More Critical, Less Managerial: Addressing the Managerialist Ideology in Academic Libraries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managerialism is an ideology that presents management as the center of organizations, shifting power and agency away from workers. This ideology allows more control and power to reside at the top of an organization, rather than allowing shared power in decision-making and everyday work. This structure can create inequitable and oppressive work environments that devalue the agency and intelligence of library staff and librarians. Managerialism, while considered an ideology on its own, has been building stronger roots in academic library practices due to influence from neoliberalism in the university environment. While managers can help with achieving organizational goals, it is important to critically examine library management practices to ensure that managers address instances of exclusion and inequity that may arise in these practices. This article introduces managerialism by providing a brief history of management and its expansion. It also identifies academic library practices that have been and continue to be susceptible to managerialist influences, such as consumer surveys, the demand for managers, strategic planning, leadership institutes, and merit pay. The article also provides some suggestions for addressing managerialism in the profession to ensure equity and inclusion are prioritized in library work. This includes practicing critical reflection, embedding critical perspectives in LIS education and training, and introducing critical perspectives on leadership.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.105 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".