Doctoral Recruitment Factors : Results of a Survey of Deans and Directors
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Between April and October 2006, survey responses were obtained from administrators at 17 of 32 universities identified as offering doctoral programs in library and information science (LIS) (56%). The aim of the survey was to assist recruitment activities by identifying the admissions, lengths, requirements, and institutional support for doctoral programs in LIS. The possession of a master's degree in LIS, and previous employment in an LIS field ranked the lowest among nine possible selection criteria. Respondents ranked possession of an MLIS (41%), and previous employment in an LIS field (53%) as important qualifications for admission. Responses regarding qualifications for admission demonstrate a high regard for academic performance, with little or no emphasis upon previous experience in librarianship. Introduction and Statement of the Problem Over the past decade or more, concerns have arisen among Library and Information Science (LIS) educators regarding recruitment of suitable doctoral candidates and hence, of future LIS education. Moreover, LIS educators like Charles Seavey and former Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) President John Budd voiced concerns over the ageing cohort of LIS instructors and called for more active recruiting. They have actively been pursuing funding to encourage increases both in the numbers of practitioners and of LIS educators. Writing in 2005, Charles Seavey warned of a potential shortage of library practitioners. ' The following year, Seavey and John Budd received a substantial grant from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to alleviate this projected shortfall by recruiting and retaining doctoral students at the University of Missouri, Columbia.2 Commenting upon the reasoning behind this strategy, Budd put the matter simply: We're not educating enough educators.3 At the 2006 ALISE conference, the Recruitment Committee was asked to investigate ways to recruit new doctoral students. The committee decided to conduct a survey of LIS deans and directors to explore various aspects of a doctoral program that might influence a practitioner's or master's student's decision to enroll in a Ph.D. program. By comparing the information from Ph.D.-granting schools in the U.S. and Canada, prospective students could make a more informed decision. Review of the Literature Several studies and reports of doctoral programs in LIS have been published over the years. The present study will add to the body of information on recruiting doctoral students. More than twenty years ago, Bobinski traced the development of doctoral studies in LIS and then provided a picture of such programs at the time of his article.4 He listed 24 programs that had been established between 1926 and 1976, with all but 6 beginning after 1955. Bobinski provided data on the number of doctoral degrees awarded, comparisons with other disciplines, tuition fees, fellowships awarded, admission requirements, specializations within LIS, and more. He observed that LIS schools needed to do a better job of publicizing their programs. Abrera did a review of the literature published from 1926 to 1980 on doctoral programs in LIS.5 Early studies compared the value of degrees in various disciplines, while later ones examined such issues as financial support, research productivity, and the status of LIS Ph.D. programs. A descriptive study of LIS doctoral programs was carried out by Whitbeck in 1991. 6 He used a survey method, collecting data from 10 schools. He looked at several factors including what was considered in admissions (GPAs, GREs, TOEL examinations) and length of time taken by students to achieve certain milestones. Most students took three to seven years between receipt of a master's degree and entry into a doctoral program (approximately 70 months total). In 1992 Reeling followed up on Bobinski 's study by examining how doctoral recipients in LIS compared with doctoral recipients in other disciplines. …
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 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,097 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».