“Put your mask on first before helping others”: Faculty members as a neglected population during Covid
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In congruence with the conference theme, “Crafting a Resilient Future: Leadership, Education, & Inspiration”, our panel seeks to address the ways in which faculty members in LIS/IS programs have contended with the various changes and challenges stemming from the global pandemic of COVID-19 as well as broader –and related- trends reshaping the academic landscape. While most of the attention in the literature has been geared toward student engagement and learning online as a means of addressing students’ academic success and wellbeing (Rapanta et al., 2020; Katz et al., 2021), there has been disproportionally much less attention geared at teaching and research faculty members. Despite being the backbone of our educational programs and schools, and often the main reasons why students select to enter our field (Dali & Caidi, 2016), faculty members’ needs and the challenges they are facing have been largely ignored (El Masri & Sabzalieva, 2020; Gabster et al., 2020). In this panel, we seek to critically center our discussion on this key constituency, and question (disrupt, even) the notion of faculty resilience. Indeed, making use of the resilience trope sheds light partially on faculty members’ well-being, but it also contributes to masking the many inadequacies and failures at the organizational and systemic level, particularly around policies and practices dealing with the curriculum, workload, representation, accommodations, academic freedom, resource allocation, justice and dignity to name just a few. There is a much-needed engagement that needs to take place around these issues in LIS education if we are truly honest about resilience and sustainability.\n\nOur international panelists present a cross-section of faculty members who bring their varied experiences in teaching and research in the LIS field to the discussion. Together, they represent tenure and tenure-track faculty, and administrators across three countries (USA, Canada, New Zealand). The panelists, all LIS educators and professionals, will base their engagement on the following themes/questions:\n• What efforts are LIS programs making to address the challenges faced by faculty members to ensure not only the sustainability of the educational program but also a dignified and fair treatment of faculty members? \n• What are possible scenarios for a post-COVID future of LIS education, and how can faculty members be best supported and inspired to achieve resilience for a sustainable future?\n\nThe speakers will tackle different angles to address these questions. After a short lightning talk (7-8 minutes), a discussion among panelists will ensue as well as engagement with the attendees through a Q/A. Some of the topics discussed include academic freedom, disability and neurodiversity, BIPOC faculty, emergency preparedness, and information cultures in Higher Education. \n\n\nOur format will be an interactive panel discussion that focuses on lessons learned and novel approaches to re-imagining the place of faculty members at the table, and the ways in which they can be supported to ensure they continue to strive toward innovative teaching methods and strategies for a shifting landscape in LIS education. The panelists will keep their lightening talks short to enable opportunities for audience interaction (through small-group conversations or breakout rooms (for virtual attendees)).
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,074 | 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 ».