Assessment of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL): Impact on the Research Productivity and Careers of Academic Librarians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – This article reports the survey findings from a mixed-methods assessment of the six-year Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL). The Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provided funding for IRDL from 2014-2019; during this time, 124 academic and research librarians participated in a year-long continuing education program for novice researchers. This article assesses the effectiveness of IRDL in meeting short-term and long-term goals related to research productivity, job performance, and identity as a researcher. Beyond the assessment of IRDL itself, the study addresses the implications of IRDL for creating effective research continuing education programs and institutional support for librarian research. Methods – In the first part of a two-phase study, we surveyed all 124 librarians who completed the in-person summer research workshop and year-long online follow-up program. The lead researcher invited those who completed the survey to participate in the study's second phase, a focus group or an in-depth interview. Results – Eighty-nine participants responded to the survey, for a 72% response rate. The results show that IRDL was successful in helping a majority of participants complete their IRDL project and conduct new research. Participants reported work-related benefits of participating in the program, including tenure, rank promotion, merit-based salary increases, and new employment opportunities. IRDL contributed to developing personal learning networks, research collaborations, and a sense of identity as a researcher. IRDL increased the research confidence of the participants by providing them with research methods instruction, coupled with an opportunity to practice what they have learned during a year-long support program. Conclusion – This assessment study confirms that IRDL is an effective program for novice librarian-researchers who want to improve their research skills, develop new research relationships among their peers, and advance in their careers. It also provides insight into the conditions for a successful continuing education and research support program. Many librarians experience anxiety about conducting and disseminating their research; IRDL demonstrates the importance of placing novice researchers in a supportive environment, where research is viewed as a positive experience that is directly related to professional success. These experiences lead to increased confidence and identity as a researcher, which contributes to increased research productivity.
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 | 0,019 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,332 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 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 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 ».