Assessment of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship, Phase 2: Impact on the Research Productivity and Careers of Academic Librarians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – This article reports on the qualitative phase of a two-phase sequential mixed-methods study to assess the first six years of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL), a continuing education program for academic and research librarians. The study is designed to assess the effectiveness of IRDL in meeting short-term and long-term programmatic objectives related to the research productivity, job performance, and professional identities of the participants in the program. Methods – In this second part of a two-phase study, the authors conducted focus group and individual interviews with 37 IRDL participants (hereafter called Scholars) and coded the resulting transcripts. The first phase of the study surveyed all 124 program participants; the results were reported in an earlier article in this journal. The second-phase interviews were conducted and then coded using a deductive process. The researchers identified transcript excerpts that explored the concepts of research productivity, job performance, and identity as a researcher. Each of these concepts was further sub-coded to explore the four sources of self-efficacy, as described in Albert Bandura’s theory: mastery experiences; verbal or social persuasion; vicarious experiences; and physiological and affective states. Results – The majority of the conversations in both the in-depth individual interviews and the focus group interviews centered around research productivity; approximately 70% of the transcript excerpts from focus groups and 55% of the individual interviews addressed issues related to productivity. Participants also discussed the impact of IRDL on their job performance and their identify as researchers. Gaining research confidence had a notable positive impact on job performance related to classroom teaching and supporting researchers. Within these areas of conversation, all sources of self-efficacy were evident, but the most frequently noted were influences related to mastery learning and social persuasion, through mentorship and becoming part of a peer research community. Conclusion – The findings from the focus groups and in-depth interviews deepen the meaning of the results from the quantitative phase of our IRDL assessment research. The participants in the study reported both frustration and satisfaction with conducting their research. A supportive environment focused on helping librarians gain needed research skills, practice those skills, and become part of a research community contributes to research confidence and productivity, improved job performance, and identity as a researcher. The findings of this study have implications for developing librarians as researchers, including the importance of a supportive work environment, research mentoring, and the positive influence of becoming part of a research community.
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 | 0,018 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,078 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 ».