expectations, realities, and perceptions of subject specialist librarians' duties in...

(httUni

(httUni

The Journal of

Expectations, Realities, and Perceptions ofSubject Specialist Librarians’ Duties inMedium-Sized Academic Libraries

by Sonja L. McAbee and John-Bauer Graham

This study surveys 138 librarians in 21 medium-sized academic libraries to identify time on

tasks and value of tasks to address problemsbetween the expectations of library

administrators and the perceptions of librariansto their job descriptions. The results validate

that the administration’s expectations arewithin the norm.

Sonja L. McAbee, Houston Cole Libraryp://www.jsu.edu/depart/library), Jacksonville Stateversity (http://www.jsu.edu/), 700 Pelham Road N,

Jacksonville, AL 36265-1602, United [email protected];

John-Bauer Graham, Houston Cole Libraryp://www.jsu.edu/depart/library), Jacksonville Stateversity (http://www.jsu.edu/), 700 Pelham Road N,

Jacksonville, AL 36265-1602, United [email protected].

Academic Librarianship, Volume 31, Number 1, pages 19–28

Jacksonville State University (JSU) is a medium-sizedpublic comprehensive university offering both under-graduate and graduate programs. The current enroll-

ment is approximately 9,000 students. Library services arecentralized in the Houston Cole Library (HCL), a thirteen-story building divided into eight subject divisions managedby subject specialist librarians. Each subject specialistlibrarian is responsible for reference, collection maintenanceand development, supervision of student employees, depart-mental liaison activities, and instruction. In addition to theseprofessional duties the subject specialist librarians arerequired to participate in scholarly and service activities.The Library is staffed with fourteen professional and nineteenparaprofessional employees and has a collection of over600,000 titles.

INTRODUCTION

The mission of the HCL is to provide information servicesand bibliographic resources to support the scholarly andinformational needs of the university community. To bettermeet user expectations, the subject specialist librarians’responsibilities at Jacksonville State University (JSU) haveevolved to include four major professional areas: (1)reference, (2) collection management and development oftheir respective subject areas, (3) instruction, and (4) liaisonactivities. The ALA Glossary defines a subject specialist as‘‘. . . a library staff member with superior knowledge of asubject or discipline, with responsibilities for the selectionand evaluation of the library’s materials in the subject areasand sometimes with the added responsibilities of informationservice in the subject area and the bibliographic organizationof the materials. Sometimes called subject bibliographer.’’1

Varying interpretations of this definition provides the basis forthis study.

For many years, the subject specialist librarians at JSUworked from the research consultant reference model; the librarydid not have a central, general reference desk. Under this model,research questions and strategies are handled during scheduledappointments, or complex questions are referred to a librarianwho holds office hours rather than handling them at a traditionalreference desk.2 With a change in administration, some 15 yearsago, this model was altered to a less isolated, more holisticreference service-oriented philosophy. In spite of numerous

January 2005 19

surveys showing increases in user satisfaction, the administra-tion has continued to encounter problems persuading some ofthe subject specialist librarians that this is the best course for thelibrary to follow.

Communicating a different reference philosophy andimplementing the required changes to an entrenched staffhas proved to be problematic. The administration favors aholistic reference service model, which combines the researchconsultant, the tiered service, and roving aspects of referenceknown as the differentiated service model. The tieredreference service model provides different levels of servicebased on the complexity of the query and appropriate level ofstaff expertise (e.g., directional and quick-answer queries arehandled by paraprofessionals and students while complex orin-depth questions are handled at a reference desk or byconsultation).3 Roving involves moving from behind the deskand approaching users (rather than vice-versa) and offeringassistance. This model is based on the assumption that manyusers do not ask for assistance.4 Proposed by William Whitson(1995), the differentiated reference service model incorporatesall of these approaches identifying five distinct but interrelatedservices: directional and general information, technical assis-tance, finding answers for users, research consultation, andinstruction. Each of these should operate separately, fittingstaff skills and hours of service to user needs and librarypriorities.5

Often, when an organization changes service models orservice philosophies, the day-to-day operations, individualtasks, and time spent on tasks change. In a medium-sizedacademic library, librarians are expected to perform multi-ple duties. Because the public service or referencelibrarians are not as numerous in medium-sized academiclibraries, any additional duties can adversely effect timeallocated to previous tasks. Under the HCL’s holisticservice model, subject specialist librarians have progres-sively been held accountable for acquisitions requests,assessments, electronic database reviews, Web site reviews,public relations through liaison activities, more advancedinstruction methods, and centralized reference desk service.To improve communications with departments, there is alsoan emphasis on instruction, liaison activities, and collectiondevelopment. Most of these changes in expectations havebeen met with disgruntlement and resistance from somestaff. While the administration assumes that the aforemen-tioned tasks are an understood part of their job description,some librarians have commented that they are continuallybeing asked to do more and more. How does one explainand facilitate the need to alter an entrenched philosophy ofisolated reference services and how does an administratorcommunicate that the time spent on certain tasks isimportant to both the profession and to the service of thelibrary’s mission?

REVIEW

Two themes in library literature were examined for thepurpose of this study. One, being the literature related to aswitch in reference models or philosophies, the other beingthe literature related to time on tasks, perception of duties,and duties assigned to subject specialists. Rodwell revisiteda 1979 paper by Dickinson in which subject specialists arereferred to as the ‘‘once and future dinosaurs.’’6 That is to

20 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

say that subject specialists are always marked for extinction,but they have found ways to evolve and survive. Rodwellargued that to survive, the traditional subject specialist’srole should evolve into that of the subject expert. He pointsout that designating subject librarians in large, centralacademic libraries was partly an attempt to give clientgroups the specialist attention and service of departmentalor special branch libraries which are usually disciplinefocused. He argued that though this arrangement appearedto be more client focused, in reality the focus is on thediscipline. In contrast, subject expertise is not merelyknowledge of a subject but a mixture of subject knowledgeand knowledge of the client community, which allows thelibrarian to mediate between available resources and theclient.7

A content analysis of 220 job advertisements that appearedin College and Research Libraries News between 1973 and1998 revealed the trend of combining jobs into the traditionalreference position. The authors noted that in the 1990s,instruction was included in all the job ads for referencepositions and that collection development was listed in four.In 1983, combination jobs represented 14% of the positionsadvertised. This had increased to 32% by 1998. They notedthat the emergence of the combination positions could be dueto budget constraints but they attributed the need to fill more‘‘expansive and complex jobs.’’8 Speaking on changes inreference philosophy, Whitson identified three trends forcingthe modification of the reference service model: (1) budgetarystringency and (2) reductions in staffing call for ‘‘account-ability’’ (i.e., administrators must demonstrate the allocationof staff and resources is consistent with the needs ofthe clientele and that staff is utilized wisely), and (3) therapid increase in what a librarian needs to know in order toprovide competent reference service within the traditionalframework.9

In our customer-oriented and technologically savvy society,it is vital that libraries keep user satisfaction numbers high.‘‘Good service produces better service; satisfied users con-tribute substantially to the reputation of the library and itspersonnel; and efficiency allows for an optimum use ofresources.’’10 Frank and Howell (2003) address the importanceof the librarian’s liaison role and how the programs describedin earlier literature seem to be passive. They stressed the needfor librarians to be dynamic and proactive consultants. Theircontention is that failing to do so will result in a diminishedrole for the librarians on campus. And, while not all librarianswill practice as consultants, they need to be informationconsultants philosophically who are concerned with thelibrary’s image and relative importance on campus. Valuesand assumptions need to be shared by the whole librarystaff.11

‘‘In our customer-oriented and technologicallysavvy society, it is vital that libraries keep user

satisfaction numbers high.’’

A 1989 RQ article by Schreiner-Robles and Germannprovides a literature review of the numerous workload

studies of academic librarians.12 Many of the studies theyexamined were subsets of the literature regarding facultystatus proposals. In addition to their literature review onworkloads, they surveyed a sample of librarians whoseprimary job responsibilities included both reference andcollection development. They determined that the averagereference-bibliographer has a 12-month contract and works arequired number of hours per week, usually 35–40 hours.Further, they spend 11.7 hours a week on reference, 7.7hours on collection development, 3.1 hours searching online,5.3 hours on publishing, 3.1 hours on professional reading,3.0 hours on in-house library committees, and 2.2 hours onclerical tasks. They reported that little had changed as to themultitask responsibilities of reference bibliographers.13 Mari-lyn Lary observed, ‘‘As graduate trained informationmanagers utilize their particular expertise, library adminis-trators’ expectations of these professionals must increase.One with graduate education must embrace a holistic viewof information, must subscribe to and help develop with theorganization a service philosophy which responds to alllevels of users from the knowledgeable to the uninformed,and must help mold disparate employees into functioningteams.’’14

Ferguson and Taylor concluded ‘‘the stated goals of acollege or university library are not always the same asthose projected by the librarians themselves.’’15 Could thetransitional problems simply be an organizational culturalissue that revolves around a resolute difference in servicephilosophy? What is included in the subject specialists’job descriptions that may allow for a smoother transi-tion? What do the subject specialists actually spend theirtime doing; what is the reality of what they do? Dothey have the time to participate in the more holisticapproach to reference service? What do the subjectspecialists think their responsibilities should be; whatare their perceptions?

METHODOLOGY

To determine the librarians’ perceptions versus the adminis-tration’s expectations a survey of the opinions of librarians in21 like institutions was undertaken. A specific sample wasderived from the online National Center for EducationStatistics (NCES) Academic Library Peer Comparison Tool.The NCES is the primary federal entity for collecting andanalyzing data that are related to education in the United Statesand other nations. The NCES initiated a formal library statisticsprogram in 1989 that now includes surveys on academiclibraries, federal libraries and information centers, publiclibraries, school library media centers, state library agencies,and library cooperatives. It is a valuable data-gathering tool forlibrary and information science professionals. The NCES Website provides access to the ‘‘Academic Library Peer Compar-ison Tool which allows users to get information on a particularlibrary, or to customize a peer group by selecting the keyvariables that are used to define it. The user can then viewcustomized reports of the comparison between the library ofinterest and its peers, on a variety of variables as selected bythe user.’’16

Using the Academic Library Peer Comparison Tool todevelop the sample, libraries were limited to those academiclibraries with holdings between 516,249 and 774,373 vol-

umes/titles and a staff of librarians and other professionalsbetween 14.80 and 22.20.17 The results were furtherdelineated by the Carnegie Classification Code 21, Master’s(Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I. These institu-tions offer a full range of baccalaureate programs and arecommitted to graduate education through the master’s degree.They award 40 or more master’s degrees annually in three ormore disciplines. A total of 21 medium-sized, Carnegie ClassMaster’s (Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I insti-tutions across the United States were identified based on theaforementioned criteria and they serve as the sample for thissurvey.

To verify that the ALA Glossary definition of ‘‘subjectspecialist’’ was still valid, requests for job descriptions forthose librarians engaged in public service activities weremailed to the 21 institutions’ library directors. Thirteenresponses were received (62% response rate). Four respondersdid not supply descriptions because their job descriptions wereout of date, they do not have job descriptions, or that theynegotiate a contract each year. The information provided by theremaining responders varied in the wording, job titles, andresponsibility descriptions; yet, similar expected tasks wereapparent:

! provide reference assistance to patrons;

! provide classroom and individual instruction in thelocation, use, and evaluation of information;

! act as a liaison with academic department;

! manage collection development;

! serve on library and university committees; and

! attend appropriate conferences and training sessions inarea of specialization.

Evident from the commonality of the descriptions is thatlike-sized medium academic libraries seem to assign tasksin similar fashion. It also should be noted that those res-pondentswho provided credit units, percentages, or quali-fiers for specific tasks gave ‘‘Reference Services’’ the highestratings.

The common expected tasks outlined in the job descrip-tions received from the 21 peer institutions were then listed ina separate survey as activities. This survey was distributed to138 public service librarians within the 21 peer institutionsusing the aforementioned online NCES Academic LibraryPeer Comparison Tool. The 138 librarians were identified asworking in the public services through the American LibraryDirectory and through individual Web sites for those librariesthat did not provide job descriptions in the directory. Therespondents were given the option to fill out the survey onlineor to mail it back to the authors. A return postage paidenvelope was included with the survey. The public servicelibrarians were asked to answer six questions (see AppendixA). The first four questions were asked to obtain demographicinformation. The next question dealt with the reality of thelibrarians’ work by asking how much time, if any, they spendon a certain task. To ascertain the librarians’ perceptions

January 2005 21

Figure 1How Many years Have You Been at the Present Library?

of whether or not this activity should be included amongtheir responsibilities, the same question asked the librarian torank on a scale of 1–5, with 5 being the highest, theirperception of the importance of the task to their position.A final open-ended question was included for additionalcomments.

RESULTS

A total of 50 surveys were returned completed, resulting in areturn rate of 36%. The surveys were entered into Even-tHandler Pro V.3.6—the university’s online survey system.Several questions allowed the respondents to choose morethan one answer if applicable. Additionally, some ques-tions allowed the respondents to indicate N/A or no answerif it did not apply, so the percentages do not always add up to100.

FigureWhich of the Following Best Describ


A series of questions were asked to obtain demographicinformation. The first question was an open-ended questionthat asked the respondents ‘‘What is your position title’’?Thirty-eight of the respondents (76%) reported that ‘‘refer-ence’’ and ‘‘librarian’’ were included somewhere in theirposition title. No respondent identified himself or herselfwith the title ‘‘subject specialist’’, and only six (12%)identified that they were subject-specific librarians, i.e.,Health Sciences Librarian, Business Librarian, Social Sci-ence Librarian, Humanities Librarian, and etc. The nextquestion asked, ‘‘What is your educational background’’?The respondents were allowed to pick all that applied fromthe following list: MLS (or equivalent Master’s in a fieldother than library science), Bachelor’s, Other, or PhD. Anoverwhelming majority (98%) reported that they had anMLS (or equivalent Master’s in a field other than libraryscience). Question number three asked, ‘‘How many years

2es Your Status at your Institution?

Figure 3Top Five Tasks Receiving ‘‘Highest’’ Value.

have you been at the present library’’? Respondents couldchoose one of the following: more than 9 years, 5–7 years,3–5 years, 1–3 years, or less than 1 year. A majority (54%)reported that they had been in their position for more than 9years (see Fig. 1). Question four asked, ‘‘Which of thefollowing best describes your status at your institution’’? Alist with a definition of terms was provided in addition to an‘‘other’’ choice for respondents to fill in the blank. A smallmajority (52%) responded that they had ‘‘Faculty Status’’ asdefined by the following: ‘‘Librarians accept all the rules,regulations, procedures, and benefits of the teaching facultyin a strict sense. They have ranks and titles identical toteaching faculty and go up for tenure in their sixth year’’(see Fig. 2).

The next question asked the respondents to estimate andrecord how many hours per week they spent on variousactivities. The respondents were asked to comment on 18specific activities, for a complete list please see AppendixA. They were then asked to indicate, in a separate column,their ‘‘perception’’ of the value of the activity to theirposition on a scale from one to five, with a five meaningthat it was perceived as highly valuable. If the activity didnot apply to their job they were to indicate with N/A andproceed to the next activity. This question was asked toascertain what tasks the respondents carry out, how much

FigureTop Five Tasks Receiv

time they spent on these tasks, and how valuable theyperceived each task to be.

‘‘The majority of the respondents wereaveraging 11 hours per week providingreference service at a reference desk.’’

Time on Task

The time spent on each of the aforementioned tasks bylibrarians was hard to measure. Because the respondents hadvarious titles and responsibilities, only a few tasks wereconsistently identified for measurement. Similarly, therespondents’ perceptions of task value were equally hardto average. Only the tasks identified by over 50% of therespondents were included in the results. The majority of therespondents were averaging 11 hours per week providingreference service at a reference desk (Similar to theSchreiner-Robles and Germann study conducted in 1989).This was the task identified as most time consuming by thesubject specialist. Twenty-two of the respondents (44%)

4ing ‘‘Lowest’’ Value.

January 2005 23

were spending 6–10 hours per week providing referenceservices at the desk followed by 16 respondents spendingbetween 11 and 27 hours on the desk. In contrast 39 of therespondents (a large majority or 78%) indicated they wereonly spending 0–5 hours per week providing referenceassistance ‘‘in-office’’ or as a consultant. The respondents inthe survey indicated that they spent an average of 4.34hours a week providing bibliographic instruction. The studyalso indicated that only 1.14 hours a week on average wasbeing spent on publishing and scholarly activity (comparedto 5.3 hours a week spent publishing in the Schreiner-Robles and Germann study).

Value of Tasks

If the respondents answered that they spent any time on atask, they were then asked to indicate (on a scale of 1–5,with 5 being the highest) their perception of the value of theactivity to their position. The highest ranking activity, with36 (72%) of the total respondents ranking the activity a 5,was providing reference service at the reference desk.Following this activity, providing library instruction rankedsecond with 29 (58%) of the respondents ranking its value a5. The role or activity of in-office reference consultationranked next with 22 (44%) ranking the activity a 5. A listof the five highest ranking activities is provided in Fig. 3.These numbers perhaps indicate a more centralized referencemodel in the participating libraries where over 70% of thereference was done from a desk rather than in-office. Thesefindings indicate that providing reference service is highlyvalued to the respondents surveyed. Additionally, themajority of respondents find teaching an important compo-nent to their jobs.

‘‘The highest ranking activity [perceived mostvaluable] . . . was providing reference service at

the reference desk.’’

The survey found that the majority of respondents (52%)indicated that they had faculty status, with the same rank andresponsibilities assigned to the teaching faculty (see Fig. 2).Although the survey sample was taken from Master’s(Comprehensive) Colleges and Universities I, and not fromresearch institutions, it is assumed that some level of researchand service is required of the respondents that indicated facultystatus. However, the activities ranked the lowest in value by therespondents all represent tasks commonly associated withcollege and university faculty status. The activity of serving onnational committees was ranked a 1 (or lowest value) by 32(64%) of the respondents. Serving on state committees rankednext lowest with 29 (58%), followed next by the activity ofpublication or scholarly work with 22 (44%) respondentsranking it lowest value. A list of the five lowest perceivedvalue rankings are presented in Fig. 4. These findings perhapshave implications to those arguing for or against faculty statusin medium-sized academic libraries. With an average of 1.14hours a week being spent on scholarly activity, it appears thatthe time spent on such tasks corresponds with its perceivedimportance.


Additional Comments

A final question asked the respondents to list anyadditional comments. More often than not, respondents willfail to answer final questions that ask for voluntary input orcomments. In this survey, 63% of the respondents chose notanswer the final question. However, the remaining percent-age did, and these comments proved valuable to the study.As often the case with open-ended questions, the responsesvary but they can provide valuable insight into the goalsand objectives of the survey. A few comments that theauthors feel relate to the purpose of this study are listedbelow:

! I do not get enough time to keep up with changes, but I tryto make time.

! There are always more activities than the time allows.

! I believe that one’s first allegiance is to the profession andsecondarily to the institutional employer.

! I do all these tasks. . . I cannot really answer on mostbecause some weeks I may spend more time on collectiondevelopment whereas other weeks I spend zero . . . allthese tasks are important.

! We are very short staffed and typically work 45–50 hoursper week.

! Since we are understaffed at our library, I concentrateon particular projects and activities as needed. If we hadmore staff I could spread my job responsibilities moreevenly.

! No reference desk, which has caused many problems. Weare now absent from view and students and faculty do notknow where we are. Triage not good for us!

DISCUSSION

The questions on the perceptions of librarians in medium-sized academic libraries to certain tasks revealed that theyappeared to be more aligned with a holistic referencephilosophy rather than a subject-specific one. The majorityof their time is spent conducting reference duties at areference desk and the majority of respondents (72%)ranked this task as most valuable. However, traditionalsubject specialist duties such as consultations, developingprint collections in their subjects, and spending time servingas the library’s liaison to faculty in assigned departmentsrank in the top five most valuable tasks as well. Thereappears to be a bridge spanning the gap between subjectspecialist and general reference librarian. Perhaps now morethan ever the two are indistinguishable? But as indicated inthe additional comments, time is still a valuable anddepleting resource. One of the major findings in this studywas the amount of time spent on, and value placed on,bibliographic or library instruction. With over 50% of therespondents ranking it the highest value and spending closeto 5 hours a week providing it, library instruction seems to

play an important role in the jobs of the librariansresponding.

‘‘[librarians] appeared to be more alignedwith a holistic reference philosophy rather than

a subject specific one.’’

CONCLUSION

This study was undertaken as an attempt to address threeissues. The first issue being, how can the library’s admin-istration convince its staff to adopt a different reference servicemodel? Secondly, is the JSU Library expecting more from thesubject specialist librarians than the norm in libraries ofsimilar size serving a similar population? Thirdly, how doesthe administration’s expectations concur with the librarians’perceptions of what is important? The review of literaturefound that indeed the isolated, subject specialist, or consulta-tion model of reference was quickly becoming a ‘‘once andfuture dinosaur.’’ Additionally, the results of the survey notedthat over 70% of the individuals involved were conductingreference from a centralized reference desk rather than inoffice consultations. The job descriptions provided by theparticipating institutions yielded enough information to con-clude that in fact the JSU administration does have realistic

expectations of the tasks to be performed by the subjectspecialists. The collected job descriptions and analysis of theduties assigned correspond with the duties being asked of thelibrarians. There is validation that the job descriptions arewithin the norm (for medium-sized academic libraries) andthat the majority of those working in public service areas rankcentralized reference and instruction as having the highestpriority.

The survey results are indicative of the importance placedon the holistic reference service philosophy embraced by theadministration. The perceived high value of centralizedreference and library instruction by the surveyed sampledemonstrates the acceptance of such philosophy. The authorsrecognize that to truly test the ‘‘perceptions’’ of the staffinvolved, the survey would have to be administered to JSUlibrarians. Aware of the origin of the survey, the results wouldhave been tainted with a bias toward the administration’sknown expectations. To ascertain a better understanding ofthe differences in perceptions and expectations requires thedevelopment of a more sophisticated instrument. However,this study provides the administration the validation neededfor the emphasis and implementation of a holistic approach tolibrary service and to the duties assigned to, and expected of,its librarians.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The questionnaire was derived from Schreiner-Roles andGermann, 1989.

January 2005 25

APPENDIX

Survey of Subject Specialist Librarians Duties and Perceptions

1. What is your position title? ______________________________

2. What is your educational background? (Circle all that apply)

a. Bachelor’s

b. M.L.S. (or equivalent)

c. Master’s in a field other than library science

d. Ph.D.

e. Other. Please specify: ____________________________________

3. How many years have you been at the present library? (Please circle one response)

a. Less than one year

b. One–three years

c. Three–five years

d. Five–seven years

e. Seven–nine years

f. More than nine years

4. Which of the following best describes your status at your institution? (Please circle one response. If none accurately describes your status or i

your status is a hybrid of two or more, please explain under ‘‘g.’’)

a. Faculty Status: Librarians accept all the rules, regulations, procedures, and benefits of the teaching faculty in a strict sense. They have ranks

and titles identical to teaching faculty and go up for tenure in their sixth year.

b. Academic Status: Classifies librarians as academic staff rather than faculty, administrative personnel, civil service, or some othe

category. With academic status, librarians enjoy some, but not all of the privileges of the teaching faculty but do not hold faculty

rank. Instead they establish their own ranking system and criteria for revaluating their own work. Often they have continuing

contracts rather then tenure.

c. Administrative Status. Librarians are classified with university administrators such as academic deans and assistant or associate deans

department chairpersons and directors of academic programs such as honors or general education. Primary duties are conceived of as being

administrative in nature rather than in teaching and research.

d. Unclassified Professional: Usually recognizes special technical or administrative skills of a professional nature distinct and separate from the

teaching/research role of the faculty or the direct administrative responsibility for faculty supervision. They do not have faculty rank o

achieve tenure.

e. Classified/Civil Service

f. I don’t know

g. Other. Please explain. ____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. In the second column of the table below, please estimate and record how many hours per week you spend on the activities listed. If you no

undertake the listed activity, please indicate with an NA and proceed to the next activity. In the third column, please indicate your perception o

the value of the activity to your position.

Activity How many hours per week do you spend

on this activity? If not applicable, please

indicate with an NA and proceed to the

next activity.

On a scale of 1–5 with 5 being the

highest, please indicate your perception

of the value of the activity to your

position.

Provides reference service at the Reference Desk

Provides reference service in office consultations

Develops the print collections in designated

subject areas

Develops the electronic collection for a designated

subject areas

Assess collections in designated subject areas


f

r

,

r

t

f

Serves as the library’s liaison to faculty in

assigned departments

Provides library instruction in designated

academic areas

Compiles subject bibliographies, user guides,

pathfinders and other printed and electronic

instructional materials in designated subject

areas

Assists in the supervision and training of

departmental support staff

Prepares periodic reports on accomplishments,

problems, and needs

Serves on library committees

Serves on university committees

Committee work for national organizations

Committee work for your state or region

Professional reading/study

Continuing education

Publication/scholarly activity

6. Comments:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. The ALAGlossary of Library and Information Science. Ed. HeartsillYoung. Chicago IL: American Library Association, 1983, 220.

2. Kibbee, Josephine Z. ‘‘Organizing, Delivering, and ManagingReference Services,’’ In Bopp, Richard E. and Linda C. Smith,Reference and Information Services: An Introduction, 3rd ed.Englewood, Co: Libraries Unlimited 2001, 268-69.

3. Ibid., 268.4. Ibid., 269.5. Whitson, William L. ‘‘Differentiated Service: A New ReferenceModel,’’ Journal of Academic Librarianship 21 (March 1995):103–110.

6. Rodwell, John ‘‘dDinosaur or dynamo?’’ The Future for the SubjectSpecialist Reference Librarian. New Library World, 102 (2001):48–52.Whether a reference librarian needs a good subject background toprovide a quality service, or can rely upon generic professionalskills, is an old debate. However, it is sharpened once again by theemerging changes in reference services in the digital environment,in particular sophisticated end-user access to information resources.Already in recent years subject expertise, which is not the same assubject knowledge, has been somewhat overshadowed in therecruitment and training of librarians by requirements for advancedtechnological and other, for example, training, skills. Howeveramongst the wide range of skills and knowledge required by currentpractice in reference, and especially for the future roles envisagedfor librarians, are an understanding of specific client needs andinformation sources, which constitute the traditional strengths ofsubject specialists.

7. Ibid., p.48–49.8. Lynch Beverly P. & Kimberley Robles Smith, ‘‘The ChangingNature of Work in Academic Libraries,’’ College and ResearchLibraries 61 (September 2001): 414–415.

9. Whitson, 103.10. Lary, Marilyn Searson. ‘‘Academic Reference Staffing for the

Twenty-First Century,’’ in Advances in Library Administration andOrganization, ed. Elmus E. Williams, Edward D. Garten Green-wich, CT: JAI Press, 1996 p. 197.

11. Frank, Donald G. & Elizabeth A. Howell, ‘‘Information Consultingin Academe,’’ Encyclopedia of Library and Information ScienceNew York: Marcel Dekker Inc. 2003, 1294–1299.

12. Schreiner-Robles, Rebecca & Malcolm Germann, ‘‘Workload ofReference-Bibliographers in Medium-sized Academic Libraries,’’RQ 29 (Fall 1989): 82–91.Reference-bibliographers at medium-sized academic librarieshave job configurations that include responsibility for a widevariety of library programs. Librarians gave self-reports onhow many hours per week they spent on a given list ofactivities.

13. Ibid.14. Lary, 202.15. Ferguson, Anthony W. & John R. Taylor, ‘‘What Are You Doing?T

An Analysis of Activities of Public Services Librarians at aMedium-Sized Research Library,’’ The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship 6 (March 1980): p. 29.

16. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page,Academic Library Peer Comparison Tool (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/libraries/academicpeer/).

17. Ibid.

January 2005 27

http:\\nces.ed.gov\surveys\libraries\academicpeer\

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lois J. Buttlar & Garcha Rajinder, ‘‘Organizational Structuring inAcademic Libraries’’, Journal Library Administration 17 (1992):1–21.

Nancy J. Emmick & Luella B. Davis, ‘‘A Survey of AcademicLibrary Reference Service Practices: Preliminary Results’’, RQ 24(Fall 1984): 57–81.

Donald G. Frank & Katharine L. Calhoun & W. Bruce Henson &M. Leslie Madden & Gregory K. Raschke, ‘‘The Changing


Nature of Reference and Information Services: Predictions andRealities’’, Reference and User Services Quarterly 39 (Winter1999): 151–157.

Schein, 1984 E.H. Schein, ‘‘Coming to a New Awareness ofOrganizational Culture’’, Sloan Management Review 25 (Winter1984): 3–16.

David A. Tyckoson, ‘‘What is the Best Model of ReferenceService?’’, Library Trends 50 (Fall 2001): 183–196.

David A. Tyckoson, ‘‘What’s Right with Reference’’, AmericanLibraries 30 (May 1999): 57–63.

expectations, realities, and perceptions of subject specialist librarians' duties in...

Documents