 1 (10) 4 (40) 8
1 (7.69) 5 (38.46) 1 (7.69) 13
1 (7.69) 6 (46.15) 1 (7.69) 13
22.43 % neither agreed nor disagreed. However, 12.93 % of participants
disagreed with the statement and 6.08 % strongly disagreed.
Table 6 shows to what degree individuals working in academic li­
braries were satisfied with the DEI training opportunities offered by
their libraries. Of the respondents, 19.12 % reported strongly agreeing
and 29.04 % reported somewhat agreeing with the statement. Of the
respondents, 19.49 % neither agreed nor disagreed, while 18.01 %
somewhat disagreed, and 14.34 % strongly disagreed. When presented
with the same statement in regard to the offerings of their universities,
12.92 % of participants indicated that they strongly agreed, 32.10 %
reported somewhat agreeing, and 21.03 % marked that they neither
agreed nor disagreed. The remaining respondents reported somewhat
disagreeing at 20.30 % and strongly disagreeing at 13.65 %.
Finally, when asked about their satisfaction with their ability to
incorporate DEI work in their day-to-day work, 20.3 % of respondents
said that they strongly agreed, 40.23 % indicated that they somewhat
agreed, and 22.93 % reported neither agreeing nor disagreeing. The
remaining responses included 12.78 of respondents indicating that they
somewhat disagreed, while 3.76 % reported strongly disagreeing.
When reading the data through a racial/ethnic demographic lens,
only 46 individuals identifying as BIPOC responded to this item. In
contrast, an overwhelming 195 respondents identified as white, while
the remaining 7 declined to disclose their racial or ethnic groups.
Looking at the percentage breakdowns by groups, BIPOC respondents
had 21.17 % who strongly agreed, 34.78 % who somewhat agreed,
28.26 % who neither agreed nor disagreed, 6.52 % who somewhat
disagreed, and 8.7 % who strongly disagreed. White respondents re­
ported the following: 19.49 % strongly agreed, 43.49 % somewhat
agreed, 20 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 13.85 % somewhat dis­
agreed, and 3.08 % strongly disagreed. Of those who declined to disclose
their race/ethnicity, 28.57 strongly agreed, 57.14 somewhat agreed,
14.29 neither agreed nor disagreed, 0 % somewhat disagreed, and 0 %
strongly disagreed.
Furthermore, out of the 248 respondents, 62 respondents reported
identifying as a man, 165 reported identifying as a woman, 9 re­
spondents reported identifying as transgendered/non-binary/non-
conforming/self-described, and 12 respondents declined to report. The
percentage breakdowns for respondents identifying as men are as fol­
lows: 20.97 % strongly agreed, 33.87 % somewhat agreed, 29.03 %
neither agreed nor disagreed, 12.9 % somewhat disagreed, and 3.23
strongly disagreed. Respondents who identified as women had the
following responses: 19.39 % strongly agreed, 44.85 % somewhat
agreed, 20 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 12.12 % somewhat dis­
agreed, and 3.64 strongly disagreed. Of the transgendered/non-binary/
non-conforming/self-reported respondents, 0 % reported strongly
agreeing, 33.33 % somewhat agreed, 22.22 neither agreed nor dis­
agreed, 22.22 % somewhat disagreed, and 22.22 strongly disagreed.
Finally, of the respondents who declined to disclose their gender, 41.67
% strongly agreed, 58.33 % somewhat agreed, and 0 % of respondents
neither agreed nor disagreed, somewhat disagreed, or strongly
disagreed.
7
L. Geiger et al.
Table 6
Training opportunities from library and university.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree
Library 52 (19.12) 79 (29.04) 53 (19.49)
University 35 (12.92) 87 (32.10) 57 (21.03)
Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.
To what extent do individuals working in academic libraries feel that their
personal values align with their libraries', institutions', and surrounding
community's DEI culture?
The results of the survey show that most respondents are ambivalent
or neutral toward their overall satisfaction with their communities'
commitment to DEI initiatives. Of the individuals surveyed, 30.04 %
somewhat agreed, 28.14 % were neutral, and 23.19 % somewhat dis­
agreed with their satisfaction in relation to their communities' current
commitment to DEI initiatives. Only 8.37 % of individuals strongly
agreed with 10.27 % of those surveyed strongly disagreeing when asked.
As illustrated in Table 7, individuals were also asked to state if they
felt safe pursuing DEI work during their personal time because of the
culture of their library or university in which they are employed. Of the
individuals surveyed regarding academic libraries, 41.29 % strongly
agreed, 31.44 % somewhat agreed, 19.32 % neither agree nor disagree,
4.55 % somewhat disagreed, and finally, 3.41 % strongly disagreed. Of
those asked respective to their university, 35.88 % strongly agreed,
32.44 % somewhat agreed, 22.14 % neither agree or disagree, 6.11 %
somewhat disagree, and, lastly, 3.44 % strongly disagree.
Finally, individuals who work in academic libraries were asked to
state if their personal values and beliefs align with the DEI culture of
their library or university. The results are summarized in Table 8. When
asked regarding libraries, 23.31 % strongly agreed, 37.59 % somewhat
agreed, 13.91 % neither agree or disagree, 15.04 % somewhat disagreed,
and finally, 10.15 % strongly disagreed. Lastly, of the individuals sur­
veyed regarding their university, 20.91 % strongly agree, 35.36 %
somewhat agree, 17.87 % neither agree nor disagree, 16.73 % somewhat
disagree, and 9.13 % strongly disagree.
Respondents were asked to gauge whether their personal values
aligned with the DEI culture of their library and university. In total, 249
individuals responded to the survey regarding their library. Out of 47
respondents in the BIPOC group, 14.89 % strongly agreed, 25.53 %
somewhat agreed, 21.28 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 21.28 %
somewhat disagreed, and 17.02 % strongly disagreed. Concerning the
white respondents, 195 people were polled, 26.15 % strongly agreed,
41.54 % somewhat agreed, 12.31 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 14.36
% somewhat disagreed, and, finally, 5.64 % strongly disagreed. Of those
respondents who did not disclose their race or ethnicity, 7 individuals
were polled, 14.29 % strongly agreed, 57.14 % somewhat agree, 0 %
respondents in this category neither agreed or disagreed, 0 % somewhat
disagreed, and only 28.57 % disagreed.
The percentage breakdown by gender is as follows: 62 men respon­
ded to the survey with 27.42 % strongly agreeing, 40.32 % somewhat
agreeing, 9.68 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 16.13 % somewhat
disagreed, and 6.45 % strongly disagreed. Out of 164 women re­
spondents, 23.78 % strongly agreed, 37.2 % somewhat agreed, 15.85 %
neither agreed nor disagreed, 15.85 % somewhat disagreed, and 7.31 %
strongly disagreed. For transgendered/non-binary/non-conforming/
self-described 10 individuals responded. Out of those 10 individuals,
Table 7
Safety to pursue DEI work during personal time.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree
Library 109 (41.29) 83 (31.44) 51 (19.32)
University 94 (35.88) 85 (32.44) 58 (22.14)
Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.
8
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total
49 (18.01) 39 (14.34) 272
55 (20.30) 37 (13.65) 271
10 % agreed, 40 % somewhat agreed, 0 % neither agreed nor disagreed,
10 % somewhat disagreed, and 40 % strongly disagreed. Finally, 13
individuals responded under gender not specified. Out of those in­
dividuals, 15.38 % strongly agreed, 53.85 % somewhat agreed, 15.38 %
neither agreed nor disagreed, 7.69 somewhat disagreed, and 7.69
strongly disagreed.
Respondents were also asked to gauge whether their personal values
align with the DEI culture of their university. In total, 247 individuals
responded to the survey regarding their university. Out of 46 re­
spondents in the BIPOC group, 17.39 % strongly agreed, 21.74 %
somewhat agreed, 21.74 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 23.91 %
somewhat disagreed, and 15.22 % strongly disagreed. Out of the 194
respondents who identified as white, 22.68 % strongly agreed, 40.21 %
somewhat agreed, 16.94 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 15.98 %
somewhat disagreed, and 4.64 %. Of the 7 respondents who chose not to
disclose their race or ethnicity, 14.29 % strongly agreed, 28.57 %
somewhat agreed, 14.29 % neither agreed nor disagreed, 14.29 %
somewhat disagreed, and 28.57 % strongly disagreed.
The percentage breakdown by gender is as follows: Of the 61 re­
spondents who identified as men, 19.67 strongly agreed, 36.07 %
somewhat agreed, 19.67 neither agreed nor disagreed, 18.03 somewhat
disagreed, and 6.56 strongly disagreed. Of the 163 who identified as
women, 23.31 % strongly agreed, 36.2 somewhat agreed, 17.18 neither
agreed nor disagreed, 17.18 % somewhat disagreed, and 6.13 strongly
disagreed. For transgendered/non-binary/non-conforming/self-
described 10 individuals responded. Of those individuals, 10 %
strongly agreed, 40 % somewhat agreed, 0 % neither agreed nor dis­
agreed, 20 % somewhat disagreed, and 30 % strongly disagreed. Finally,
of the 13 respondents who did not disclose their gender, 15.38 %
strongly agreed, 38.46 % somewhat agreed, 23.08 % neither agreed nor
disagreed, 15.38 % somewhat disagreed, and finally, 7.69 % strongly
disagreed.
Discussion
When reviewing the results, the authors considered how the
collected data answered each corresponding research question as well as
examined how the data intersected to give richer answers to these
questions. When analyzing the results, the responses are spread some­
what evenly across all five possible responses (i.e., strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, and
strongly disagree) with few question items having a consensus of
agreement or disagreement. The discussion section is broken up into
sections based upon the research questions.
DEI culture in libraries and institutions
When asked about their satisfaction with the current and the past DEI
culture of their library, Figs. 4 and 5 and Tables 9 and 10 show that
strong agreement was the lowest percentage for all groups, except for
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total
12 (4.55) 9 (3.41) 264
16 (6.11) 9 (3.44) 262
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

Table 8
Personal values and beliefs and DEI culture of libraries and universities.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total

Library 62 (23.31) 100 (37.59) 37 (13.91) 40 (15.04) 27 (10.15) 266

University 55 (20.91) 93 (35.36) 47 (17.87) 44 (16.73) 24 (9.13) 263

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

80
68
70

60
51
50 47
43
40 35 37
33
28 28
30

20
1312 1415 11 13
67 9
10 42
02 12 10 13 11
0
Somewhat disagree:

Somewhat disagree:

Somewhat disagree:
Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Strongly Disagree:
Strongly Agree:

Somewhat Agree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Somewhat Agree:

Strongly Agree:

Somewhat Agree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Strongly Disagree:
Strongly Agree:

Respondents: BIPOC Respondents: White Respondents: Racial/Ethnicity Not

Specified

Current Past

Fig. 4. Satisfaction of current and past DEI culture of the respondent's library by race/ethnicity.

80
73
70

60

50 47
43
43
40
30
29
30 26 28 25
20 17 17
11 13 13 13
9 9 9 10
10 6 4 52 2 5
3 3 3 3 1 3
00 21 2 0 1 11
0
Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Somewhat Agree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:

Somewhat Agree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Somewhat disagree:

Strongly Disagree:
Somewhat Agree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Neither Agree nor Disagree:

Strongly Agree:

Strongly Agree:

Strongly Agree:

Strongly Agree:

Respondents: Men Respondents: Women Respondents: Respondents: Gender

Transgendered/Non- Not-Specified
Binary/Non-Conforming/Self-
Described

Current Past

Fig. 5. Satisfaction of current and past DEI culture of the respondent's library by gender.

9
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

Table 9
Satisfaction of current and past DEI culture of the respondent's library by race/ethnicity.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total

BIPOC: current 0 13 (30.95) 6 (14.29) 14 (33.33) 9 (21.43) 42

BIPOC: past 2 (4.26) 12 (25.53) 7 (14.89) 15 (5.98) 11 (23.4) 47
White: current 13 (6.95) 68 (36.36) 35 (18.72) 43 (22.99) 28 (14.97) 187
White: past 28 (11.16) 51 (20.32) 33 (13.15) 47 (18.73) 37 (14.74) 196
Race/ethnicity not specified: current 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 4 (50) 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 8
Race/ethnicity not specified: past 2 (25) 0 2 (25) 3 (37.5) 1 (12.5) 8

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

Table 10
Satisfaction of current and past DEI culture of the respondent's library by gender.
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Total

Men: current 3 (5) 26 (43.33) 13 (21.67) 9 (15) 9 (15) 60

Men: past 11 (17.74) 17 (27.42) 9 (14.52) 13 (20.97) 13 (20.97) 62
Women: current 10 (6.45) 73 (47.1) 28 (18.06) 43 (27.74) 25 (16.13) 155
Women: past 17 (10.24) 43 (25.9) 29 (17.47) 47 (28.37) 30 (18.07) 166
T/NB/NC/SD: current 0 2 (20) 2 (20) 3 (30) 3 (30) 10
T/NB/NC/SD: past 0 1 (10) 3 (30) 0 6 (60) 10
Gender not specified: current 1 (8.33) 5 (41.67) 2 (16.67) 3 (25) 1 (8.33) 12
Gender not specified: past 4 (30.77) 2 (15.83) 1 (7.69) 5 (38.46) 1 (7.69) 13

Note: Parenthetical numbers represent the corresponding percentages.

those who did not disclose their race/ethnicity or gender and the men
group. Overall, disagreement was the highest percentage when viewing
satisfaction of the respondent's library and university history of DEI
culture for all groups, save for those who did not disclose their gender.
When questioned if they were satisfied with their ability to incorporate
DEI in their day-to-day work, 60.53 % of respondents agreed. The higher
percentages for somewhat agreeing with their satisfaction with the
current DEI culture could explain why over half of the total respondents
feel safe pursuing DEI work in their day-to-day work.
When questioned if the institutional culture of their library and
university made them feel safe enough to pursue DEI in their personal
time, respectively 72.73 % and 68.32 % of respondents agreed. When
asked if respondents felt that DEI work would negatively impact their
promotion and tenure chances, 58.71 % believed it would not negatively
affect it. Thus, the data suggest that while the institutional culture
within one's library and university may be supportive of DEI work both
professionally and personally, threats to the promotion and tenure
process could be a deterrent, a point similarly noted in Riley-Reid (2017)
and Ramonetti and Pilato (2019). If university pressures cause a
disconnect, and not just at the library level, then it could explain the
greater dissatisfaction with the universities' history of DEI initiatives
than the libraries. While the data does not suggest a definitive and
decisive answer, over 50 % of respondents being satisfied or feeling safe
to pursue of DEI work in personal and professional time may indicate
that the DEI culture of their libraries and universities may be moving in a
more positive direction.
Personal and community values around DEI culture
When asked about if their personal values aligned with their library
or university, the respondents' answers were generally evenly spread out
among the five categories, with somewhat agree having the highest
response. For BIPOC, transgendered/non-binary/non-conforming/self-
described, men, and not specified groups, somewhat agree was slightly
higher than the other categories. For women and white groups, some­
what agree was significantly higher than the other categories. When
looking at satisfaction of current morale in the library, 37.68 % of re­
spondents felt dissatisfied with the current morale of their library
regarding DEI initiatives compared to the 36.6 % who felt satisfied and
25.72 % who were neutral. Kendrick (2017) discussed how low morale
can be damaging to librarians due to its emotional, mental, and physical
strain as well as a diminished sense of finding their work pleasant or
meaningful. In her definition of morale, ‘work environment’ is consis­
tently mentioned. While values are a part of creating the ‘work envi­
ronment,’ so are the actions of the administration. Over half of
Kendrick's respondents cited administration and supervisors as in­
stigators of low morale (2017, p. 850). Redd et al. (2020) noted that
library and university leadership must provide meaningful support for
DEI or library employees will become dismayed and experience low
morale over lack of action (p. 279). Although there was high agreement
for buy-in of DEI initiatives among all working groups, the highest
dissatisfaction rate, 30.93 %, was with the library administration.
Therefore, the data suggests that a dissatisfaction with administration
along with neutral values can create an environment of mixed morale.
DEI initiatives in daily work
When questioned about if they were satisfied with their ability to
incorporate DEI in their day-to-day work, 60.53 % of respondents were
satisfied, 22.93 were neutral, and 16.54 were not satisfied. When
viewing the data from both a race/ethnicity and gender perspective,
somewhat agree was the highest category for each group, with between
33.33 and 58.33 % of respondents selecting this option. A major
concluding point in Lumley's (2020) case study was that apathy from co-
workers could be a major factor in whether DEI work could be sustained.
The results from the current study show that there appears to be a strong
commitment to DEI initiatives from direct supervisors and strong buy-in
from all library personnel, especially immediate coworkers. Along with
potentially upward trends of DEI culture, the commitment to DEI from
co-workers and direct supervisors could help explain why over half of
the respondents believe they can pursue DEI work. Alabi's (2018) paper
reinforces this idea by indicating that DEI work asks all those in the
profession to “to act more in accordance with [their] personal values and
ethics” (p. 144). This suggests that the alignment of personal values and
support from co-workers could help remedy low morale related to the
sustainability of DEI work.
Limitations
Given that all members of the research team currently work at a R1
Doctoral University, collecting data from like institutions was deemed a
priority for the current study given the researchers' proximity to the

10
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

field. In addition, the researchers were similarly motivated for choosing
the United States as the study's geographic focus. While this study has
attempted to collect data from a wide range of academic libraries, the
participant sample does not represent all librarians. The data collected
does not reflect the attitudes of individuals working outside of academic
libraries, specifically R1 and R2 Doctoral Universities, nor does it
represent librarians working outside of the United States. In addition, all
reported data comes exclusively from human subjects; thus, these
findings could be influenced by the participants' personal biases and
subjectively as well as their individual understanding of each survey
item. Nevertheless, this study's methods can be applied to other types of
institutions as well as other geographic locations. Furthermore, it is the
hope of the researchers that this study will serve as inspiration for
similar studies and a springboard for scholarly discussion regarding DEI
issues and libraries.
Conclusion
DEI work in academic libraries is not a new concept as the reviewed
literature illustrates. There has been and continues to be a plethora of
initiatives to make academic libraries more diverse, equitable, and in­
clusive for employees as well as user communities. However, there is
much more work to do as demonstrated in the results of this study. For
instance, only a slight majority of respondents reported feeling
comfortable pursuing DEI work in their day-to-day lives without fear of
retribution. This is problematic because academic libraries should strive
to foster a culture that not only values DEI work but also demonstrates to
their employees that they are safe to engage in this work. Furthermore,
respondents' overall indication of being more dissatisfied than satisfied
with the current DEI initiatives and morale of their libraries and in­
stitutions is also problematic. If lack of commitment to DEI work is
responsible for low morale in academic libraries, leaders must learn why
their employees feel this way and what measures may be taken to repair
morale as well as trust.
Overall, the data collected suggest that there is no decisive answer
for these questions, and the authors hope to discover more concrete
answers in a second paper reporting the qualitative results of this survey.
However, much more research is needed to reach more general con­
clusions regarding DEI work in the LIS community at large. For instance,
similar studies may be conducted in different institution types (e.g.,
academic libraries outside the scope of this paper, public libraries,
special libraries, etc.) to understand better the attitudes of LIS pro­
fessionals and paraprofessionals across the field and outside of the
United States. Further, more focused studies exploring the attitudes of
specific institutions could be beneficial in understanding attitudes to­
ward DEI work on a local level. To this end, the authors hope other li­
braries adopt and distribute the survey used in this study (or develop a
similar tool) to learn the state of their immediate work environments.
Though the current study is limited in that it only surveys academic li­
brary employees at R1 and R2 institutions in the United States, it may
potentially stimulate new conversations and encourage other re­
searchers to undertake similar studies regarding DEI work and libraries.
It is the researchers' hope that this study and future DEI research will
motivate the LIS community to address issues of systemic discrimination
and work to make the field more diverse, provide equitable opportu­
nities, and foster library environments that are inclusive to all
communities.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lauren Geiger: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Inves­
tigation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Carrie P. Mastley: Conceptualizing, Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Re­
view & Editing, Visualization.
Melanie Thomas: Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original
Draft, Writing - Review & Editing.
Eddie Rangel: Validation, Formal Analysis, Writing - Original Draft,
Writing - Review & Editing, Visualization.
N/A: Software, Supervision, Project administration, and Funding
Acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgements
The authors give thanks to David Nolen, who provided comments
and advice on an early draft of this paper. The authors would also like to
thank the LIS community members who participated in this study for
their time and personal insight.

Appendix A. Academic libraries and DEI satisfaction questionnaire

Informed consent form for participation in research for exempt research*

IRB approval number: IRB-20-521
Title of research study: Academic Libraries and DEI Initiatives: A Mixed Methods Study of Employee Satisfaction.
Researcher(s): REDACTED.
Note: Thank you for agreeing to participate in our research. Before you begin, please note that Qualtrics has specific privacy policies of its own.
You should be aware that this web service may be able to link your responses to your ID in ways that are not bound by this consent form and the data
confidentiality procedures used in this study. If you have concerns, you should consult Qualtrics directly. Additionally, this research is for residents of
the United States over the age of 18; if you are not a resident of the United States and/or under the age of 18, please do not complete this survey.
Procedures: The purpose of this study will be to explore academic library employees' – specifically at Carnegie Research Institutions and at all
ranks (e.g., staff, faculty, administration, etc.) – attitudes regarding their overall level of satisfaction with the implementation of Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) initiatives at their place of work.
The current study is being conducted by REDACTED academic librarians at REDACTED. You have been invited to participate in this research
project because you are a current employee at an academic library that is a Carnegie Research Institution. Participation is completely voluntary, and
you may refrain from answering any item(s) or stop participation at any time for any reason. There is no penalty for withdrawing your participation.
Responses recorded on this questionnaire are completely anonymous. No personally identifiable information will be linked to this questionnaire, and
all data will be stored in a password-protected electronic format. Responses will only be used for scholarly purposes.
The procedure involves filling out a questionnaire that will take approximately 15–20 min to complete. You will be asked to mark to what extent
you agree or disagree with given statements. The questionnaire asks about your individual beliefs toward the implementation of DEI initiatives at your
place of work.
Questions: If you have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact REDACTED.

11
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

Voluntary participation: Please understand that your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.
Please take all the time you need to read through this document and decide whether you would like to participate in this research study.
If you decide to participate, your completion of the research procedures indicates your consent. Please keep this form for your records.
*The REDACTED HRPP has granted an exemption for this research. Therefore, a formal review of this consent document was not required.
Please help us better understand your knowledge and understanding of DEI.
Have you heard of DEI prior to this survey?

o Yes
o No

How do you personally define DEI?

How does your library and/or university define DEI?
Please consider your work environment when responding to these statements
I am satisfied with the current DEI culture of my library.

o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree

I am satisfied with current DEI buy-in from my:

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Library administration
Library faculty
Library staff
Immediate co-workers

I am satisfied with the current level of inclusivity within my library's:

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Administration
Faculty
Staff

I am satisfied with my direct supervisor's current commitment to DEI initiatives.

o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree

I am satisfied with the current morale in my library regarding DEI initiatives.

o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree

I am satisfied with the history of DEI initiatives from my:

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Library
University

Are there other factors related to your work environment that have influenced your overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction in relation to your library's

12
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

DEI work? Please explain below.

Please consider your job duties when responding to these statements.
I believe my DEI work has not affected or will not affect my potential for advancement or promotion negatively within the library.

o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree

I am satisfied with the DEI trainings offered by my:

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Library
University

I am satisfied with my ability to incorporate DEI work into my day-to-day work tasks.

o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree

Are there other factors related to your job duties that have influenced your overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction in relation to DEI work?
Please consider your values and your job when responding to these statements
I am satisfied with the surrounding community's current commitment to DEI initiatives.

o Strongly agree
o Somewhat agree
o Neither agree nor disagree
o Somewhat disagree
o Strongly disagree

I feel safe to pursue DEI work during my personal time because of the institutional culture of my:

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Library
University

My personal values and beliefs align with the DEI culture of my:

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

Library
University

Are there other personal factors that have influenced your overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction in relation to the DEI work at your library or uni­
versity or within your community?
We would like to know more about your story.
If you would like, please use the space below to elaborate on any of your answers or provide context to your reasoning for overall job satisfaction.
Feel free to share anything else you feel is relevant regarding DEI.
We'd like to take a moment to ask a few demographic questions. Please answer the following if you feel comfortable sharing.
What is your age?

o Under 25 years old

o 25–30 years old
o 31–35 years old
o 36–40 years old
o 41–45 years old
o 46–50 years old

13
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

o 51–55 years old

o 56–60 years old
o 61–65 years old
o Over 65 years old
o I prefer not to answer

Please select the one that best describes you:

o White
o African American
o Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
o Asian American
o East Asian American (Chinese, including Hong Kong and Macao, Tibetan, Taiwanese, Mongolian, North or South Korean, or Japanese)
o Southeast Asian American (Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, Thai, Myanmar, Malaysian, Indonesian, Singaporean, Filipino, East Timorean,
Brunei, or Cocos or Christmas Islander)
o South Asian American (Afghani, Bangladeshi, Bhutanese, Maldives/Dhivehin, Nepalese, Indian, Pakistani, or Sri Lankan)
o Middle Eastern or North African American
o First Nation Pacific Islander
o First Nation Alaskan Native
o First Nation Tribal designation within continental United States
o Bi/Multiracial American
o Prefer to self-describe as: ________________________________________________
o I choose not to specify my ethnicity.

You define your gender identity as:

o Woman
o Man
o Transgender woman
o Transgender man
o Non-binary/non-gender conforming
o Prefer to self-describe as: ________________________________________________
o I prefer not to specify my gender identity.

How long have you worked in an academic library?

o 0–2 years
o 3–5 years
o 6–10 years
o 11–15 years
o 16–20 years
o 21–25 years
o 26 years or more
o I prefer not to answer

How long have you been in your current position?

o 0–2 years
o 3–5 years
o 6–10 years
o 11–15 years
o 16–20 years
o 21–25 years
o 26 years or more
o I prefer not to answer

At what type of institution do you work at?

o Public college or university

o Private college or university

About how large is your institution in terms of its full-time equivalent enrollment or FTE (FTE is calculated as full-time students plus one-third of
part-time students)?

o 1–5000
o 5001–10,000

14
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

o 10,001–20,000
o 20,001–30,000
o 30,001–40,000
o 40,001 or more
o I'm not sure

What is the rank of your current position?

o Administration
o Tenured faculty
o Untenured faculty
o Faculty (nontenure track)
o Professional staff
o Staff
o Other

Which of the following most closely describes your current position?

o Access services
o Archives and/or special collections
o Library management
o Reference, instruction, and/or outreach
o Technical services and cataloging
o Web and electronic services
o Other

Are you comfortable with being contacted with follow-up questions garnered from these results? If so, please leave your email below.

Appendix B. Descriptive statistics for demographic data

Category Response Frequency Percent

Age Under 25 years 3 1.14

n = 263 25–30 years 26 9.89
31–35 years 29 11.03
36–40 years 31 11.79
41–45 years 26 9.89
46–50 years 34 12.93
51–55 years 27 10.27
56–60 years 33 12.55
61–65 years 25 9.51
Over 65 years 17 6.46
Prefer not to answer 12 4.56
Race/ethnicity African American 14 5.32
n = 263 Asian American 2 0.76
Bi/Multiracial American 7 2.66
East Asian American 4 4.52
First Nation Alaskan Native 0 0
First Nation Pacific Islander 0 0
First Nation Tribal Designation 0 0
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin 10 3.80
Middle Easter or North African American 0 0
South Asian American 2 0.76
Southeast Asian American 3 1.14
White 197 74.90
Prefer to self-describe 7 2.66
I choose not to specify 17 6.46
Gender identity Woman 172 65.65
n = 262 Man 64 24.43
Transgender woman 0 0
Transgender man 2 0.76
Non-binary/non-gender conforming 7 2.67
Prefer to self-describe 2 0.76
I prefer not to specify 15 5.73
Experience in an academic library 0–2 years 16 6.04
n = 265 3–5 years 49 18.49
6–10 years 46 17.36
11–15 years 41 15.47
16–20 years 33 12.45
21–25 years 27 10.19
26 years or more 49 18.49
I prefer not to answer 4 1.51
(continued on next page)

15
L. Geiger et al. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (2023) 102627

(continued )
Category Response Frequency Percent

Experience in current position 0–2 years 63 23.95

n = 263 3–5 years 71 27
6–10 years 54 20.53
11–15 years 30 11.41
16–20 years 14 5.32
21–25 years 12 4.56
26 years or more 12 4.56
I prefer not to answer 7 2.66
Institution type Public college or university 216 82.44
n = 262 Private college or university 46 17.56
Full-time equivalent enrollment 1–5000 10 3.79
n = 264 5001–10,000 15 5.68
10,001–20,000 48 18.18
20,001–30,000 58 21.97
30,001–40,000 45 17.05
40,001 or more 60 22.73
I'm not sure 28 10.61
Current rank Administration 11 4.18
n = 263 Tenured faculty 49 18.63
Untenured faculty 35 13.31
Faculty (nontenure track) 41 15.59
Professional staff 63 23.95
Staff 59 22.43
Other 5 1.90
Position type Access services 39 14.89
n = 262 Archives and/or special collections 26 9.92
Library management 24 9.16
Reference, instruction, and/or outreach 75 28.63
Technical services and cataloging 37 14.12
Web and electronic services 11 4.20
Other 50 19.08

References Kung, J. Y., Fraser, K., & Winn, D. (2020). Diversity initiatives to recruit and retain
academic librarians: A systematic review. College & Research Libraries, 81(1),
96–108.
Alabi, J. (2018). From hostile to inclusive: Strategies for improving the racial climate of
Lehan, T., Hussey, H., & Babcock, A. (2020). Mission unaccomplished: Beyond ‘talking a
academic libraries. Library Trends, 67(1), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1353/
good game’ to promote diversity and inclusion. Journal of Educational Research &
lib.2018.0029
Practice, 10(1), 167–184.
American Council on Education (ACE). (2022). Basic classification description. https
Love, J. B. (2001). The assessment of diversity initiatives in academic libraries. Journal of
://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/classification_descriptions/basic.php.
Library Administration, 33(1–2), 73–103.
Andrade, R., & Rivera, A. (2011). Developing a diversity competent workforce: The UA
Lumley, R. (2020). The academic library and social justice: Exploring librarian attitudes
libraries' experience. Journal of Library Administration, 51, 692–727. https://doi.org/
at one HIS. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(4), 472–491. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01930826.2011.601271
10.1177/1538192718823179
Cruz, A. M. (2019). Intentional integration of diversity ideals in academic libraries: A
Maack, M. N. (1994). Gender issues in library history. In I. W. A. Wiegand, &
literature review. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(3), 220–227.
D. G. Davis, Jr. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 533–537). Garland.
Dali, K., Bell, N., & Valdes, Z. (2021). Learning and change through diversity, equity, and
Mississippi State University Libraries (MSUL). (2020). Mississippi State University Libraries
inclusion professional development: Academic librarians' perspectives. Journal of
academic promotion and tenure policies and procedures. Mississippi State University.
Academic Librarianship, 47(6), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102448
Morales, M., Knowles, E. C., & Bourg, C. (2014). Diversity, social justice, and the future
Fife, D., Stephens, M. N., Lyons, A., & Huang, M. (2021). Leader responsibility for
of libraries. Libraries and the Academy, 14(3), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1353/
diversity, equity, inclusion & justice in academic libraries: An exploratory study.
pla.2014.0017
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Peet, L. (2021). Libraries partner on antiracism audit. Library Journal, 146(6), 13–16.
acalib.2021.102361
Ramonetti, M., & Pilato, V. (2019). Keeping the equity, inclusion, and diversity
Figueroa, M., & Shawgo, K. (2022). “You can't read your way out of racism”: Creating
conversations going. Urban Library Journal, 25(1), 1–15. https://academicworks.
anti-racist action out of education in an academic library. Reference Services Review,
cuny.edu/ulj/vol25/iss1/1 https://academicworks.cuny.edu/ulj/vol25/iss1/1.
50(1), 25–39. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/RSR-06-
Redd, R. T., Sims, A., & Weekes, T. (2020). Framework for change: Creating a diversity
2021-0025/full/html https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/
strategic plan within an academic library. Journal of Library Administration, 60(3),
RSR-06-2021-0025/full/html.
263–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2019.1698920
Frederick, J. K. (2021, April 5). Three considerations for inclusively and responsibly
Riley-Reid, T. (2017). Breaking down barriers: Making it easier for academic librarians of
analyzing and reporting on demographics. Ithaka S+R. http://sr.ithaka.org/blog/three
color to stay. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(5), 392–396. https://doi.org/
-considerations-for-inclusively-and-responsibly-analyzing-and-reporting-on-de
10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.017
mographics/.
Royse, M., Conner, T., & Miller, T. (2006). Charting a course for diversity: An experience
Gulati, A. (2010). Diversity in librarianship: The United States perspective. IFLA Journal,
in climate assessment. Libraries and the Academy, 6(1), 23–45.
36(4), 288–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035210388244
Samarati, P., & Sweeney, L. (1998). Protecting privacy when disclosing information: k-
Heady, C., Fyn, A. F., Kaufman, A. F., Hosier, A., & Weber, M. (2020). Contributory
Anonymity and its enforcement through generalization and suppression. https://doi.org/
factors to academic librarian turnover: A mixed methods study. Journal of Library
10.1184/r1/6625469
Administration, 60(6), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1748425
Sanchez-Rodriguez, N. A. (2021). In pursuit of diversity in the CUNY library profession:
Josey, E. J. (1994). Race issues in library history. In I. W. A. Wiegand, & D. G. Davis, Jr.
An effective approach to leadership in academic libraries. Journal of Library
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 533–537). Garland.
Administration, 61(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1853470
Kendrick, K. D. (2017). The low morale experience of academic librarians: A
Thistlethwaite, P. J. (1994). Gays and lesbians in library history. In I. W. A. Wiegand, &
phenomenological study. Journal of Library Administration, 57(8), 846–878. https://
D. G. Davis, Jr. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library history (pp. 533–537). Garland.
doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2017.1368325
Wiegand, W. A., & Davis, D. G. (1994). Encyclopedia of library history. Garland Publishing.
Koury, R., Semenza, J. L., & Shropshire, S. (2018). A survey of diversity and inclusiveness
initiatives at Carnegie Doctoral Research libraries. Library Management, 40(1/2),
23–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-10-2017-0117

16