MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2096877152 · doi:10.18438/b8n88f

Choices in Chaos: Designing Research to Investigate Librarians’ Information Services Improvised During a Variety of Community-Wide Disasters and to Produce Evidence-Based Training Materials for Librarians

2007· article· en· W2096877152 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michelynn McKnight, Lisl Zach

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Administration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMcKnight FoundationInstitute of Museum and Library Services
Mots-clésVariety (cybernetics)ImprovisationComputer scienceInformation systemPoint (geometry)World Wide WebPublic relationsKnowledge managementPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective - How can we discover patterns of how librarians develop new information services needed when disaster strikes the community? While there are many guidelines and training materials for planning to protect staff, systems, collections and buildings (in order to return to normal services) in disasters, there are none for quickly improvising needed services. Evidence-based standards and education modules could be very useful to librarians in such crises. Published accounts of such services describe services improvised during a single disaster or during a small number of similar disasters and usually point to the heroic efforts of particular librarians in particular libraries. They tend to be anecdotal and idiosyncratic. The authors needed to design a project using valid research methods to gather consistently and to analyze rigorously narrative data from a wide variety of libraries that have provided improvised services during a wide variety of disasters. Information professionals everywhere strive to provide timely and relevant information in an appropriate format to meet the needs of users. Textbook studies tell us about the value of thoughtful data collection and advance planning before launching new information services for users of libraries and information centers. How can we find out what librarians have done when there is no time for such planning? Method - The authors surveyed a variety of accepted research methods for gathering and analyzing qualitative narrative data describing similar phenomena. They tested some methods in a pilot study of services provided by librarians in southern Louisiana after two hurricanes in 2005. They quickly realized that surveys of hundreds of libraries and interviews of a few librarians did not produce the kind or amount of data to answer the “what” and “how” questions for a variety of libraries in a variety of disasters. They discussed that study and its results with several senior researchers experienced with qualitative methods. (Reports on the pilot study have been published in peer-reviewed publications.) Based on what they had learned during the pilot study and in subsequent discussions, the researchers designed a much larger study to gather evidence of common practice patterns in diverse disasters. Needing to be open to discovery of what happens in different situations they devised a research method based on in-depth interviews, multiple case studies, and narrative data analysis to build grounded theory. The study will conclude with the development of best practices presented as case studies and evidence based training modules for LIS students and practicing librarians. (They submitted the research proposal to the Institute for Museum and Library Services National Leadership Grant program.) Results - The researchers found evidence of the efficacy of Multiple Case Study and Grounded Theory research methods for this kind of for this kind of research question. They developed a protocol to gather data from academic, public, school and special libraries that provided extraordinary services during days and weeks of community disasters caused by earthquakes, massive blackouts, tornadoes, wild fires, hurricanes, land slides, floods, chemical spills and other natural or accidental events. The IMLS agreed with their findings on how to study the question and funded the grant proposal. The researchers have begun the two year project and report briefly on its progress in this paper. Conclusion - Librarians need evidence-based case studies and educational material to learn how to identify needed information services during any kind of community-wide disaster and to respond to these needs creatively. Since this preparation is not currently included in LIS education, standards and guidelines or research literature, there is a need for reliable studies of these phenomena in a variety of libraries and a variety of disasters. The researchers studied and tested various quantitative, qualitative and mixed data gathering methods, tested them, and designed a method for gathering and analyzing the data necessary to support such guidelines and education. Based on their resulting research proposal to study about twenty such phenomena, the Institute for Museum and Library Services has awarded them a two-year National Leadership Grant to perform the study.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,141
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,141
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,746

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1410,142
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0080,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,026
Communication savante0,0160,021
Science ouverte0,0030,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,098
Tête enseignante GPT0,357
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Science and AdministrationTravaux en français237 207