Health Sciences Librarianship's Status as a Profession Is Unclear, According to Its Members

IF 0.4 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Evidence Based Library and Information Practice Pub Date : 2023-06-15 DOI:10.18438/eblip30340
Samantha Kaplan
{"title":"Health Sciences Librarianship's Status as a Profession Is Unclear, According to Its Members","authors":"Samantha Kaplan","doi":"10.18438/eblip30340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A Review of:\nKoenig, R. A., Rodriguez, V. A., & Sima, A. P. (2021). Attitudinal attributes of professionalism in health sciences librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 61(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1845544\nObjective – To determine health sciences librarians' attitudes toward professionalism and to examine relationships between professionalism attributes and participant characteristics as defined by the Richard H. Hall Professionalism Inventory.\nDesign – Cross-sectional online survey using the Richard H. Hall Professionalism Inventory.\nSetting – Electronic mailing lists of the Medical Library Association (MLA), the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Health Sciences Interest Group, and the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA).\nSubjects – There were 430 participants.\nMethods – The online survey, created in REDCap, was distributed electronically across multiple mailing lists during June and July of 2019. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics and ANOVA conducted in R with reliability determined by Cronbach's alpha.\nMain Results – Professionalism scores for health sciences librarians were lowest in public service and self-regulation, and highest in professional organization as referent, autonomy, and sense of calling. Individuals with a degree in health sciences scored lower on a sense of calling than individuals with Library and Information Science (LIS) degrees. Faculty benefits such as tenure decreased sense of calling. There were statistically significant differences according to role (e.g., archives, administration). Subject specialty librarians had lower scores in most attributes. \nConclusion – Health sciences librarianship does not clearly meet the criteria of a profession. Its heterogeneity of specializations and receptiveness to diverse backgrounds and perspectives are possible threats to its ability to create a cohesive identity. Further, duties that can be considered non-library work appear to correlate with lower professionalism scores, even when they are associated with faculty status.","PeriodicalId":45227,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Library and Information Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip30340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A Review of: Koenig, R. A., Rodriguez, V. A., & Sima, A. P. (2021). Attitudinal attributes of professionalism in health sciences librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 61(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1845544 Objective – To determine health sciences librarians' attitudes toward professionalism and to examine relationships between professionalism attributes and participant characteristics as defined by the Richard H. Hall Professionalism Inventory. Design – Cross-sectional online survey using the Richard H. Hall Professionalism Inventory. Setting – Electronic mailing lists of the Medical Library Association (MLA), the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Health Sciences Interest Group, and the Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA). Subjects – There were 430 participants. Methods – The online survey, created in REDCap, was distributed electronically across multiple mailing lists during June and July of 2019. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics and ANOVA conducted in R with reliability determined by Cronbach's alpha. Main Results – Professionalism scores for health sciences librarians were lowest in public service and self-regulation, and highest in professional organization as referent, autonomy, and sense of calling. Individuals with a degree in health sciences scored lower on a sense of calling than individuals with Library and Information Science (LIS) degrees. Faculty benefits such as tenure decreased sense of calling. There were statistically significant differences according to role (e.g., archives, administration). Subject specialty librarians had lower scores in most attributes.  Conclusion – Health sciences librarianship does not clearly meet the criteria of a profession. Its heterogeneity of specializations and receptiveness to diverse backgrounds and perspectives are possible threats to its ability to create a cohesive identity. Further, duties that can be considered non-library work appear to correlate with lower professionalism scores, even when they are associated with faculty status.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康科学图书馆员称其职业地位尚不明确
综述:Koenig,R.A.、Rodriguez,V.A.和Sima,A.P.(2021)。健康科学馆员职业态度特征研究。《图书馆管理杂志》,61(1),1-20。https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1845544Objective-确定健康科学图书馆员对专业精神的态度,并根据Richard H.Hall专业精神清单的定义,检查专业精神属性和参与者特征之间的关系。霍尔专业性清单。设置——医学图书馆协会(MLA)、学术健康科学图书馆协会(AAHSL)、大学与研究图书馆协会(ACRL)健康科学兴趣小组和加拿大健康图书馆协会(CHLA)的电子邮件列表。受试者——共有430名参与者。方法——这项在线调查由REDCap创建,于2019年6月和7月在多个邮件列表中以电子方式分发。定量分析包括描述性统计和方差分析,可靠性由Cronbachα确定。主要结果-健康科学馆员的专业性得分在公共服务和自我调节方面最低,在专业组织中在参考、自主和使命感方面最高。拥有健康科学学位的人在使命感方面的得分低于拥有图书馆和信息科学(LIS)学位的人。终身教职等教师福利降低了使命感。根据角色(如档案、行政管理),存在统计学上的显著差异。学科专业馆员在大多数属性上得分较低。结论——健康科学图书馆工作显然不符合专业标准。其专业化的异质性以及对不同背景和观点的接受可能威胁到其创造凝聚力身份的能力。此外,可以被视为非图书馆工作的职责似乎与较低的专业分数相关,即使它们与教师身份有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
Evidence Based Library and Information Practice INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
44
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evidence Summary Theme: All Things Virtual Call for Applicants for EBLIP Journal: Production Editor Differences Between the Perception and Use of Virtual Reference Services for Complex Questions Experiences, Benefits, and Challenges of Virtual Teamwork for Public Libraries in the US Midwest during the COVID-19 Pandemic Bangladesh Public Libraries' Response to COVID-19 Pandemic
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1