MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389815427 · doi:10.18438/eblip30432

Experiences, Benefits, and Challenges of Virtual Teamwork for Public Libraries in the US Midwest during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2023· article· en· W4389815427 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eugenia Opuda

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingTeamworkThematic analysisMedical educationInterviewPsychologySession (web analytics)Qualitative researchPublic relationsSociologyMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Singh, K., & Bossaller, J. S. (2022). It’s just not the same: Virtual teamwork in public libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 62(4), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2022.2057130\ Objective – To learn about public libraries’ transition to virtual teams before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to uncover the benefits, as well as challenges, of using technology and tools for virtual teamwork. Design – Qualitative, online, semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis of data. Setting – Public libraries in the midwestern United States. Subjects – Eight leaders of public libraries or library systems and a state library. Methods – The authors conducted a snowball sampling technique to recruit participants in the midwestern United States. Through 30-60 minute Zoom sessions, the authors conducted interviews with the study participants. Each session was led by one interviewer and a note-taker and all interviews, with one exception, were recorded. Interviewers relied on an interview protocol, shared in the appendices of the paper, that addressed demographic questions as well as questions related to the study objectives. The authors comment that they reached data saturation after conducting interviews with eight subjects and decided to stop recruitment. Using the notes from the interview and Zoom session transcripts, the authors individually analyzed the data and then collectively discussed the themes as well as similarities and differences of participant responses. Main Results – Study respondents were mid- to late-career professionals in medium to large organizations. All respondents were white and a majority were women (n = 6) with only two men. A majority (n = 7) had a Master’s degree in Library and Information Science, and one had a PhD in a related field. Thematic analysis of the eight interviews uncovered several broader themes, including changes to staffing structures during the pandemic, the adoption of new technologies, the impact and experiences of using new technologies, the implementation of remote work, and the changes in services during the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, library staff were involved in a variety of teams at various levels, including within the library, among consortia, and even throughout community organizations. These teams continued to meet during the pandemic using various technologies. The COVID-19 pandemic created the need to create new teams quickly to address safety protocols and the continuation of library services. Many libraries closed their physical locations during the pandemic with many in-person services offered digitally or re-envisioned to comply with current safety protocols. Technology adoption varied depending on the size of the library and the ease of use and familiarity with certain tools. Many teams adopted video conferencing tools to continue to meet as a group, platforms to share documents, and messaging apps to enhance group communication. Some libraries applied for grant funding to expand their technology access or digital services. Though there was widespread adoption of technology, libraries prioritized communication among their teams, which resulted in less emphasis on technology security and privacy. Benefits of the adoption of new technologies were enhanced participation and accessibility at team meetings and virtual programming, expansion in skill development and training for staff, and the ability to continue working while adhering to COVID-19 safety protocols. Teams were able to meet virtually across multiple locations, and the online format of meetings allowed for more equitable participation among attendees. Travel costs and travel time were eliminated, and the online meeting chat feature ensured that typically quieter participants could engage with the conversation. Additionally, libraries were able to host larger library programs online by eliminating travel cost and time. The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid team formation in order to address safety protocols, ensure continuity of library services, and support the use of digital services. Challenges included a steep learning curve for some staff using new technologies, a lack of access to adequate devices or broadband for library workers living in rural areas, the development of virtual meeting fatigue leading to disengagement, and a lack of a sense of community. Though many libraries embraced remote work, front line staff were still expected to return to work physically. While remote work helped in some ways, it also presented a challenge for staff who did not have quiet spaces to focus, appropriate work setups at home, or consistent access to good internet. Conclusion – The COVID-19 pandemic forced many libraries to adapt quickly to a new environment of digital and hybrid teamwork while still attempting to maintain community-oriented services. Library leaders explored how flexible working environments could enhance employee engagement by using technology and addressed many challenges in adopting new technologies and making them accessible for staff. As well, library leaders addressed staff morale by extending grace to staff members, providing professional development in new areas of librarianship, and creating scheduling shifts for remote and in-person work. Many organizations returned to physical meetings when it became safe to do so but also continued to offer hybrid work options and use some technology adopted during the pandemic. The pandemic required flexible and creative problem solving. The experience enabled library leaders to identify the benefits and challenges of adopting new technology, maintaining service continuity, emphasizing the need to think about information security, and adapting and creating teams as needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.204
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicWeb and Library ServicesFrench-language works237,207