Assessment of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship, Phase 2: Impact on the Research Productivity and Careers of Academic Librarians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective – This article reports on the qualitative phase of a two-phase sequential mixed-methods study to assess the first six years of the Institute for Research Design in Librarianship (IRDL), a continuing education program for academic and research librarians. The study is designed to assess the effectiveness of IRDL in meeting short-term and long-term programmatic objectives related to the research productivity, job performance, and professional identities of the participants in the program. Methods – In this second part of a two-phase study, the authors conducted focus group and individual interviews with 37 IRDL participants (hereafter called Scholars) and coded the resulting transcripts. The first phase of the study surveyed all 124 program participants; the results were reported in an earlier article in this journal. The second-phase interviews were conducted and then coded using a deductive process. The researchers identified transcript excerpts that explored the concepts of research productivity, job performance, and identity as a researcher. Each of these concepts was further sub-coded to explore the four sources of self-efficacy, as described in Albert Bandura’s theory: mastery experiences; verbal or social persuasion; vicarious experiences; and physiological and affective states. Results – The majority of the conversations in both the in-depth individual interviews and the focus group interviews centered around research productivity; approximately 70% of the transcript excerpts from focus groups and 55% of the individual interviews addressed issues related to productivity. Participants also discussed the impact of IRDL on their job performance and their identify as researchers. Gaining research confidence had a notable positive impact on job performance related to classroom teaching and supporting researchers. Within these areas of conversation, all sources of self-efficacy were evident, but the most frequently noted were influences related to mastery learning and social persuasion, through mentorship and becoming part of a peer research community. Conclusion – The findings from the focus groups and in-depth interviews deepen the meaning of the results from the quantitative phase of our IRDL assessment research. The participants in the study reported both frustration and satisfaction with conducting their research. A supportive environment focused on helping librarians gain needed research skills, practice those skills, and become part of a research community contributes to research confidence and productivity, improved job performance, and identity as a researcher. The findings of this study have implications for developing librarians as researchers, including the importance of a supportive work environment, research mentoring, and the positive influence of becoming part of a research community.
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 | 0.103 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".