Academic Library Department Experience Fosters the Development of Leadership Skills Relevant to Academic Library Directorship
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Harris-Keith, Colleen S. (2015). The Relationship Between Academic Library Department Experience and Perceptions of Leadership Skill Development Relevant to Academic Library Directorship. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(3), 246-263. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.017 Abstract Objective – This study sought to identify if the perception of library leadership skill and quality development is equal across departmental experience, and what are the leadership skills and qualities most commonly perceived to be used in each department. Design – Quantitative online survey instrument. Setting – Master’s colleges and universities from 728 institutions in the United States of America, as classified by the Carnegie Foundation. Subjects – 666 academic library directors. Methods – Selected participants, representing academic library administrative leadership, were contacted by email a maximum of four times and were invited to complete an online survey instrument composed of six sections. The first three sections contained the purpose and confidentiality statements, demographic information, and data on the past five positions held by respondents prior to their current directorship. The next two sections each had 25 statements on a 5-point Likert scale, to collect data on perceived leadership skills and qualities exercised by respondents in their most recent three positions. The final section had four open-ended questions to help explain the academic library directors’ responses and provide context for the ratings in previous sections of the instrument. Main results – A total of 296 responses were received, for a 40.66% response rate, which was representative of the institution type demographics, including private non-profit, public, and private for-profit. The first research question asked: is the perception of library leadership skill and quality development equal across departmental experience? The data used for this question involved all library departments: Access Services, Administration, Collection Development, Digital Library Services, Information Technology, Reference and Instruction, and Technical Services. When departments were compared pairwise on composite leadership skill scores, Administration was significantly higher than another department. Results showed that perceptions of leadership quality development appeared to be equal across departments, but leadership skill development was not, and in fact, there was a significant difference between the variances of the composite scores in the population. The second research question asked: what are the leadership skills and qualities most commonly perceived to be used in each department? Results revealed that every leadership skill score except for time management was significant, indicating a difference among library departments based on individual leadership skill scores. Respondents perceived that there was a difference in leadership skill (but not leadership quality) development opportunity by department. Departments were also compared pairwise on offering a greater opportunity to develop leadership skills, and overall, academic library directors perceived that there were significant differences in skill development by department. Furthermore, respondents overwhelmingly indicated that Administration was where they perceived the most leadership skill development opportunities. There was no perceived difference in leadership quality development by department. As well, some departments were reported to provide targeted, department-specific leadership skills, such as resource allocation and budget management. Conclusion – This study offers strong evidence that development of many of the leadership skills necessary for success as an academic library director only present themselves to professionals once they enter the Administration department, the library director position, or the assistant director position.
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 | 0,004 | 0,019 |
| 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 | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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 ».