Differences in Work/life Balance and Stress at Work Between Male and Female Academic Librarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Galbraith, Q., Fry, L., and Garrison, M. (2016). The Impact of Faculty Status and Gender on Employee Well-being in Academic Libraries. College & Research Libraries, 77(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.77.1.71 Abstract Objective – To measure job satisfaction, personal fulfilment, work/life balance, and stress levels of male and female academic librarians. Design – Survey. Setting – ARL institutions. Subjects – Male and female librarians who work in ARL institutions. Methods – The survey was emailed to deans of 110 ARL libraries for completion by professional librarians. Participants were asked to rate their work/life balance, job satisfaction, stress at work, and personal fulfillment on Likert scales (1 low -7 high). Overall, 846 librarians from 25 ARL libraries responded to the survey. In total, 719 valid responses were analysed using a 2-tailed 2-sample t-test and multiple linear regression to explore variables. Main Results – Results of this study indicate that differences exist between male and female librarians’ well-being in academic libraries. Differences in work/life balance and stress at work were most significant. However, at non-faculty institutions this difference was smaller between male and female librarians than faculty institutions. Hours worked per week and the number of years worked at the library were found to have a statistically significant impact on work/life balance. Data analysis also suggested that there is no association between gender and job satisfaction and personal fulfillment. Tenure at faculty institutions also did not have a statistically significant impact on job satisfaction. Conclusion – The study concluded that support for workplace flexibility and well-being may make the most difference in reducing stress and promoting work/life balance by librarians at ARL institutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".