Search results

This paper aims to present recently published resources on library instruction and information literacy. It provides an introductory overview and a selected annotated bibliography of publications organized thematically and detailing, study populations, results and research contexts. The selected bibliography is useful to efficiently keep up with trends in library instruction for academic library practitioners, library science students and those wishing to learn about information literacy in other contexts.

This article annotates 340 English-language periodical articles, dissertations, theses and reports on library instruction and information literacy published in 2022. The sources were selected from the EBSCO platform for Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts (LISTA), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Elsevier SCOPUS and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Sources selected were published in 2022 and included the terms “information literacy,” “library instruction,” or “information fluency” in the title, subject terms, or author supplied keywords. The sources were organized in Zotero. Annotations were made summarizing the source, focusing on the findings or implications. Each source was then thematically categorized and organized for academic librarians to be able to skim and use the annotated bibliography efficiently.

The paper provides a brief description of 340 sources from 144 unique publications, and highlights publications that contain unique or significant scholarly contributions. Further analysis of the sources and authorship are provided.

The information is primarily of use to academic librarians, researchers, and anyone interested as a quick and comprehensive reference to literature on library instruction and information literacy published within 2022.

This chapter examines emerging theoretical approaches and thematic aspects of creative and cultural entrepreneurship and the significant societal and economic contributions of creative firms. It reviews the concepts and definitions essential to examining creative industry entrepreneurship. The authors then provide framing for this exceptional collection of chapters in Volume 1 (of 2) and discuss existing research approaches from surveys and small-scale qualitative studies. Then, the chapter’s overview showcases the range of international research included in three sections: conceptual reflections on creative and cultural entrepreneurship, resilience and adaptation of creative and cultural enterprises, and insights into creative subsectors. Finally, the chapter proposes a research agenda for developing the field further, addressing methodological gaps (longitudinal studies and cluster research), emerging thematics (rural creative industries and creative placemaking) and sector studies (game and film industries).

The disparities of COVID-19 vaccination rates between the rural and urban areas have become apparent during this pandemic. There is a need to understand the root causes of vaccine hesitancy demonstrated by the rural population to increase coverage and to contain the disease spread throughout the United States. This study aimed to explore other factors influencing vaccine hesitancy among rural dwellers besides the geography-related barriers such as poor health care access and individuals having no or suboptimal insurance coverage.

By reviewing existing data and literature about vaccination, health literacy, and behaviors, and prevailing ideologies, we discuss the potential causes of vaccine hesitancy in rural areas that could create barriers for successful public health efforts related to vaccine coverage and provide suggestions to ameliorate the situation.

Geography-related barriers, health literacy, and preconceived notions are key determinants of adopting healthy behaviors and complying with public health authorities' recommendations among rural individuals during a public-health crisis. We argue that ideology, which is much deeper than preconception or misconception on vaccination, should be incorporated as a key factor to redefine the term “vulnerable populations” in public health research.

The limitation of our study is that we have not found an effective way to encourage the populations who hold conservative religious and political ideologies to join the efforts for public health. Even though geography-related barriers may strongly impact the rural dwellers in achieving optimal health, the various forms of ideologies they have toward certain health behaviors cannot be discounted to understand and address vaccine-related disparities in rural areas. There is a need to redefine the term “vulnerable population” particularly as it relates to rural areas in the United States. During large-scale public health disasters, scholars and public health authorities should consider the ideologies of individuals, in addition to other factors such as race/ethnicity, area of residence (rural vs. urban), and socioeconomic factors influencing the existing vulnerabilities and health disparities.

Inspired by the “responsibility turn” in the broader organization/management literature, the overarching aim of this article is to help scholars working at the gender × entrepreneurship intersection produce research with a higher likelihood of being accessed, appreciated and acted upon by policy- practitioners. Consistent with this aim, we hope that our paper contributes to an increased use of academic-practitioner collaborations as a means of producing such research.

We selected Cunliffe and Pavlovich’s (2022) recently formulated “public organization/management studies” (public OMS) approach as our guiding methodology. We implemented this approach by forming a co-authorship team comprised of a policy professional and an entrepreneurship scholar and then engaging in a democratic, collaborative and mutually respectful process of knowledge cogeneration.

Our paper is comprised of four distinct sets of ideas. We start by describing who policy-practitioners are and what they want from academic research in general. We follow this with a comprehensive set of priorities for policy-oriented research at the gender × entrepreneurship nexus, accompanied by references to academic studies that offer initial insight into the identified priorities. We then offer suggestions for the separate and joint actions that scholars and policy-practitioners can take to increase policy-relevant research on gender and entrepreneurship. We end with a description and critical reflection on our application of the public OMS approach.

The ideas presented in our article offer an original response to recent work that has critiqued the policy implications (or lack thereof) within prior research at the gender × entrepreneurship nexus (Foss et al., 2019). Our ideas also complement and extend existing recommendations for strengthening the practical contributions of academic scholarship at this intersection (Nelson, 2020). An especially unique aspect is our description of – and critical reflection upon – how we applied the public OMS approach to bridge the academic-policy divide.