This Info_Inputs_Influencing_Factors_Admin_Decision_Making_DATASET_Readme.txt file was generated on 2022-06-07 by Deborah L Lauseng. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Title of Dataset: Information_Inputs_Influencing_Factors_Administrative_Decision_Making-Scoping_Review_Data-2017-2020 Scoping Review research questions: What types of inputs and information sources (formal, informal, evidence-based) are used by academic library administrators? What kinds of influencing factors might impact the decision making by academic library administrators? 2. Author Information A. Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Deborah L Lauseng Institution: University of Illinois at Chicago, University Library Address: Library of the Health Sciences – Peoria, One Illini Drive, Peoria, IL 61605 Email: dlauseng@uic.edu B-1. Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Ryan S Rafferty Institution: University of Illinois at Chicago, University Library Address: Library of the Health Sciences – Urbana, 1301 W. Springfield Ave., Urbana, IL 61801 Email: rraffer2@gmail.com B-2. Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Kathryn H. Carpenter Institution: University of Illinois at Chicago, Library of the Health Sciences Address: 1750 W. Polk St., Chicago, IL 60612 Email: khc@uic.edu 3. Date of data collection: September 2017, February 2019, and September 2020 4. Geographic location of data collection: Literature databases searched: Library and Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA) via ProQuest; Library, Information Science & Technology (LISTA) via EBSCOHost; and Library Literature & Information Sciences (LLIS) via EBSCOHost 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: N/A SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: Extracted data for final set of inclusion papers is available upon request from first author, Deborah Lauseng (dlauseng@uic.edu) Data Sharing file, including list of data extraction fields, some data extraction, counts, and coding: no restrictions 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: “Information inputs and influencing factors in administrative decision making: a scoping review” manuscript submitted for publication consideration (April 2022). 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: None 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: None 5. Was data derived from another source? No A. If yes, list source(s): 6. Recommended citation for this dataset: Lauseng DL, Rafferty RS, Carpenter KH. Information Inputs and Influencing Factors in Administrative Decision Making Scoping Review Data 2017-2020. University of Illinois Chicago INDIGO Repository. DOI: 10.25417/uic.20022587. DATA & FILE OVERVIEW 1. File List: Data Sharing spreadsheet [Info_Inputs_Influencing_Factors_Admin_Decision_Making_Scoping_Review-Data_2017-2020.xlsx] – including list of data extraction fields, some data extraction, counts, and coding 2. Relationship between files, if important: N/A 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: Extracted data for final set of thirty-three (33) inclusion papers is available upon request of the principal investigator. 4. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No A. If yes, name of file(s) that was updated: i. Why was the file updated? ii. When was the file updated? METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: The literature search strategy included subject headings and keywords relevant to three primary concepts: decision making, academic libraries, and library administrators. Three library literature databases (LISA, LISTA, LLIS) were searched in September 2017, with searches of each database updated in February 2019 and again in September 2020. No limits were applied. All languages were included. 2. Methods for processing the data: Literature search results, with citations, keywords (when provided), and abstracts (when provided), were reviewed by researchers through Microsoft Excel spreadsheets for the two levels of review, one for titles and abstracts and on for the full text review. Each citation was independently reviewed by two assigned reviewers. All researchers (aka investigators) completed the screening process and the principal investigator resolved discrepancies. Each reviewer was paired at the same rate with each of the other reviewers. Full-text papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Exclusion criteria applied included: -Only promoted decision making -Only discussed a decision making theory with no application into specific library situation or setting -Only discussed the gathering of data or input without any decision making -There was no clear involvement by a library administrator -Decision making was not within an academic or health sciences library 3. Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: Microsoft Corporation. (2016). Excel 2016 [computer software]. https://www.microsoft.com Used during the title/abstract and full text reviews of the literature search results; used for the analysis of the extracted data. 4. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: none 5. Environmental/experimental conditions: none 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: Each step in the review process involved two independent reviewers (aka investigators) with the principal investigator resolving differences. Full-text papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. During analysis, a single investigator identified unique themes and developed typologies for specific analysis sections. A second investigator reviewed the identified themes and provided refinements of the definitions of the typologies to be applied. The extracted data were then independently coded by two investigators with the lead investigators assigned to the section responsible for resolving differences.  7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: The Principal Investigator and Co-Investigators listed above. DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION [Info_Inputs_Influencing_Factors_Admin_Decision_Making_Scoping_Review_Data-2017-2020.xlsx] Spreadsheet tabs and annotations: Documentation: Overview of scoping review and annotated Table of Contents. Included Paper Citations: List of papers meeting the inclusion criteria for the scoping review (33 listed papers). Data Extraction Fields: Note: extraction data not already included in the data sharing file(s) is available upon request from the principal investigator. Publication Type: Coded data gathered from paper, author keywords, or index terms. Level of Decision: Extracted data and counts of identified administrator(s) by status, making the decision, use of group or team decision, and the administrator who was project lead. Multi-institutional Studies: Extracted data and counts of studies conducted across multiple institutions, administrator status, and coded types of multi-institutional studies. Associated Service Area: Extracted data and counts of the identified service area; coded data for “other” service area. Problem Statements: Coded problem statements based on six defined primary typological objectives and eight defined associated secondary objectives. Inputs: Internal or External: Coded information inputs themes based on six defined categories, identifying up to three internal and three external inputs. Inputs: Data-related: Coded data-related information inputs based on five defined categories, identifying up to three data-related inputs. Influencing Factors: Coded influencing factors themes based on seven identified themes.