Formal Mentoring Programs Can Provide Organizational and Professional Benefits, but are Few and Far Between in Canadian Academic Libraries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Harrington, M. R., & Marshall, E. (2014). Analyses of mentoring expectations, activities, and support in Canadian academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 75(6), 763-790. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.75.6.763 Abstract Objective – To determine the extent to which formal and informal mentoring is present in Canadian academic libraries and how such activities meet expectations for new librarians, practising librarians, and library administrators. Design – Online surveys. Setting – Canadian college and university libraries. Subjects – Three groups were defined and surveyed: graduates from one Canadian MLIS program; librarians practising in a Canadian academic library, and library administrators directing a Canadian academic library. Methods – Participants were selected using stratified, purposeful sampling and were invited to participate in an online survey in December 2010. Three surveys were distributed in total; one for each of the three target groups defined. The surveys contained both closed- and open-ended questions. Students from one specific MLIS program graduating in December 2010 and Spring 2011 were directly invited to participate. An incentive was offered to the student group and the librarian group to encourage participation. Main Results – Mentoring programs in Canadian colleges and universities are present but are largely informal. Mentoring activities are positively correlated with student population, how long a mentor has worked professionally, and whether or not librarians had been mentored early in their careers. 83% of new graduates expected to be mentored when hired by a Canadian academic library while less than one quarter of librarians and no administrators reported having similar expectations when starting their professional academic careers. Over 50% of the students who responded to the survey reported that they had experienced some form of mentoring while completing their MLIS, though that may be related to the cooperative placement component of their educational program. All respondents, with the exception of university administers, indicated that library colleagues are appropriate mentors, while academic librarians and administrators felt that the mentorship relationship would not benefit were the mentor also the supervisor. Respondents placed the greatest weight of importance on mentoring activities related to academic expertise, career guidance, psychosocial support and role models, while indicating that evaluation was not considered to have a significant place in the mentor-mentee relationship. Networking, cultural complexities, general encouragement, and career counseling were seen as important mentorship aspects for both new graduates and practising librarians. Administrators in both college and university libraries were less likely to support mentoring particularly in the areas of assisting with grant writing, evaluation, and career counseling. In general, administrators were reluctant to develop or support formal mentor programming even though a significant percentage agreed that it would benefit succession planning. Conclusion – New graduates and practising librarians expect to participate in some form of mentoring activities yet there are very few Canadian academic libraries providing formal mentorship programming. The value of the mentor-mentee relationship with respect to organizational planning, recruitment and retention, as well as career planning, is perceived as high amongst new graduates, practising librarians, and administrators.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,032 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,003 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».