scholarly journals While Collaboration Is Increasing in the Profession the LIS Dissertation Remains a Solo-Authored Monograph

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Diana K. Wakimoto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
The United States ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Assistant Professors

Objective – To investigate collaboration in LIS doctoral education, in particular the extent and perception of collaboration between advisors and advisees, and the dissertation as a collaborative product. Design – Quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data. Qualitative analysis of interviews. Bibliometric analysis of curricula vitae (CVs) and dissertation citations. Setting – American Library Association (ALA)-accredited, doctorate-granting schools in the United States and Canada. Subjects – A total of 374 full-time, tenured faculty members with the rank of associate or full professor (advisor group) and 294 assistant professors (advisee group) comprised the pool of faculty members (n=668) who were sent the questionnaire. Of these, 30 individuals participated in follow-up telephone interviews, which were equally split between the two groups. There were 97 faculty members from the original pool of 668 faculty members were included in the bibliometric analyses. Methods – The author developed two questionnaires, one for the advisors (associate and full professors) and one for the advisees (assistant professors), and sent the surveys to faculty members at ALA-accredited schools in the United States and Canada. The questionnaires gathered information about the extent of collaboration and perceptions of collaboration in LIS doctoral education. The author also collected contact information from those interested in participating in a follow-up interview. The author selected the first 30 individuals who responded as the interview participants. The interview participants were split equally between advisors and advisees. A separate subpopulation of 97 faculty members was chosen for the bibliometric analysis phase of the study. These faculty members were chosen with the following criteria: graduation from an ALA-accredited school; full-text of dissertation available online; and a current, full CV available online. CVs were searched to determine the level of co-authoring before and after graduation. Main Results – A total of 215 faculty members completed the questionnaires. The results from the surveys showed that more than 61% of the advisors reported collaborating with at least half of their advisees, while 58% of the advisees reported collaborating with their advisors. Both advisors and advisees defined collaboration mainly as publishing, researching, and presenting together. More than 50% of the advisors reported co-publishing with half of their advisees during the advisees’ doctoral education. The advisors reported co-publishing with less than 30% of their advisees after the students completed their doctoral education. Advisees reported similar numbers: 44% and 31%, respectively. Following graduation, the majority of advisees (96%) planned to publish from their dissertations. Of these, 78% did not plan to include their advisor as co-author in these publications. 42% of the advisors reported that none of their advisees included them as co-authors, while 3% of advisors stated that their advisees always included them as co-authors. After the 30 interview transcripts were coded using inductive and deductive approaches, the results showed that advisees saw research as a process whereby they became collaborators with their advisors. Advisees also found collaboration with other doctoral students as “kind of key” (p. 7). Advisors saw collaboration as a form of mentorship. However, both advisees and advisors reported that the dissertation itself was not a collaborative product, with the responsibilities of the dissertation tasks falling more heavily on the advisees than the advisors, except in the realm of reviewing and approving the final version of the dissertation. Analysis of the CVs for co-publishing between advisees and their advisor and/or committee members showed that 41% of the advisees published with their advisors and 34% published with at least one committee member before receiving their doctorate. After receiving their doctorates, 31% of the advisees published with their advisors and 32% published with a committee member. Conclusion – The author concluded that a majority of advisors and advisees see collaboration as joint publication during the period of doctoral studies. Both advisors and advisees see the doctoral dissertation as a solo-authored monograph and not a collaborative product. However, other forms of collaboration among advisees and their advisors, committee members, and fellow doctoral students are viewed as important parts of the doctoral education experience. Based on these findings, the author suggests that the profession may need to adapt its model of doctoral education to become more aligned with the increasingly collaborative nature of LIS research.

scholarly journals Re-envisioning Doctoral Mentorship in the United States: A Power-Conscious Review of the Literature

10.28945/4735 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 237-252
Author(s):  
Genia M. Bettencourt ◽  
Rachel E. Friedensen ◽  
Megan L Bartlett
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Direct Applicability ◽  
Important Form ◽  
The U.S

Aim/Purpose: Multiple barriers exist within doctoral education in the United States that can undermine the success of students, particularly for students with marginalized identities. While mentorship can provide an important form of support, it must be done in an intentional way that is mindful of issues of equity and power. Background: By applying a power-conscious framework to current practices of doctoral mentorship in the U.S., we propose key considerations to help support doctoral students and shift power imbalances. Methodology: As a scholarly paper, this work draws upon a comprehensive review of existing research on doctoral mentorship in the U.S. Contribution: As a relatively recent development, the power-conscious framework provides an important tool to address issues of inequity that has not yet been applied to doctoral mentorship to our knowledge. Such a framework provides clear implications for mentorship relationships, institutional policies, and future research. Findings: The power-conscious framework has direct applicability to and possibility for reshaping doctoral mentorship in the U.S. as well as elsewhere. Each of the six foci of the framework can be integrated with research on doctoral students to help formal and informal mentors enhance their practice. Recommendations for Practitioners: Throughout our analysis, we pose questions for mentors to consider in order to reflect upon their practice and engage in further exploration. Recommendation for Researchers: Research on doctoral mentorship should explicitly engage with broader dynamics of power, particularly as related to understanding the experiences of marginalized student populations. Impact on Society: The demanding nature of and precarity within U.S. doctoral education leads to high rates of departure and burnout amongst students. By re-envisioning mentorship, we hope to begin a broader re-imagining of doctoral education to be more equitable and supportive of students. Future Research: To examine these claims, future research should explore doctoral student mentorship relationships and how power dynamics are contained therein both within the U.S. and in international contexts.

scholarly journals The Philosophical Approach of Sankofa: Perspectives on Historically Marginalized Doctoral Students in the United States and South Africa

10.28945/4463 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 783-801
Author(s):  
Pamela Felder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Doctoral Degree ◽  
The United States ◽  
Student Experiences ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
Doctoral Experience

Aim/Purpose: This work contributes to the expansion of dialogue on doctoral education research in the United States, South Africa, and within the context of higher education internationalization. There is an emphasis on identifying and reinterpreting the doctoral process where racial and cultural aspects have been marginalized by way of institutional and systemic exclusion. An underlying premise is to support representation of marginalized doctoral student experiences to raise questions about participation and contributions within the dialogue on doctoral education research and practice. Background: Decades of reporting provide evidence of statistical portraits on degree at-tainment. Yet, some large-scale reporting does not include representation of historically marginalized doctoral students until the 1970s in the United States, and the 2000s for South Africa. With the growth of internationalization in higher education, examination of the impact of marginalization serves to support representation of diversity-focused discussions in the development of regional international education organizations, multilateral networks, and cross-collaborative teaching and research projects. Methodology: The philosophical approach for this conceptual paper embraces the Sankofa tradition as a process of going back to previous trends in literature on doctoral degree completion to identify opportunities for interrogation and reinterpretation of the doctoral experience. A dimensional framework of diversity and critical race theory, CRT, guides interpretation of racial and cultural perspectives focused on exclusion, structural diversity, and the psychological/behavioral experiences related to doctoral degree completion in the United States and South Africa. A purposeful sampling strategy is used to identify of literature sources where these dimensions are identified. Contribution: A major contribution of this work is the use of a dimensional diversity framework in doctoral education in both the US and South Africa. Findings: Interpretation of previous studies reveal critical insight for understanding the racial and cultural aspects of the doctoral process through comparison of perspectives on the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. They include consideration of the social developments leading to the current predicament of marginalization for students, awareness of the different reporting strategies of data, implementation of cultural philosophies to broaden the focus on how to understand student experiences, and an understanding of the differences in student-faculty relationships. Recommendations for Practitioners: Recommendations for practitioners highlight the application of cultural approaches in the development and implementation of practical strategies for supporting historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations for Researchers: Recommendations for researchers consider the application of cultural ap-proaches in the development of scholarship supporting historically marginal-ized doctoral students within a global context. Impact on Society: Intended outcomes for this work include increasing awareness about historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations are focused on improving their academic and career experiences in the United States and South Africa with global implications regarding their contributions. Future Research: Future research should consider the application of cultural philosophical ap-proaches when examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience within global, national, and local contexts.

Disrupting hegemony in social work doctoral education and research: Using autoethnography to uncover possibilities for radical transformation

2020 ◽  
pp. 147332502097334
Author(s):  
Austin Gerhard Oswald ◽  
Sarah Bussey ◽  
Monica Thompson ◽  
Anna Ortega-Williams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Social Work ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Personal Narratives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Academic Context ◽  
Social Work Research

Social work has enhanced its profile in the United States by adopting a particular dialect of scientific inquiry wherein positivism and evidence-based practice are considered gold standards of social work research and practice. This ideological shift permeates doctoral education and research training, as well as social work more broadly. Little attention, however, is paid to the pedagogical approaches used to train doctoral students into a “science of social work,” and we know even less about critical methodologies in doctoral education. This collaborative autoethnography weaves together the personal narratives of three doctoral students and one early career faculty member navigating an academic context within a large public university in the United States. We employ a participatory and intersectional approach to analyze narrative data in terms of how our identities interact with the structures relevant to where we study and work. Three themes emerged from our collaborative analysis: becoming disillusioned by disciplinary shortcoming; confronting dissonance with radical solidarity; and making change on the inside using perspectives from the outside. We argue throughout that critical reflexivity is a tool to document, resist, and transform hegemonic discourse that narrowly defines what it means to embody social work research, practice, and education.

scholarly journals Perspectives on Historically Marginalized Doctoral Students in the United States and South Africa

10.28945/4210 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Doctoral Students ◽  
Doctoral Education ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Cultural Frameworks ◽  
Higher Education Internationalization ◽  
Doctoral Experience

[This Proceedings paper was revised and published in the 2019 issue of the International Journal of Doctoral Studies, Volume 14] Aim/Purpose: This work expands discussions on the application of cultural frameworks on research in doctoral education in the United States and South Africa. There is an emphasis on identifying and reinterpreting the doctoral process where racial and cultural aspects have been marginalized by way of legacies of exclusions in both contexts. An underlying premise of this work is to support representation of marginalized students within the context of higher education internationalization. Background: Decades of reporting provide evidence of statistical portraits on degree attainment. Yet, some large-scale reporting does not include representation of historically marginalized groups until the 1970’s in the United States, and the 2000’s for South Africa. With the growth of internationalization in higher education, examination of the impact of marginalization serves to support representation of diversity-focused discussions in the development of regional international education organizations, multilateral networks, and cross-collaborative teaching and research projects. Methodology: Qualitative research synthesis of literature focused on a dimensional framework of diversity provides a basis for this discussion paper regarding the potential of Sankofa as a cultural framework for examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. Contribution: A major contribution of this work offers critical questions on the use of cultural frameworks in doctoral education in the US and South Africa and broader dynamics of higher education internationalization. Findings: Sankofa reveals critical insight for reinterpretation of the doctoral process through comparison of perspectives on the historically marginalized doctoral experience in the United States and South Africa. They include consideration of the social developments leading to the current predicament of marginalization for students; awareness of the different reporting strategies of data; implementation of cultural frameworks to broaden the focus on how to understand student experiences; and, an understanding of the differences in student-faculty relationships. Recommendations for Practitioners: Recommendations for practitioners highlight the application of cultural frameworks in the development and implementation of practical strategies in the support of historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations for Researchers: Recommendations for researchers consider the application of cultural frameworks in the development of scholarship supporting historically marginalized doctoral students within a global context. Impact on Society: Intended outcomes for this work include increasing awareness about historically marginalized doctoral students. Recommendations are focused on improving their academic and career experiences in the United States and South Africa with global implications for this student population. Future Research: Future research should consider the application of cultural frameworks when examining the historically marginalized doctoral experience within global, national, and local contexts.

scholarly journals Natural History and Evolution of Anti-Interferon-γ Autoantibody-Associated Immunodeficiency Syndrome in Thailand and the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria H Hong ◽  
Ana M Ortega-Villa ◽  
Sally Hunsberger ◽  
Ploenchan Chetchotisakd ◽  
Siriluck Anunnatsiri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural History ◽  
The United States ◽  
Interferon Γ ◽  
Mycobacterium Abscessus ◽  
Annual Data ◽  
Persistent Infections ◽  
Ifn Γ ◽  
Immunodeficiency Syndrome

Abstract Background The natural history of anti-interferon-γ (IFN-γ) autoantibody-associated immunodeficiency syndrome is not well understood. Methods Data of 74 patients with anti-IFN-γ autoantibodies at Srinagarind Hospital, Thailand, were collected annually (median follow-up duration, 7.5 years). Annual data for 19 patients and initial data for 4 patients with anti-IFN-γ autoantibodies at the US National Institutes of Health were collected (median follow-up duration, 4.5 years). Anti-IFN-γ autoantibody levels were measured in plasma samples. Results Ninety-one percent of US patients were of Southeast Asian descent; there was a stronger female predominance (91%) in US than Thai (64%) patients. Mycobacterium abscessus (34%) and Mycobacterium avium complex (83%) were the most common nontuberculous mycobacteria in Thailand and the United States, respectively. Skin infections were more common in Thailand (P = .001), whereas bone (P < .0001), lung (P = .002), and central nervous system (P = .03) infections were more common in the United States. Twenty-four percent of Thai patients died, most from infections. None of the 19 US patients with follow-up data died. Anti-IFN-γ autoantibody levels decreased over time in Thailand (P < .001) and the United States (P = .017), with either cyclophosphamide (P = .01) or rituximab therapy (P = .001). Conclusions Patients with anti-IFN-γ autoantibodies in Thailand and the United States had distinct demographic and clinical features. While titers generally decreased with time, anti-IFN-γ autoantibody disease had a chronic clinical course with persistent infections and death. Close long-term surveillance for new infections is recommended.

scholarly journals SAT0172 UTILIZATION OF HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE AND CORTICOSTEROIDS AMONG LUPUS PATIENTS WITH INCIDENT END-STAGE RENAL DISEASE (ESRD) ONSET: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY USING USRDS REGISTRY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1027.2-1027
Author(s):  
A. R. Broder ◽  
W. Mowrey ◽  
A. Valle ◽  
B. Goilav ◽  
K. Yoshida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Renal Disease ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diagnostic Code ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Part D ◽  
Stage Renal Disease

Background:The development of ESRD due to lupus nephritis is one of the most common and serious complications of SLE. Mortality among SLE ESRD patients is 4-fold higher compared to lupus nephritis patients with preserved renal function1Mortality in SLE ESRD is also twice as high compared with non-SLE ESRD, even though SLE patients develop ESRD at a significantly younger age. In the absence of ESRD specific guidelines, medication utilization in SLE ESRD is unknown.Objectives:The objective of this study was to investigate the real-world current US-wide patterns of medication prescribing among lupus nephritis patients with new onset ESRD enrolled in the United States Renal Disease Systems (USRDS) registry. We specifically focused on HCQ and corticosteroids (CS) as the most used medications to treat SLE.Methods:Inclusion: USRDS patients 18 years and above with SLE as a primary cause of ESRD (International Classification of Diseases, 9thRevision (ICD9) diagnostic code 710.0, previously validated2). who developed ESRD between January 1st, 2006 and July 31, 2011 (to ensure at least 6 months of follow-up in the USRDS). Patients had to be enrolled in Medicare Part D (to capture pharmacy claims). The last follow-up date was defined as either the last date of continuous part D coverage or the end of the study period, Dec 31, 2013.Results:Of the 2579 patients included, 1708 (66%) were HCQ- at baseline, and 871 (34%) were HCQ+ at baseline. HCQ+ patients at baseline had a slightly lower duration of follow-up compared to HCQ- patients at baseline, median (IQR) of 2.32 (1.33, 3.97) years and 2.55 (1.44, 4.25) years, respectively, p= 0.02. During follow-up period, only 778 (30%) continued HCQ either intermittently or continuously to the last follow-up date, 1306 (51%) were never prescribed HCQ after baseline, and 495 (19%) discontinued HCQ before the last follow-up date. Of the 1801 patients who were either never prescribed or discontinued HCQ early after ESRD onset, 713 (40%) were prescribed CS to the end of the follow-up period: 55% were receiving a low dose <10mg/daily, and 43 were receiving moderate dose (10-20mg daily)Conclusion:HCQ may be underprescribed and CS may be overprescribed in SLE ESRD. Changing the current prescribing practices may improve outcomes in SLE ESRDReferences:[1]Yap DY et al., NDT 2012.[2]Broder A et al., AC&R 2016.Acknowledgments :The data reported here have been supplied by the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the author(s) and in no way should be seen as an official policy or interpretation of the U.S. government.Funding: :NIH/NIAMS K23 AR068441 (A Broder), NIH/NIAMS R01 AR 057327 and K24 AR 066109 (KH Costenbader)Disclosure of Interests: :Anna R. Broder: None declared, Wenzhu Mowrey: None declared, Anna Valle: None declared, Beatrice Goilav: None declared, Kazuki Yoshida: None declared, Karen Costenbader Grant/research support from: Merck, Consultant of: Astra-Zeneca

scholarly journals Bibliometric Analysis of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 Studies from India and Connection to Sustainable Development Goals

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 7555
Author(s):  
Raghu Raman ◽  
Ricardo Vinuesa ◽  
Prema Nedungadi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Bibliometric Analysis ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Good Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Sciences And Humanities ◽  
Semantic Associations ◽  
Number Of Publications

India is ranked fifth in the world in terms of COVID-19 publications accounting for 6.7% of the total. About 60% of the COVID-19 publications in the year 2020 are from United States, China, UK, Italy, and India. We present a bibliometric analysis of the publication trends and citation structure along with the identification of major research clusters. By performing network analysis of authors, citations, institutions, keywords, and countries, we explore semantic associations by applying visualization techniques. Our study shows lead taken by the United States, China, UK, Italy, India in COVID-19 research may be attributed to the high prevalence of COVID-19 cases in those countries witnessing the first outbreak and also due to having access to COVID-19 data, access to labs for experimental trials, immediate funding, and overall support from the govt. agencies. A large number of publications and citations from India are due to co-authored publications with countries like the United States, UK, China, and Saudi Arabia. Findings show health sciences have the highest number of publications and citations, while physical sciences and social sciences and humanities counts were low. A large proportion of publications fall into the open-access category. With India as the focus, by comparing three major pandemics—SARS, MERS, COVID-19—from a bibliometrics perspective, we observe much broader involvement of authors from multiple countries for COVID-19 studies when compared to SARS and MERS. Finally, by applying bibliometric indicators, we see an increasing number of sustainable development-related studies from the COVID-19 domain, particularly concerning the topic of good health and well-being. This study allows for a deeper understanding of how the scholarly community from a populous country like India pursued research in the midst of a major pandemic which resulted in the closure of scientific institutions for an extended time.

scholarly journals Results from the United States CTEPH Registry (US-CTEPH-R): Enrollment Characteristics and 1-Year Follow-up

CHEST Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim M. Kerr ◽  
C. Greg Elliott ◽  
Kelly Chin ◽  
Raymond L. Benza ◽  
Richard N. Channick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States

Thinking Outside the Mosque

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 104-108
Author(s):  
Anna Challet
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Female Student ◽  
Male Student ◽  
School Community ◽  
The United States ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Islam In America ◽  
The Future

This article discusses how the community at Zaytuna College, the first and only accredited Muslim college in the United States, is charting the future of Islam in America. The college is located in Berkeley, California and admitted its first class in 2010. The article gives an overview of the school and its curriculum, which combines Islamic scholarship with Western teachings. The piece then profiles four members of the school community–a female student who was raised as a Muslim, a male student who converted to Islam, and two faculty members (both of whom are also converts).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document