The changes that occurred in the library science profession during the last 2 decades didn’t affect the library resources and services only, but the library staff as well.
A new kind of employees appears at the Academic Libraries named “Hybrid professionals.” The Council of Library and Information Resources (CLR) defines those employees as “Ph.D. holders who bridge the gap between the library and academic department”. Those employees are coming from different backgrounds (business, philosophy, science, etc…). However, they do not have any library education or training. In some academic libraries they are called “Liaison” or “Subject Specialist”, and they play a coordination role between the library and academic departments in acquisitions and reference services.
Those professionals usually get higher salaries and they are considered faculty members who are supposed to publish. In fact, those professionals are not performing instructional duties, their duties are quite the same like traditional MLS holders but they work in a specialized environment. Why they should be differentiated from traditional librarians in term of salary and position?
In my opinion, the “Hybrid professionals” enrich the academic library environment; however a library degree should always be the first requirement for any library position together with other degrees that may be required to fit some special positions. For example, the “liaison” positions at Wayne State University Libraries are held by persons who hold an MLS degree and another Master. The library training provided by library programs cannot be acquired by experience, it is a way of thinking and continuation of the experience of previous professional librarians.
With no doubt, the interaction between traditional librarians and “Hybrid professionals” will result in strengthening the library in providing higher level of services. Yet, the traditional librarians are worried about the future of their career. What if a MLS degree will not be required anymore in the library profession? What is a library degree for if it is not required in the only field that it is used in?
Also, giving higher salaries and work benefits for employees who do not hold a MLS degree will keep students away from the library science programs and result in degradation in the number of professionals, and professional librarians will became an endangered species.
Link to original article:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6598103.html?q=professional+issues
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree that the addition of non library degree professionals into the library could be a danger to the to the education and the MLS program, but in my opinion these professionals are a vital part of many libraries, especially academic ones.
The library that I spent most of my time in as an undergrad, was the Art History Library, and many of the resources that were provided for me in my research were from subject specialist librarians. In doing their undergrad and Ph.D.s they gained a very intimate knowledge of the material that many of the books contained and insight into the subjects that were being researched. Having these hybrid professionals in academic libraries provided me with a better understanding of research and also with other resources that I might not have been able to come across with a subject or keyword search in a database.
These professionals working together with librarians provide a more well rounded and efficient library experience for the user. Like the article said, the library is like an ecosystem, the interaction of many different types of people must be brought together to create the proper environment. This interaction makes a stronger academic library in my opinion.
My first impulse when I read or hear someone claiming that the field is “changing” rapidly or becoming “more complex” all the time is to tune out. Of course things are changing. That’s how living things are. Things that don’t change die.
Librarianship has never been static. And it has never really been constituted as a field that is only enterable through an MLS program. That is a post-hoc assertion, not unlike professionalism-as-syndrome. We look at people working in library fields and call only the ones who have MLS degrees librarians, even if they all do the same things in their jobs. And of course, even in the 20th century, sometimes an apprenticeship was required, sometimes a certificate, sometimes a BA in library science. And the dirty secret is that there are schools out there and little towns too with no librarians. They just get someone smart or at least curious to do the work.
Library science has always been interdisciplinary or meta-disciplinary. The degree itself should be more meta than I think it is in practice. What does knowledge mean and how do we do things with it? I think it would be a great boost to professional respect to require a master’s degree in any field, plus a one or two year certificate in library science, in order to be a librarian. I think this because so much of MLS training is practical, and so long as it is practical, it can be learned on the job; so long as it can be learned on the job, we will have to continue making arbitrary distinctions between professionals and paraprofessionals that aim to make MLS holders look good at the expense of non-MLS holders. And I think part of making librarianship theoretically strong is to bring insights from various other disciplines into the field by recruiting folks who have advanced degrees.
A PhD holder has completed a major research project that had to pass muster of a committee of experts. They thereby have intensive experience in research that translates well into academic librarianship. Some kinds of master’s degree or doctoral degree holders may be prepared for entry into specialized kinds of librarianship: an MSW holder might readily do well in public librarianship; a M.Ed. holder may transition smoothly into children’s librarianship. A person with an advanced degree in a natural science may have some big advantages in preparation for working in biotech firm’s information management division, over and above someone with just an MLS.
To my mind, the biggest threat to MLS holders to landing jobs in libraries is de-skilling—that is, when different aspects of librarian job responsibilities are hived off and outsourced. We do this all the time by trying to show we are responsible with public money, so we adopt technologies that ostensibly make our work easier, but which really give away responsibility for collections and data to third parties who want to treat our patrons like everyone else in the demographic, rather than with the specificity that we come to know them with, in our work with them. If we want respect, we have to demonstrate that quality work comes from local decision making to meet local needs. This means multiple responsibilities for librarians, not assembly line work for paraprofessionals.
It seems that librarians have the tools to properly manage the information while the “hybrid professional” may have a broader and deeper knowledge of the information. I think many academic libraries are drawn to the “hybrid professional” because of their specialization in a particular academic field. One thing that is important to remember is that schools are also businesses. Having faculty who are specialized in their field and can publish are extremely valuable to an institution. It is ultimately another marketing strategy for the school (Not to mention that specialized knowledge is also another great resource). However, I do think that one must possess the necessary skill set to be a librarian and that may mean having an MLS degree. I think that it is great that liaisons at Wayne State have both a MLS and another Masters. A library full of information, knowledge, and resources is useless unless it is properly managed.
Also, as information professionals we need to be careful about protecting our territory too much. We may want to focus on how to make ourselves more marketable instead. These “hybrid professionals” are being paid more because their skill set is valued more and demanded more (and I think with good reason). I agree with much of what has been stated in the previous posts. Librarians should be open to furthering their education in a specialized field too, not only to be more marketable, but to also have better developed critical thinking skills. Our skill set could become even more valuable if we can become more knowledgeable about a specific field and if we can further understand the information we are managing. Also, in response to Ibrahim, I don’t think we should worry about the professional librarian becoming non-existent. There will always be someone needed to manage information. Years ago, everyone feared computers would take the place of librarians. However, databases cannot run by themselves and librarians are still needed to create and manage them.
Ultimately, I don’t think we need to fear the “hybrid professional.” Instead, we should embrace a new resource and we should look at how to better our role as information professionals.
I don't think the is a threat to the library profession from these "hybrids." I think that like Scout said the field is changing, that is true with every field. At one time in the not so distant past a Ba was much less common than it is now, I have heard many times how now days a Ba/s is the new high school diploma and a masters is the new ba. By combining expertise in more than one subject librarians are simply making themselves more marketable.
I think the hybrids add depth to the field with their expertise and provide an opportunity to educate the "rank and file" which is always a good thing. Their specialization provides an in-depth perspective on their topic that everyone can benefit from.
While searching for library jobs I came across a school library media specialist that stated “MLIS preferred.” Not required. It would seem like a great expense if our MA were not required in the future. On the other hand a coworker of mine who held a BA had worked at the library for 25 years and she sure seemed as qualified as any librarian (who she often trained). Experience does go a long way.
It does seem like high school diplomas are the norm, BA/S are common and MA are the way to stand out. Our MA will always be useful and applicable to many fields other than libraries.
It is very clear to me that the terms “feral” and “hybrid” are meant to marginalize those who work in the academic library context that do not possess formal library instruction. In addition, these terms are offensive, hurtful and divisive. Also, the use of these terms creates a hostile work environment among peers and institutes a class system. Is this the type of elitist attitude that is waiting for all of us after graduation from this program? Perhaps librarians who use these terms are merely releasing the some negative energy stored from all of those years of being called “bookworms” and “old maids”?
All joking aside, the author of the article is correct to a point that the context of an academic library can be thought of as organic. An academic library context may be compared to living things, just as many things in the world can be as well, so I don’t think that comparison should be pushed too far. The term Interdisciplinary is just as much of a trendy buzz word as organic, but a much better fit for the time being until the library field can develop a better description for itself.
The right way for all academic library personal to deal with this situation is to affirm that everyone shares the same goals no matter the educational background. Put simply; they need to get over it. Academic librarians (and all librarians for that matter) need to understand that in order to be in the best possible position for success, librarians need to institute an approach of adaptation to the conditions of the 21st century; which is far different from a traditional “change or die” mentality.
Each person who works in a library that has a specialization in specific academic field can enhance the ability of the academic library to connect and serve its audience. I honestly hope that librarians who use harmful terms like “feral” and “hybrid” to describe fellow co-workers are the minority.
I think that professionals with specializations other than library science can be very useful to a library with a specific need for that knowledge. For example, it would be advantageous for a science library to have a professional from the scientific community available to help determine what is relevant for the library to have and for patrons to utilize. Traditionally-trained librarians should think of specialists as another useful resource for the library’s benefit.
On the other hand, even though specialists do bring a specific skill set to the library, I don’t think that librarians should be undervalued for the work they do. The scope of work a librarian does is much larger than a specialist who does just that, specializes in a certain area. Librarians and specialists should be compensated fairly for the work they do.
As someone hoping to eventually enter the wild world of archiving, I've read (and heard) that I may need to get a second master's degree, probably in art history, since future employers will probably require it. I'm actually really excited about having the opportunity to widen my knowledge & skills. And even if I am a "hybrid," if I'm better able to help people, what's the difference? Does no one with a MLS rely on their undergraduate knowledge?
I agree with Robin that this article seems to be trying to drive a wedge between librarians who hold MLS degrees and those who don't. I've met people in my classes who've been working in libraries for years-as librarians, not pages or what have you, and I want to ask them what they expect to change after they receive the degree, other than a change in income (hopefully). In one of our readings, the author states that taking LIS courses altered their whole way of thinking critically. However, I also agree with Scout that much of it can be learned on the job. So I wonder how much my classmate is learning that she didn't already encounter on the job, and how that somehow doesn't equal the coursework for a MLS.
I think, just from a practical standpoint, that requiring an MLS degree for specialized library positions would be cost-prohibitive, and would discourage otherwise knowledgeable professionals from pursuing careers in libraries.
A middle-ground approach, for example a certification track, would invite specialists to become library professionals, bringing their talents to the profession without diluting the value of an MLS degree.
Post a Comment