A Portrait of Balance: Personal and Professional Balance among Student Affairs Educators.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to explore (a) how student affairs professionals define the concept of in the context of balancing their personal and professional lives and (b) how student affairs professionals identified as balanced describe their experience of achieving and maintaining in their lives. An increasing number of working individuals have become concerned with the Holy Grail of the workplace-the ability to achieve personal/professional (Buckner & Sandholtz, 2003, p. 68). Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines as state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces, or as a stable mental or psychological state; emotional stability (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2003). Kofodimos (1993) defined as a satisfying, healthy, and productive life that includes work, play, and love; that integrates range of life activities with attention to self and to personal and spiritual development; and that expresses person's unique wishes, interests and values (p. xiii). Balance challenge for most individuals working in higher education (Tack, 1991). Toma and Grady (2002) reported that achieving in one's life is often difficult but essential (p. 97). Within our profession we serve as both educators and role models to students. Toma and Grady wrote that we bear particular responsibility in practicing what we preach (p. 102) as we encourage students to think holistically about thek development and lead lives of themselves. Student affairs professionals often assume many responsibilities within thek positions, creating high personal demand in terms of both talent and energy (Carpenter, 2003). However, as demanding schedules from work-related activities continue to mount, there an increasing recognition and cognizant effort by student affairs practitioners to be more mindful of their obligations to themselves, particularly in terms of maintaining degree of personal and professional (Amy & Smith, 1996; Carpenter, 2003; Toma & Grady, 2002; Reisser, 2002; Tack, 1991). Articles in many popular magazines, including Time, Fortune, Ebony, Money, and Prevention (Dollemore & Harrar, 2003; Fisher, 2003; Gilbert, 2002; Steptoe, 2003; Wang, 2003), describing the busy lives of high profile professionals, have frequently turned to the topic of balance. Most focus on interviews and profiles of individuals who appear to have attained and offer lessons on how others can achieve the same. The sheer volume of publications with strategies for achieving and avoiding burnout further identifies it as an important topic. The publications range from journal articles to self help books, all offering guidelines, models, and suggestions for achieving (Tarver, Canada, & Iim, 1999; Markel, 2000; Provost, 1990; Reisser, 2002). Many articles attempt to create list of suggestions on how to solve the balance problem, while others find fundamental problem with the typical approach to the topic and propose alternative ways of approaching the issue of (Caproni, 1997; Kofodimos, 1993). secretan (2000) reported that integration, not balance, the solution! Several articles were specifically directed at student affairs professionals (Amy & Smith, 1996; Bellman, 1990; Berwick, 1992; Toma & Grady, 2002; Wiggers, Forney, & Wallace-Schutzman, 1982), but contrary to the national trend, the student affairs literature offers comparatively little to practitioners interested in achieving as it relates specifically to their profession. Nearly decade ago, Tack (1991) called for shift away from the workaholic attitudes adopted by many individuals in higher education and toward work-to-live philosophy, but our literature has not reflected this directive. This topic predominantly emerged in student affairs literature within the context of imbalance through research on stress levels, job satisfaction, burnout, and attrition among student affairs professionals. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».