Assessment of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL): Impact on the Research Productivity and Careers of Academic Librarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This article reports the survey findings from a mixed-methods assessment of the six-year Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL). The Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provided funding for IRDL from 2014-2019; during this time, 124 academic and research librarians participated in a year-long continuing education program for novice researchers. This article assesses the effectiveness of IRDL in meeting short-term and long-term goals related to research productivity, job performance, and identity as a researcher. Beyond the assessment of IRDL itself, the study addresses the implications of IRDL for creating effective research continuing education programs and institutional support for librarian research. Methods – In the first part of a two-phase study, we surveyed all 124 librarians who completed the in-person summer research workshop and year-long online follow-up program. The lead researcher invited those who completed the survey to participate in the study's second phase, a focus group or an in-depth interview. Results – Eighty-nine participants responded to the survey, for a 72% response rate. The results show that IRDL was successful in helping a majority of participants complete their IRDL project and conduct new research. Participants reported work-related benefits of participating in the program, including tenure, rank promotion, merit-based salary increases, and new employment opportunities. IRDL contributed to developing personal learning networks, research collaborations, and a sense of identity as a researcher. IRDL increased the research confidence of the participants by providing them with research methods instruction, coupled with an opportunity to practice what they have learned during a year-long support program. Conclusion – This assessment study confirms that IRDL is an effective program for novice librarian-researchers who want to improve their research skills, develop new research relationships among their peers, and advance in their careers. It also provides insight into the conditions for a successful continuing education and research support program. Many librarians experience anxiety about conducting and disseminating their research; IRDL demonstrates the importance of placing novice researchers in a supportive environment, where research is viewed as a positive experience that is directly related to professional success. These experiences lead to increased confidence and identity as a researcher, which contributes to increased research productivity.
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 | 0.259 | 0.335 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".