Leadership Development for Academic Librarians: Maintaining the Status Quo?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leadership development experiences within librarianship are immensely popular. The informal critiques that are leveled at these programs, however, claim that they serve only to reinforce the status quo and that they do not address the real issues affecting our profession, particularly those relating to racial and gender diversity. In order to critically determine the value of these programs, I examine them through the lens of critical race theory. Elements of critical race theory are illustrated through details solicited from the program coordinators and from available information on program websites and in professional literature. While these leadership programs frame themselves as creating transformational leaders, focusing on team-building, collaboration, and motivation, their curriculum and structure perpetuate the status quo in relation to librarianship's existing structural biases. There are steps that can be taken, however, to better develop diverse leaders with our professional values in mind.
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 | 0.033 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".