Marketing information and library services: are people learning about it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is argued that the increasing trend for business schools to focus on marketing tangible products to consumers makes it increasingly important for future information professionals to learn about services and business-to-business (B2B) marketing. The degree to which marketing is taught in UK library schools was investigated in a survey, conducted in Summer 2001, of the extent to which library and information services (LIS) marketing and quality management were being taught as part of the curriculum. The study was a companion to ones covering the situation in North America (France Bouthillier at McGill University) and in Brazil (Sueli Mara S.P Ferreira of Sao Paulo University). The results from all three surveys were presented at the seminar held by the IFLA Management and Marketing Section, Quebec, August 2001. In the UK survey, all Library Association/ Institute of Information Scientists accredited courses (21 undergraduate and 37 postgraduate) were mailed. Questionnaires were sent to Heads of Department in each of the 17 institutions with relevant courses, where respondents were asked whether they regularly offered classes in marketing of library and information services and the management of service quality. Out of a total of 56 potential returns, 18 questionnaires were returned by eight institutions (32 per cent response rate) with eight related to undergraduate courses (38% response rate) and ten to Master’s (27% response rate). The key results of the survey are summarized. It is concluded that there has been steady improvement in the teaching of marketing to information professionals over the years, but that the change is taking place slowly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".