Approaches to Negotiating Change Through Evolving Library Management Styles in Australian University Libraries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of:Gunapala, M., Montague, A., Reynolds, S., & Vo-Tran, H. (2020). Managing change in university libraries in the 21st century: An Australian perspective. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 69(2), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2020.1756598 Objective – Investigating current change management practices to create a conceptual management framework for the 21st century. Design – Interviews using a qualitative constructivist approach. Setting – Australian university libraries. Subjects – Chief university librarians of 18 public universities out of 37 in Australia. Methods – Chief university librarians in more than half of the public university libraries in Australia were interviewed. The interviews were completed face-to-face using a semi-structured questioning approach, based on themes and concepts derived from the literature review. Observation data were also gathered through physical visits to the libraries. The data analysis was conducted using two Microsoft Excel matrices, one grouped thematically and the other populated with relevant literature review commentary when it aligned with interviewee commentary. The conceptual framework used to guide the research is made up of six fundamentals of performance improvements to effectively manage change: resources, relevance, stakeholders, strategy, government policy, and university infrastructure. The research focused on current change management practices of chief librarians as they address these issues. Main Results – The research revealed that the influence of, or the relationship between, the factors affecting changing university library environments creates a complex administrative environment where decision making addressing one of the fundamentals can have negative unintended consequences in one or more of the other key areas. The authors note that the literature and views of the informants show a change in the objectives of the future academic library characterized by, but not limited to, initiatives that are designed to meet changing needs of a diverse group of stakeholders. These objectives must be “innovative” and “add value to the university business rather than continue to do what was traditionally done” (Gunapala et al., 2020, p. 203). Conclusion – The authors profess that the study provides theoretical insight to help library leaders address the many challenges currently in place and emerging across the Australian university library landscape. They assert that the research reveals the need to shift focus from a more traditional transactional oriented model to an engagement orientated model, due to the introduction of market forces coupled with declining public funding. They conclude by claiming to provide a theoretical framework that when practically implemented will allow library leaders to successfully navigate and negotiate emerging changes across the spectrum of higher education.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,164 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».