MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793925421 · doi:10.18438/eblip29356

The Professional Identity Experiences of LIS Graduates in Non-Library Roles Can Be Described by the Theory of Personalizing Professionalism

2018· article· en· W2793925421 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Melissa J. Goertzen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theorySnowball samplingTheoretical samplingPopulationIdentity (music)Coding (social sciences)Library scienceSociologyPsychologyMedical educationQualitative researchComputer scienceMedicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Fraser-Arnott, M. (2017, May 17). Personalizing professionalism: The professional identity experiences of LIS graduates in non-library roles. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000617709062 Abstract Objective – To produce a theory that captures the professional identity experiences of library and information science (LIS) graduates employed in non-library roles. Design – Data collection and analysis were conducted using semi-structured interviews and grounded theory methodology. Setting – A variety of industry sectors located in the United States or Canada. Subjects – Twenty professionals with Master's degrees in LIS employed in non-library roles. Method – This study used the Glaserian Grounded Theory methodology, which requires constant theoretical sampling and comparison until no new data is found in any coding category. The researcher utilized two types of sampling in this study: snowball or chain referral sampling, and theoretical sampling. These techniques allowed the researcher to build a potential list of participants from a difficult to reach population. Study data was collected through semi-structured interviews divided into three sections: 1) participants were asked to describe their career experiences from their decision to attend library school to the present; 2) follow-up questions by the researcher in response to comments made by participants during the first phase; 3) questions listed in an interview guide that examined educational experiences, communities, and how participants identify themselves as professionals. Main Results – Study results produced the theory of Personalizing Professionalism, which suggests that each individual possess two identities that interact with one another throughout the course of one's career. The first is an internal appraisal of self that represents who one is as a professional. It is developed as a result of socialization in the profession and an understanding of personal motivations and interests. The second is an externally expressed identity that represents how an individual presents himself or herself to achieve professional goals. This can include self-imposed labels, such as "librarian", or strategies used to find a path within the profession. This process involves reflections and actions aimed at identifying what type of professional to be and steps required to achieve goals. The results also indicate that interactions with others impact an individual’s internal appraisal of self and externally expressed identity. Areas of conflict were identified when commonly held views of how a professional identity should be expressed did not match the identity that an individual developed or displayed to others. When conflicts arose, individuals used a variety of strategies to resolve the discrepancy between internal and external identities: assimilation, attempting to influence or change the perceptions of the group, or withdrawal. In terms of self-identifying as a librarian, the study found that participants who chose the term as a professional label believed that the work they do in non-library settings was still compatible with their definition of what it meant to be a librarian. Participants who identified as librarians some of the time and by their job title at other times did so based on an evaluation of which label would best advance their position with a given audience. Finally, participants who chose not to use the label of librarian had never internally associated with the role or job title; these individuals completed a LIS program to gain transferable skills or qualify for a wide variety of employment opportunities. Conclusion – The theory of Personalizing Professionalism provides insight into the development and expression of professional identity experiences when LIS graduates work in non-library roles. The results have value to practitioners and educators who market LIS programs or develop course content. For instance, in the future greater emphasis could be placed on transferable skill sets that are of value to roles outside of traditional library settings. Many participants described potential or actual conflicts when trying to place themselves within the LIS community because new ideas of what it means to be a “librarian” were rejected, leading to feelings of exclusion. Over time, this could lead to a detrimental loss of innovation and ideas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207