scholarly journals Foundations of library services: an introduction for support staff (Library Support Staff Handbooks, No.1)

2016 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-338
Author(s):  
Diana Fehsenfeld
2009 ◽  
Vol 70 (8) ◽  
pp. 438-450
Author(s):  

ALA’s 128th Annual Conference was held July 9–15, 2009, in Chicago. Approximately 28,941 librarians, library support staff, exhibitors, writers, educators, publishers, and special guests attended the conference. Ed. note: Thanks to the ACRL members who summarized programs to make this report possible. Advocacy in today’s environment Now, more than ever, advocacy is a critical skill for all librarians and was the theme of Erika Linke’s ACRL presidency. At the 2009 ACRL President’s Program, “Advocacy in Today’s Environment,” Stephanie Vance and other experts in advocacy—Prue Adler (associate executive director of the Association of Research Libraries), Emily Sheketoff (ALA associate . . .


1993 ◽  
Vol 12 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Gary O. Rolstad

All personnel in libraries are key to good service. The visibility of library support staff and their important positions of initial contact with library users make their efforts especially crucial. Training programs for support staff often include discussion of the library mission, how library resources connect with users, how to communicate with library users, and how library service can be enjoyable. When managers plan staff training and continuing education programs for support staff, readers' advisory is a very good topic.


Author(s):  
Bart Ragon

Objectives: This study sought to understand the needs of biomedical researchers related to the research lifecycle and the present state of library support for biomedical research.Methods: Qualitative interview data were collected from biomedical researchers who were asked to describe their research activities from identifying a problem to measuring the impact of their findings. Health sciences library leaders were surveyed about the services that they currently provide or plan to provide in supporting biomedical research.Results: Library services were strongest at the beginning and end of the research lifecycle but were weaker in the conducting phase of the research. Co-occurrence of codes from the qualitative data suggests that library services are on the fringe of rather than integrated into the research lifecycle.Discussion: Findings from this study suggest that tradition-based service models of health sciences libraries are insufficient to meet the needs of biomedical researchers. Investments by libraries in services that integrate with the conducting phase of research are needed for libraries to remain relevant in their support of the research lifecycle.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariann Løkse ◽  
Øystein Lund ◽  
Per Pippin Aspaas

Mariann Løkse, head of Library Services, and Øystein Lund, head of the Resource Center for Teaching, Learning and Techology at UiT The Arctic University of Norway discuss library support for open education. They share their thoughts on online education in general and during a period of COVID-19 lockdown in particular. They talk us through information literacy, MOOCs, learning outcomes from online courses as compared to traditional classroom lectures, and a range of other aspects of open education. During the discussion, the following web services and online documents are mentioned: iKomp (a MOOC on information literacy, in Norwegian and English); https://www.sevuppt.no/ (a MOOC on pedagogical supervision, in Norwegian); https://doi.org/10.7557/15.5501 (Mariann Løkse's contribution to a collection of articles dedicated to Stein Høydalsvik on his retirement, in Norwegian); https://hdl.handle.net/10037/3823 (the doctoral thesis of Øystein Lund, in Norwegian). First published online June 25, 2020.


2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (8) ◽  
pp. 444
Author(s):  
Association of College & Research Libraries

ALA’s 136th Annual Conference was held June 22–27, 2017, in Chicago. More than 22,700 librarians, library support staff, exhibitors, writers, educators, publishers, and special guests attended the conference. Ed. note: Thanks to the ACRL members who summarized programs to make this report possible.


Author(s):  
Kshema Prakash

The chapter discusses library support services in a distance education system and their value and importance in the overall development of a learner in general and a distance learner in particular. The chapter also traces how emerging digital technologies allow libraries to offer efficient support services to distance learners. This case of Distance Library Services at a university in India describes the evolution, experiences and challenges of offering distance library services through the university. The chapter focuses on information literacy and use of social networking tools. Development of information literacy is critical for distance learners, and social networking tools based on Web 2.0 technologies may provide library services and impart information literacy to distance learners. The chapter concludes with some suggestions pertaining to opportunities and future propositions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Schilperoort ◽  
Alvaro Quezada ◽  
Frances Lezcano

Objective: While studies from the early 1990s show that library staff in nonlibrarian roles interpret the term “paraprofessional” as being demeaning to their roles, no recent research has been conducted on this topic. This study aims to investigate if health sciences library staff continue to have similar negative associations with the term “paraprofessional” and to determine if another term is preferred.Methods: The authors conducted a literature review to identify terms used to categorize library staff in nonlibrarian roles. Using these terms, we created an online Qualtrics survey asking participants to rank terms by preference. We distributed the survey via thirty-six professional email discussion lists, including MEDLIB-L, thirty-three MLA chapter and caucus email discussion lists, DOCLINE-L, and ACRL-HSIG-L. Survey participants included full-time and part-time health sciences library staff in any nonlibrarian position. Responses from librarians were not accepted.Results: Based on 178 completed surveys, “library staff” was the top choice of 49% of participants, over “other” (19%), “paraprofessional” (13%), “library support staff” (11%), “paralibrarian” (7%), and “nonprofessional” (1%). Although “library staff” was the top choice of participants across all ages, older participants (aged 45–75) preferred “library support staff” and “paraprofessional” to a greater degree than younger participants (aged 18–44), while younger participants preferred “other” to a greater degree. Out of 36 participants who specifically mentioned the terms “paraprofessional” or “paralibrarian,” 32 (89%) of those comments were negative, indicating that the “para” in “paraprofessional” and “paralibrarian” is either insulting, inapplicable, or unfamiliar.Conclusions: Our results suggest that although the term “paraprofessional” may not intentionally be used to demean library staff, many library staff interpret the term to be demeaning to their roles. Instead, “library staff,” a more inclusive and less divisive term, was preferred by survey participants. In accordance with our results, we believe the term “paraprofessional” should no longer be used in library and information scholarly literature or professional discourse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document