Search results

The objective of this study is to establish the current state of library and information science (LIS) scholarship pertaining to anti-racism, equity, inclusion and social justice initiatives.

Using comprehensive search strategies, three LIS databases were searched for relevant literature published in the last 10 years and results were exported and de-duplicated using Endnote. Citations were screened by two blinded, independent reviewers based on pre-defined eligibility criteria. Citations in the final data set were then hand coded by three reviewers using deductive coding. Subject terms for all citations were categorized and consolidated to identify major themes across the corpus of included publications. Results were analyzed using bibliometrics and thematic analysis.

A total of 691 unique citations were included in this analysis based on inclusion criteria. Publication productivity has generally increased from 2011 to 2020; findings show publications from 170 source titles and 944 authors representing 33 countries. Prevalent themes included access to information, multiculturalism and social justice. Various populations groups, areas of LIS practice, library types and social justice topics have been addressed in the literature. Over 15% of citations focused on anti-racism efforts in LIS.

This study applied both bibliometric and thematic approaches to analyzing LIS literature at macro and micro levels regarding anti-racism, equity, inclusion and social justice.

In this paper, we concentrate on the use of research assessment (RA) systems in universities in New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Primarily we focus on PBRF and REF, and explore differences between these systems on individual and systemic levels. We ask, these days, in what way(s) the systemic differences between PBRF and REF actually make a difference on how the two RA systems are experienced by academic staff.

This research is exploratory and draws on 19 interviews in which accounting researchers from both countries offer reflections on their careers and how RA (systems) have influenced these careers. The stories they tell are classified by regarding RA in universities as a manifestation of the spectacle society, following Debord (1992) and Flyverbom and Reinecke (2017).

Both UK and New Zealand academics concur that their research activities and views on research are very much shaped by journal rankings and citations. Among UK academics, there seems to be a greater critical attitude towards the benefits and drawbacks of REF, which may be related to the history of REF in their country. Relatively speaking, in New Zealand, individualism seems to have grown after the introduction of the PBRF, with little active pushback against the system. Cultural aspects may partially explain this outcome. Academics in both countries lament the lack of focus on practitioner issues that the increased significance of RA seems to have evoked.

This research is context-specific and may have limited applicability to other situations, academics or countries.

RA and RA systems seem to be here to stay. However, as academics we can, and ought to, take responsibility to try to ensure that these systems reflect the future of accounting (research) we wish to create. It is certainly not mainly or solely up to upper management officials to set this in motion, as has occasionally been claimed in previous literature. Some of the academics who participated in this research actively sought to bring about a different future.

This research provides a unique contextual analysis of accounting academics' perspectives and reactions to RA and RA systems and the impact these have had on their careers across two countries. In addition, the paper offers valuable critical reflections on the application of Debord's (1992) notion of the spectacle society in future accounting studies. We find more mixed and nuanced views on RA in academia than many previous studies have shown.