Search results

This paper aims to demonstrate the value of a collaborative research culture framework (Gasson and Bruce, 2018a), featuring trust and respect as core elements of healthy collaborations, to support the research success of higher degree research (HDR) students. HDR is a term used in Australia to reference Doctoral and Master by research programmes.

The authors propose that by positioning collaboration as part of a research culture built on trust and respect, discussion about and the development of healthy collaborative research culture will be facilitated. A healthy culture is defined as one that supports sustainable and productive collaborative research.

The applications of the framework demonstrate the role the framework can play in supporting researchers to understand, engage in and manage collaborations.

Reflection on discussions to date has led to the authors’ view that collaborative success requires a unique set of skills (i.e. skills in the development of a collaborative research culture) and that the framework provides a deliberate and overt way of supporting development of those skills.

The framework helps HDRs develop the capacity to build healthy collaborative research cultures vital for their research productivity and longer-term success as researchers.

This paper aims to explore the varying ways in which academic archivists in the USA experience archives, how these experiences compare to those of academic librarians and how we can use these findings to improve communication and collaboration.

Using a phenomenographic research approach, academic archivists were interviewed and the transcripts were examined to develop categories reflecting varying experiences.

There are three different ways of experiencing archives: as organizational records, as archival enterprise and as connection. The connection category is a more complex way of experiencing archives as it incorporates the aspects of the other two categories as well as the awareness of archives connecting people to their histories.

This study is limited to academic archivists in the USA.

Understanding that there are different ways of experiencing archives means that information professionals should clarify their definitions of before beginning collaborative projects. Also, by understanding these varying experiences, information professions should be able to communicate and engage more fully with each other and their users in projects and programs that leverage archival collections.

This is the first study to use phenomenography to investigate archivists’ experiences of archives. This understanding of the lived experience of archivists, combined with understanding how librarians experience archives, should enable better communication and ultimately collaboration between the two professions.

This paper aims to map information literacy literature in social sciences and humanities published during the period of 2001-2012.

The data for the study are obtained from Scopus, accessible at www.scopus.com. Study used the Transformative Activity Index (TAI) and relative citation impact (RCI) to know the impact of most productive countries and prolific institutions. The SCImago Journal and Country Rank accessible at www.scimagojr.com/ was used to determine the SCImago Journal Rank and source normalized impact per paper.

The study found that 1990 documents originating from 79 countries were published in this study area. These papers are published in 160 journals with an average ∼12.51 papers per journal. These papers have been cited 10,025 times with ∼5.0. average citations per publication. Study also found that information literacy literature is published in 16 languages and the majority of the papers are in English, 1,879 (94.4 per cent). The highest growth of publications (106.7 per cent) was found in 2005. The USA contributed the highest number, 1,035 (52 per cent) papers. Moreover, of the 15 most productive countries, three recorded TAIs >100, and 12 countries recorded TAIs <100. In all, 160 institutions worldwide have contributed in information literacy research. Study also found that maximum literature published on the subject by a single author is 828 (41.6 per cent). Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain has produced the highest number of papers (24, or 1.2 per cent) and received 61 (0.6 per cent) citations, while University of Strathclyde has the highest RCI (∼2.7) for its publications. Pintos, María from Universidad de Granada has published the maximum number of papers (18) that have been cited 78 times.

The study endeavors to showcase information literacy research outcomes in social sciences and humanities. It involves quantitative analysis of the literature in this domain using bibliographic elements such as keywords, authors, affiliation, publication and citations.

No study has been conducted so far to map the information literacy literature in social sciences and humanities. Study will be useful in understanding the progress on information literacy in the area of social sciences and humanities. The study is significant for social scientists to foster further research in this emerging area.

The following bibliography focuses mainly on programs which can run on IBM microcomputers and compatibles under the operating system PC DOS/MS DOS, and which can be used in online information and documentation work. They fall into the following categories:

As CD‐ROM becomes more and more a standard reference and technical support tool in all types of libraries, the annual review of this technology published in Computers in Libraries magazine increases in size and scope. This year, author Susan L. Adkins has prepared this exceptionally useful bibliography which she has cross‐referenced with a subject index.

The following is an annotated list of materials dealing with information literacy including instruction in the use of information resources, research, and computer skills related to retrieving, using, and evaluating information. This review, the seventeenth to be published in Reference Services Review, includes items, in English published in 1990. A few are not annotated because the compiler could not obtain copies of them for this review.

To demonstrate existing definitional consensus on information literacy, and outline the main and unique areas of concern resulting from that consensus for libraries desiring to contribute to information literacy education.

Leading attempts at defining information literacy are examined to demonstrate their lack of substantive definitional differences, and to establish parameters for the library’s participation in information literacy education.

Examines the leading definitional contributions since the American Library Association’s 1989 seminal work on information literacy. Demonstrates the lack of substantive definitional differences between those and the ALA definition. Suggests librarians concentrate on the expectations deriving from such unanimity, and outlines those expectations.

Clarity of definitions provides more stable atmosphere for practical initiatives, while controversies over definitions distract from action. By pointing out the fundamental agreements between seemingly competing definitions of information literacy, this article underscores the need for librarians to fully concentrate on ways to achieve information literacy. By specifying the library’s unique place in that process and outlining the concrete things it can do, the article also provides practical guidance for more focused activity on the part of the library in information literacy education.

This article demonstrates a consistently overlooked definitional consensus on information literacy, and shows how the purported differences in definition actually represent delineations of steps and approaches that facilitate practical implementation. It also outlines the specific areas and activities that are legitimate responsibilities of the library in information literacy education, and notes areas outside the library’s reach.

This paper aims to explore how teacher leaders help teachers improve mathematics and science teaching.

Research focused on a purposive sample of seven teacher leaders selected to vary in their time allocated to teacher leader work and their content knowledge. Each teacher leader was interviewed, as were two teachers and at least one administrator working with that teacher leader. Each interview was first subjected to a mix of deductive and inductive coding before a case study was written for each teacher leader. Ultimately, a cross‐case analysis was written.

Teacher leaders conducted two sets of leadership tasks. The paper finds that support tasks helped teachers do their work but did not contribute to teacher learning. Developmental tasks did facilitate learning. All teacher leaders engaged in support tasks, but only four did developmental tasks as well. Teacher leaders who engaged in developmental tasks had access to one material resource and three social resources not available to other teacher leaders: time to work with teachers, administrative support, more positive relations with teachers, and opportunities to work with teachers on professional development

When teacher leadership is intended to facilitate teacher learning, the payoff comes from engaging in developmental tasks. A key to teacher leader success is administrative support. Schools and districts should not invest in teacher leaders unless they intend to support teacher leaders adequately through time, administrative follow through, and training to help teachers develop the positive social relations on which their work depends.

These findings have implications for how to integrate teacher leaders into larger school improvement efforts.