Rachel Applegate
Assistant Professor
Indiana University School of Library and Information Science, Indianapolis
rapplega@iupui.edu
The responsibilities of MLS and support staff in libraries have always experienced change, especially in response to technological innovation. Currently, the American Library Association is involved in two separate but related efforts: the Library Support Staff Certification Project (LSSCP, http://www.ala-apa.org/certification/supportstaff.html), and a revision of MLS competencies, with possible incorporation into ALA accreditation standards for library schools (see McKinney, 2006 as well as documents from ALA/2008 Annual Meeting). Greater definition of either support or masters level library staff can enhance the professional identities of both.
In the spring of 2008, LSSCP staff conducted a listserv online survey on the subject of competencies for library support staff (LSS) in academic and public libraries. The competency sets included functional areas such as reference and components of technical services, as well as “foundations,” supervision and management, and teamwork. The end goal will be a set of required and optional areas in which LSS could become certified in a nationally-recognized process.
The survey link was widely distributed through association and other listservs, and received among the largest number of responses to any ALA-related survey: 3,591 responses: 1,579 from academic and 1,526 from public library-related respondents (486 other). The largest group by position were “MLS librarians” at 1,313, then LSS at 1,210, and directors at 575 (the rest represented a variety of positions).
This paper will describe the survey results and provide analyses of between-group similarities and differences. Some of the results could easily be predicted, for example that few academic-oriented respondents chose to even review youth services, reader’s advisory, or marketing. Other areas yield more detailed and specific data, such as: a) ethical aspects were rated as similarly important across types of respondents (MLS, support staff) and types of libraries (public, academic); b) while “metadata” issues were not very highly rated by any group, academic library respondents valued them more than public library respondents (both highly valued basic MARC knowledge); and c) while LSS themselves rated nearly every item more highly (more often in the ‘very important’ category) than did MLS librarians, library director respondents rated most items lower than even MLS librarians.
The survey data is more comprehensive than previously available on this subject. Previous studies have, for example, focused on public libraries (e.g. Helmick & Swigger, 2006), academic libraries (e.g. Oberg et al. 1992 and successive studies), specific functional areas (see association standards) or non-library skills (e.g. Mosley & Kaspar, 2008, Arns & Price, 2007). This survey in its content and its respondents crossed public and technical services, technical and interpersonal skills, and public and academic libraries.
The paper will present findings in the context of efforts to define library practice, as was anticipated by the LSSCP grant proposal. It is of special interest to compare the coverage of the topics considered to be support staff duties, with those proposed as essential for MLS librarians. For example, the LSS survey appears to incorporate more public-library-oriented areas.
Helmick, C., & Swigger, K. (2006). Core competencies of library practitioners. Public Libraries, 45(2), 54-69
Mosley, P. A., & Kaspar, W. A. (2008). Making the good hire: updating hiring practices for the contemporary multigenerational workforce, part one. Library Administration and Management, 22(2), 92-99
Oberg, L. R., Mentges, M. E., McDermott, P. N., & Harusadangkul, V. (1992). The role, status, and working conditions of paraprofessionals: a national survey of academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 53(5), 215-238
Arns, J. W., & Price, C. (2007). To market, To market: The supervisory skills and managerial competencies most valued by new library supervisors. Library Administration and Management, 21(1), 13-19
McKinney, R. (2006). Draft proposed ALA core competencies, compared to ALA-accredited, candidate, and precandidate program curricula: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(1), 52-77
Rachel Applegate
Assistant Professor
Indiana University School of Library and Information Science, Indianapolis
rapplega@iupui.edu
The responsibilities of masters-degreed (MLS) and support staff (LSS: paraprofessionals, library technicians, library practitioners, etc., here defined as library personnel without the masters in library science degree) in libraries have always experienced change, especially in response to technological innovation. Currently, the American Library Association is involved in two separate but related efforts: the Library Support Staff Certification Project (LSSCP, http://www.ala-apa.org/certification/supportstaff.html and Shonrock, 2007), and a revision of MLS competencies, with possible incorporation into ALA accreditation standards for library schools (see McKinney, 2006 as well as documents from ALA/2008 Annual Meeting). Greater definition of either support or masters level library staff can enhance the professional identities of both.
The exploration and development of LSS certification has been reported by several authors. In 2000 Parsons reviewed the status of three (ALA) Support Staff Interest Round Table task forces; Brooks (2002) described the structure put into place by the Connecticut Library Association, which defined competency areas as general, personal/professional, technology, public services, and technical services. Dowell in 2004 reviewed the overall status of library support staff education, including activities of the Congress on Professional Education (COPE) III meeting in 2003 which focused on support vs. masters-level staff. Buchanan (2005) reported data from a survey of western New York academic library assistants about how they perceived skill acquisition (primarily on-the-job) and attitudes towards continuing education (67% felt it was “necessary for career development” with 79% reporting that supervisors supported “development”). Helmick and Swigger (2006) focused on “library practitioners,” non-MLS people who direct public libraries primarily in the western states. It was this work, the Continuum of Library Education project by the Western Council of State Libraries (WCSL), that formed the backdrop of the ALA-APA and WCSL project to develop nationally recognized certification standards—the Library Support Staff Certification Project.
The LSSCP began with an advisory council consisting of representatives of ALA divisions and organizations (Library Support Staff Interest Round Table (LSSIRT), RUSA, LLAMA , ALCTS, ACRL, PLA and the Council on Education). These experts generated a list of competencies for support staff in academic and public libraries, expressed in terms of items LSS should know and be able to do, grouped into competency sets (these are called “areas” below) . The competency sets included functional areas such as reference and components of technical services, as well as the cross-cutting areas of “foundations,” supervision and management, technology, and communication and teamwork.
To enhance the external validation of these competency sets, in the spring of 2008, LSSCP staff conducted an online survey via listserv solicitation. The survey link was widely distributed and received among the largest number of responses to any ALA-related survey: 3,591 responses: 1,579 from academic and 1,526 from public library-related respondents (486 other). In comparison, the Helmick and Swigger survey had 219 respondents, 70% of whom were library directors; the western New York study (Buchanan 2005) had 139 support staff respondents. The largest respondent group by position were “MLS librarians” at 1,313, then LSS at 1,210, and directors at 575 (the rest represented a variety of positions or selected “other.”)
The survey data is more comprehensive than previously available on this subject. Previous studies have, for example, focused on public libraries (e.g. Helmick & Swigger, 2006), academic libraries (e.g. Oberg et al. 1992, McClesky 2003), information technology (Eells and Jaguszewski, 2008) or non-library skills (e.g. Mosley & Kaspar, 2008, Tella, Tella and Adekunle, 2007). This survey in its content and its respondents crossed public and technical services, technology and interpersonal skills, and public and academic libraries.
The survey was presented in several sections. All respondents answered certain demographic questions, including identifying their library type, size (in terms of population served or student body), and their own roles. Then, respondents could choose to review any of the eleven areas. In each area, a list of items that LSS should know or be able to do was presented, with the rating for each ranging from “not important,” to “important,” to “very important.”
The following analysis will not report on all findings, from the survey’s 208 variables. The primary focus is on evident differences by respondent type, that is, LSS responses compared to those of MLS librarians, as well as from directors. When applicable, important differences by library type (public compared to academic) are noted. The topics covered are the reported roles of LSS and MLS, overall interest level in LSS competency areas, and the ratings given to competencies in four specific areas. With respect to these four areas, comparisons are made to the ALA-MLS Core Competencies of 2008.
Table 1 shows the numbers of respondents from the library types, reporting their position (status).
The “Other” category was most often chosen by respondents identifying with public libraries. For academic library respondents, LSS made up 42% vs. 9% for “other;” for public libraries, LSS were 23% with 26% selecting “other.” It seems unlikely that “MLS librarians” would have chosen “other,” so the high number of “other” may be interpreted as non-MLS staff not choosing “support staff” as their category. A text box allowed write-ins, which varied enormously.
Roles
Respondents were asked to select up to three areas where they worked (at least 30% of their time): “roles.” The top six roles accounted for 80% of all roles selected by LSS. The most commonly chosen roles were technical services (446 respondents) and access services (441). For MLS respondents, technical services was also popular (299) but less than either reference (539) or supervision-management (447). For LSS and MLS respondents, reference was selected by 18% of public library and 19% of academic library respondents. Technical services was quite different by type of library: only 10% of public library respondents but 23% of academic library respondents. The supervision-management role was more prevalent in public compared to academic libraries (17% vs. 12%).
Comparing LSS to MLS-chosen roles, a mirror image appears in technical compared to reference services. Twenty-two percent of LSS selected technical services compared to only 12% of MLS, but for reference services, 22% of MLS selected that compared to 14% of LSS. Collection development was mostly experienced as an MLS role: 13% of MLS respondents but only 5% of LSS (only 3% of academic library LSS). As might be expected, the supervision-management role was more often selected by MLS (18%) than LSS (10%). The management role was slightly more characteristic of MLS who were in public libraries (22% compared to 18% of academic library MLS respondents).
Roles compared to MLS Core Competencies
Within the ALA MLS Core Competencies, “access services” does not make any direct appearance. The “Information resources” area mentions acquisition, storage, management, and maintenance, but not circulation. In this survey, access services was predominantly the role of LSS: 22% of LSS selected it compared to only 6% of MLS respondents.
Management is an important part (8) of the MLS Core Competencies, and in this data twice as many MLS respondents selected it as did LSS.
Above all, the survey responses about roles underline the multiple competencies needed in librarianship, particularly for MLS librarians. MLS respondents selected the most number of roles, an average of 2.22 per respondent compared to 1.88 for LSS and 1.72 for library directors. In public libraries people generally selected more roles than those from academic libraries (2.03 vs. 1.90); the difference was greater for LSS (2.02 vs. 1.67).
Interest in LSS Competency Areas
The main body of the survey asked respondents to rate each individual competency in an area as to its importance for library support staff. The area was a either a distinct department or function (such as youth services) or a cross-cutting skill set (such as teamwork or technology). The competencies were specific knowledge and skills characterizing that area, such as knowledge of child development or the ability to recommend children’s reading materials. The ratings were a forced-choice scale of 1, not important, 2, important, and 3, very important.
Areas rated
Respondents did not have to rate any particular area or item. Therefore, the number of individuals choosing to rate an item was an indication of how important they believed it is, for LSS or for libraries, or how much they feel they have an opinion or expertise in the area. “Choosing to rate” an area was defined as those rating the first item in each area. Some respondents said “yes” they would review an area but then did not rate any items.
Directors in general chose to rate most areas; there were distinct differences between library types. Academic library directors predictably chose not to review youth services, reader’s advisory—and “programming,” probably conceived as public library style programming, as opposed to lecture series or other non-instructional activities that academic libraries often do.
Interestingly, academic library directors were much less interested in “marketing” than were public library directors: 40% vs. 64%. Even public library support staff were more interested in marketing than were MLS or LSS from academic libraries.
With the exception of the public vs. academic differences for youth services, readers advisory, and marketing, the areas seemed to be of roughly the same level of interest for LSS. MLS respondents from public libraries had a disproportionate interest in reviewing reference.
Figures 1a and b give the interest levels in particular areas. The order for the areas is most-to-least often selected by public library LSS respondents.
Importance of Competencies
The question was, how important was each competency for library support staff? Across all areas, LSS generally gave competencies the highest ratings, followed by MLS and directors: 2.42 compared to 2.32 and 2.35 respectively (these are averages of averages, unweighted for numbers responding to each item). This may be an expression of the LSS respondents’ enthusiasm, expertise, or sense of importance about their own job responsibilities.
The greatest differences in importance ratings between MLS and LSS respondents were in the areas of supervision and management (LSS, .27 points higher), marketing (.17 points higher), technical services (.15) and public programming (.14). A relatively small number of respondents chose to review public programming (especially in academic libraries) but those who were LSS were evidently enthusiastic.
Rather than review all competencies within all thirteen areas, this discussion will focus on four. The supervision and management area is very relevant to the perceived roles of library staff, and LSS valued this for themselves more than other respondents did. Reference is an area that has received much attention over the years with respect to whether LSS or MLS should be the “first responders” to patron questions. Marketing is of interest specifically because it attracted so little interest. Finally, what is “foundational” to an LSS—compared to MLS?
Supervision and Management
Overall, LSS in academic libraries were more likely to choose to review this area: 46% of LSS respondents vs. 34% of public library LSS. This may be because of the presence of a third category of academic library workers: student assistants. In many cases these are supervised by support staff, not MLS librarians.
Appendix A provides the exact language of the ALA MLS Competencies and the survey competencies. MLS competencies are stated in more concise and broader language; in general, they cover the same areas. In the way they are worded, they appear often to be at the same “level,” although the LSS competencies are more detailed. For example, the MLS competency says, “principles of effective personnel practices” while the LSS competencies mention knowledge of “basic regulations and laws,” “principles of staff management,” and “implement sound management principles.” In a few areas the survey wording indicated a supportive role: “develop… recommendations,” “uphold policies,” “follow an approved budget.”
This area saw the most disagreement among respondents by position. There were statistically significant differences in importance ratings between LSS and MLS respondents on 90% (18 out of 20) of the supervision-management items (the next most-differing area, marketing, had 82% disagreement). The only two areas of agreement about importance were knowledge of “basic regulations and laws” and “the value of …policies.”
Based on this data, it appears that LSS more often see themselves as having a role in library funding and budgeting than others do; neither MLS nor director respondents viewed that as particularly important for support staff.
Reference
This was an area of great interest for respondents. About half of LSS respondents chose to review it: 48% of those at academic libraries and 54% of those in public libraries. It appeared to be of even keener interest for MLS librarians in public libraries compared to academic: 70% of public MLS vs. 58% of academic MLS reviewing it; directors were the opposite, with 78% of public library directors reviewing it compared to 70% of academic library directors.
Appendix B gives the wording from the ALA MLS competencies and the LSS survey items. In contrast to the Supervision and Management area, a direct alignment of the items is difficult. The LSS reference items include knowledge of collections and local tools. They break down elements that are combined in the MLS competencies, such as interviewing, education, source evaluation, and search techniques. They also include support-level activities such as making referrals. Finally, they include copyright which the MLS competencies place in the “foundations” area.
This was also an area where there were a relatively high number of disagreements over specific competencies: 71% of competencies. In 10 out of 14 cases respondents differed significantly by position (LSS vs. MLS), and in 9 out of 14, there were significant differences by library type. However, these differences were not of the magnitude seen in the supervision-management area, with only three areas differing by more than a tenth of a point.
What is most interesting is one of the very rare instances of LSS rating considering an item as less important than MLS or directors: and that particular item is referrals, one of the most important issues in reference staffing models. All respondents did feel it was very important (2.70 is well above the overall average rating of 2.42) but support staff rated it slightly lower. This difference was not only statistically significant by respondent position (MLS vs. LSS) but also by library type, and subject to an “interaction” effect. That is, the different scores between MLS compared to LSS differed by type of library. In this case, academic MLS librarians believed this to be much more important than academic LSS, or public MLS or support staff.
The only reference area competency to have an average importance score below 2.5 (closer to “important” than “very important”) was “assist users in evaluating the quality, currency and authority of information retrieved.” This was scored by groups relatively uniformly in a range of 2.34 to 2.39. It is possible that respondents felt that this was a more professional-level activity.
Marketing
Marketing was not a popular choice for most survey respondents, and in the subsequent discussion within the LSSCP group, it was not developed as a separate competency. There was much more interest on the public library side, with 64% of directors choosing to rate it; all other groups had interest levels below 30%.
Other than in an expression in favor of “advocacy,” marketing is completely absent from the ALA MLS competencies; see Appendix C comparing these to the LSS survey items. This suggests one or more of the following: “advocacy” is a broad enough concept that it includes marketing, marketing is unimportant for libraries, or people other than MLS librarians do it. The survey can shed little light on this, as it asked what was important for support staff, not for libraries in general.
The more broadly stated competencies in this area received higher scores than those which described specific techniques. Participants of all types felt very positively about the importance of “demonstrate effective communication, interpersonal and customer service skills,” (rated at 2.84 across all groups), and “create a welcoming and user-friendly library environment to encourage use of the library and community support for the library” (rated 2.80-2.84). All of these were rated highly across all respondent groups.
It was in the lower-rated, most specific items that there was the greatest disagreement. In all cases, LSS felt that the items were of higher importance than did MLS or directors, although still not very high. Directors appeared to think these items were less important for LSS than the LSS did.
Foundations
Both the ALA MLS Competencies document and the LSS survey had an area labeled the “foundations of the profession” or “foundations.”
This area was of moderate interest. Response rates ranged from 40% (public library support staff) to 69% (directors, of both public and academic libraries).
Appendix D gives the wording of the specific items. In general, MLS competency wording is much more extensive and less specific. The support staff competencies do include knowledge of the parts of a particular library (academic or public) but do not include the history of libraries. The LSS competencies are explicit about diversity (“recognize and respond to diversity in user needs and preferences for resources and services”) where the MLS competencies seem to include this mainly by references to “all individuals and groups,” “specific audiences,” and “diversity in user needs” in the Reference and User Services area, not in Foundations.
Out of all of the areas in the survey, Foundations had one of the highest levels of agreement, with only 31% of items differing in their rating between LSS and MLS respondents. Most competencies, in fact, were consistently highly rated (most over 2.75) by all respondents. There were only 2 competencies where ratings were relatively low—on these two items, LSS rated the items comparatively low but noticeably higher than MLS respondents. Unusually, library directors’ ratings were consistent with LSS rather than MLS respondents, unlike in other areas.
Discussion
The LSS certification project began with a set of eleven areas which could potentially become part of support staff certification. Considering the numbers of respondents interested in the different areas, and the average ratings of competencies within each area, the Project came to a decision to proceed with a set of nine. Three are core (to be required of all participants): foundations of library services, communications and teamwork, and technology; participants would select three from the remaining six: access services, adult readers advisory services, reference and information services, supervision and management, technical services, and youth services. The process of developing this competency and certification structure is not the focus of this research. Instead, it reports on the perceptions of library support staff roles, knowledge, and skills, as shown in responses from MLS librarians, library directors, and support staff themselves.
The survey results show that support staff respondents valued their own roles and the details of those roles. In almost every instance, LSS gave the competencies higher ratings than did MLS or director respondents. The “referral” function in reference was a singular and notable exception.
Comparing the domains of the LSS and MLS competencies—only in the four areas studied—shows overlaps and distinctions.
Looking at the interest expressed in the different areas, librarians would do well to revisit the definition and role of marketing and programming in library activities. Similarly, as has been commented on already (Kenney, 2008), is whether the low interest in readers’ advisory and youth services on the part of academic librarians means that in general they should not be considered part of core librarianship and instead, perhaps, considered a specialty similar to archives or informatics?
Technology was an important area of the survey and is an element of the proposed ‘core’ LSS competencies. It has been the subject of considerable debate and research (e.g. Buchanan, 2005, Eells and Jaguszewski 2008). It was the most-often rated area by academic library respondents; for public library respondents it was third-most-popular (behind teamwork and reference). It is deserving of its own extended analysis.
Brooks, S. (2002, Nov-Dec). Competencies and certification: Where the profession stands. Library Mosaics, 13, 8-11.
Buchanan, R. A. (2005). Library assistant training: Perceptions, incentives, and barriers. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 31(5), 421-431
Dowell, D. R. (2004). COPE III and the future of the library workforce. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45(2), 162-165
Eells, L. L., & Jaguszewski, J. M. (2008). IT competence for all: Propel your staff to new heights. Technical Services Quarterly, 25(4), 17-35
Helmick, C., & Swigger, K. (2006). Core competencies of library practitioners. Public Libraries, 45(2), 54-69
McCleskey, S. E. (2003). Staffing standards and core competencies in academic art and architecture departmental libraries: a preliminary study. Journal of Library Administration, 39(1), 1-21
McKinney, R. (2006). Draft proposed ALA core competencies, compared to ALA-accredited, candidate, and precandidate program curricula: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 47(1), 52-77
Mosley, P. A., & Kaspar, W. A. (2008). Making the good hire: updating hiring practices for the contemporary multigenerational workforce, part one. Library Administration and Management, 22(2), 92-99
Oberg, L. R., Mentges, M. E., McDermott, P. N., & Harusadangkul, V. (1992). The role, status, and working conditions of paraprofessionals: a national survey of academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 53(5), 215-238
Parsons, M. (2000, Nov-Dec). SSIRT Task Force update: career ladders, compensation, and continuing education. Library Mosaics, 11, n.p.
Shonrock, D. D. (2007). ALA-APA Support Staff Certification: RUSA's Role. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(3), 9-12
Tella, A., Tella, A., & Adekunle, P. O. (2007). An assessment of librarian social competence and information technology self efficacy: implications for library practice in the digital era. PNLA Quarterly, 71(4), 12-16
Posted by admin on September 8, 2008
Tags: Uncategorized
Comments on specific paragraphs:
Click the
icon to the right of a paragraph
Comments on the page as a whole:
Click the
icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)