MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2793925421 · doi:10.18438/eblip29356

The Professional Identity Experiences of LIS Graduates in Non-Library Roles Can Be Described by the Theory of Personalizing Professionalism

2018· article· en· W2793925421 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Melissa J. Goertzen

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Administration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGrounded theorySnowball samplingTheoretical samplingPopulationIdentity (music)Coding (social sciences)Library scienceSociologyPsychologyMedical educationQualitative researchComputer scienceMedicineSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Review of: Fraser-Arnott, M. (2017, May 17). Personalizing professionalism: The professional identity experiences of LIS graduates in non-library roles. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617709062 Abstract Objective – To produce a theory that captures the professional identity experiences of library and information science (LIS) graduates employed in non-library roles. Design – Data collection and analysis were conducted using semi-structured interviews and grounded theory methodology. Setting – A variety of industry sectors located in the United States or Canada. Subjects – Twenty professionals with Master's degrees in LIS employed in non-library roles. Method – This study used the Glaserian Grounded Theory methodology, which requires constant theoretical sampling and comparison until no new data is found in any coding category. The researcher utilized two types of sampling in this study: snowball or chain referral sampling, and theoretical sampling. These techniques allowed the researcher to build a potential list of participants from a difficult to reach population. Study data was collected through semi-structured interviews divided into three sections: 1) participants were asked to describe their career experiences from their decision to attend library school to the present; 2) follow-up questions by the researcher in response to comments made by participants during the first phase; 3) questions listed in an interview guide that examined educational experiences, communities, and how participants identify themselves as professionals. Main Results – Study results produced the theory of Personalizing Professionalism, which suggests that each individual possess two identities that interact with one another throughout the course of one's career. The first is an internal appraisal of self that represents who one is as a professional. It is developed as a result of socialization in the profession and an understanding of personal motivations and interests. The second is an externally expressed identity that represents how an individual presents himself or herself to achieve professional goals. This can include self-imposed labels, such as "librarian", or strategies used to find a path within the profession. This process involves reflections and actions aimed at identifying what type of professional to be and steps required to achieve goals. The results also indicate that interactions with others impact an individual’s internal appraisal of self and externally expressed identity. Areas of conflict were identified when commonly held views of how a professional identity should be expressed did not match the identity that an individual developed or displayed to others. When conflicts arose, individuals used a variety of strategies to resolve the discrepancy between internal and external identities: assimilation, attempting to influence or change the perceptions of the group, or withdrawal. In terms of self-identifying as a librarian, the study found that participants who chose the term as a professional label believed that the work they do in non-library settings was still compatible with their definition of what it meant to be a librarian. Participants who identified as librarians some of the time and by their job title at other times did so based on an evaluation of which label would best advance their position with a given audience. Finally, participants who chose not to use the label of librarian had never internally associated with the role or job title; these individuals completed a LIS program to gain transferable skills or qualify for a wide variety of employment opportunities. Conclusion – The theory of Personalizing Professionalism provides insight into the development and expression of professional identity experiences when LIS graduates work in non-library roles. The results have value to practitioners and educators who market LIS programs or develop course content. For instance, in the future greater emphasis could be placed on transferable skill sets that are of value to roles outside of traditional library settings. Many participants described potential or actual conflicts when trying to place themselves within the LIS community because new ideas of what it means to be a “librarian” were rejected, leading to feelings of exclusion. Over time, this could lead to a detrimental loss of innovation and ideas.

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
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 enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,036

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,017
Communication savante0,0060,006
Science ouverte0,0010,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · 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

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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