Information in Transition : Examining the Information Behaviour of Academics as they Transition into University Careers
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Transitions are often times of upheaval. A transition, even when<br/>positive, may be disruptive as familiar contexts, supports, and resources change.<br/>While early career academics are highly trained and experienced, the transition<br/>from doctoral student to academic involves a series of new roles and<br/>responsibilities within a new information environment, an environment that has<br/>been influenced by neoliberal ideals and become increasingly corporatised and<br/>managerial in nature. Within information behaviour research there has been a<br/>lack of research that focuses specifically on periods of transition, particularly<br/>on individuals in transition over time. Additionally, while there is information<br/>behaviour research on academics, it does not address the experiences of<br/>academics as they start their careers. This research addresses those gaps.<br/><br/>This research used constructivist grounded theory and critical discourse<br/>analysis as methodologies to explore the information behaviour of 20<br/>individuals transitioning from doctoral students to academics in Australia and<br/>Canada. Academics in the humanities and social sciences, who had recently<br/>moved from full-time doctoral studies to full-time academic positions, were<br/>followed for a period of between five and seven months. To triangulate the data,<br/>three data sources were used: two in-depth interviews, multiple check-ins, and<br/>documents. Interviews were analysed using grounded theory analysis,<br/>documents using critical discourse analysis. Two theoretical frameworks were<br/>used to provide analytical lenses: neoliberalism and Transitions Theory. Several<br/>major themes emerged from this research that contribute to both information<br/>behaviour research and Transitions Theory.<br/><br/>In looking at academics’ work, the number and variety of administrative<br/>and managerial tasks universities require academics to perform greatly<br/>increases their information needs. Administrative work becomes a layer over all<br/>academic work. However, universities frequently fail to provide the information<br/>academics require, leaving information needs unfulfilled. Because of this, early<br/>career academics frequently seek information from their more senior colleagues,<br/>rather than relying on textual sources. Senior colleagues provide timely,<br/>convenient, and comprehensive information. Physical proximity and the<br/>building of collegial relationships promote information sharing, informal<br/>information exchanges, and serendipitous information finding that is of great<br/>use to early career academics. Social information is instrumental for early<br/>career academics’ settling in to their new positions, as doctoral studies often fail<br/>to provide an accurate picture of academic life or to fully prepare students for<br/>research, teaching, service, and administrative roles. Comparing and contrasting<br/>previous experiences to their current experience is one way that early career<br/>academics use new information to learn new ways of working and develop a<br/>sense of belonging in academia. From these findings, the theory of Systemic<br/>Managerial Constraints (SMC) emerged. SMC views the managerialism that<br/>results from neoliberalism within universities as pervasive and constraining<br/>both what work early career academics do and how they do it. However,<br/>colleagues help to ameliorate the effects of SMC and early career academics<br/>learn, as they transition, to enact their personal agency to enable them to do the<br/>work that they value.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle