Предметный подход против функционального: следует ли заменить библиотекарей-предметников функциональными специалистами в университетских библиотеках?
https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2020-4-21-39
Аннотация
В статье обсуждается целесообразность новых функциональных структур, вводящих функциональных специалистов вместо библиотекарей-предметников в британских университетских библиотеках. Сообщаются результаты анализа 11 полуструктурированных интервью со старшими менеджерами, которые выражают свое отношение к этому изменению. Основными факторами перемен стали стремление более тесно увязать библиотеку со стратегией университета и обеспечить более активную поддержку научным исследованиям. При этом были отмечены другие серьезные проблемы, в частности потеря тесных связей с факультетами и кафедрами. Единого мнения еще не выработано, но все согласились с тем, что это серьезная современная дискуссия, существенно влияющая на будущее позиционирование библиотек в организациях.
Об авторах
Кэтрин Худлесс
Сити колледж
Великобритания
Лидс
Великобритания
Лидс
Стивен Пинфилд
Университет Шеффилда
Великобритания
Ридженткорт, 211 Портобелло, Шеффилд, S1 4DP
Великобритания
Ридженткорт, 211 Портобелло, Шеффилд, S1 4DP
Список литературы
1. Andrade R and Zaghloul R (2010) Restructuring liaison librarian teams at the University of Arizona Libraries, 2007–2009. New Library World 111(7/8): 273–286.
2. Auckland M (2012) Re-skilling for research: an investigation into the roles and skills of subject librarians required to effectively support the evolving needs of researchers. Research Libraries UK. URL: http://www.rluk.ac.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/RLUK-Re-skilling.pdf (accessed 23.03.2016).
3. Ayres L (2008) Thematic coding and analysis. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Method. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 868–869.
4. Bains S (2013) Teaching ‘old’ librarians new tricks. SCONUL Focus 58: 8–11.
5. Bains S (2014) Manchester’s new order: transforming the academic library support model. Research Libraries UK. URL: http://www.rluk.ac.uk/news/manchestersneworder/ (accessed 23.03.2016).
6. Benedetti A, Boehme G, Caswell TR, Denlinger K, Li Y, McAllister AD, Quigley BD, Soehner CB, Wang M and Wesolek AJ (2014) Top trends in academic libraries: a review of the trends and issues affecting academic libraries in higher education. College & Research Libraries News 75(6): 294–302.
7. Biddiscombe R (2002) Learning support professionals: the changing role of subject specialists in UK academic libraries. Program 36(4): 228–35.
8. Bradbury K and Weightman A (2010) Research support at Cardiff University Library. SCONUL Focus 50: 65–70.
9. Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
10. Brewerton A (2011) ‘… and any other duties deemed necessary:’ An analysis of subject librarian job descriptions. SCONUL Focus 51: 60–67.
11. Brewerton A (2012) Re-skilling for research: Investigating the needs of researchers and how library staff can best support them. New Review of Academic Librarianship 18(1): 96–110.
12. Brown JM and Tucker C (2013) Expanding library support of faculty research: exploring readiness. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 13(3): 257–271.
13. Bryant J, Matthews G and Walton G (2009) Academic libraries and social and learning space: a case study of Loughborough University Library, UK. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 41(1): 7–18.
14. Bryman A (2012) Social research methods. 4 th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Carpenter C (2007) The organisational structures used by British University Library and information services (LIS) to deliver subject support and academic liaison: dissertation. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
16. Cooke L, Norris M, Busby N, Page T, Franklin G, Gadd E and Young H (2011) Evaluating the impact of academic liaison librarians on their user community: a review and case study. New Review of Academic Librarianship 17(1): 5–30.
17. Corrall S (2014) Designing libraries for research collaboration in the network world: an exploratory study. Liber Quarterly 24(1): 17–48.
18. Corrall S (2015) Capturing the contribution of subject librarians: applying strategy maps and balanced scorecards to liaison work. Library Management 36(3): 223–234.
19. Corrall S, Kennan MA and Afzal W (2013) Bibliometrics and research data management services: emerging trends in library support for research. Library Trends 61(3): 636–674.
20. Cox AM and Corrall S (2013) Evolving academic library specialties. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64(8): 1526–1542.
21. Cox AM and Pinfield S (2014) Research data management and libraries: current activities and future priorities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 46(4): 299–316.
22. Crawford A (2012) New directions for academic liaison librarians. Oxford: Chandos.
23. Deiss KJ (2004) Innovation and strategy: risk and choice in shaping user-centred libraries. Library Trends 53(1): 17–32.
24. Delserone LM, Keyy JA and Kempf JL (2010) Connecting researchers with funding opportunities: a joint effort of the libraries and the university research office. Collaborative Librarianship 2(1): 33–37.
25. Donham J and Green CW (2004) Developing a culture of collaboration: librarian as consultant. Journal of Academic Librarianship 30(4): 314–321.
26. Doskatsch I (2003) Perceptions and perplexities of the faculty librarian partnership: an Australian perspective. Reference Services Review 31(2): 111–121.
27. Doskatsch I (2007) From flying solo to playing as a team. Library Management 28(8/9): 460–473.
28. Drummond R and Wartho R (2009) RIMS: The research impact measurement service at the University of New South Wales. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 40(2): 76–87.
29. East JW (2007) The future role of the academic liaison librarian: a literature review. Online Currents 22(4): 116–121.
30. Frank DG, Raschke GK, Wood J and Yang JZ (2001) Information consulting: the key to success in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 27(2): 90–96.
31. Franklin B (2009) Aligning library strategy and structure with the campus academic plan: a case study. UConn Libraries Published Works. Pap. 20. URL: http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/libr_pubs/20 (accessed 23.03.2016).
32. Gaston R (2001) The changing role of the subject librarian, with a particular focus on UK developments, examined through a review of the literature. New Review of Academic Librarianship 7(1): 19–36.
33. Giesecke J (2010) Finding the right metaphor: restructuring, realigning, and repackaging today’s research libraries. Journal of Library Administration 51(1): 54–65.
34. Hahn K (2009) Introduction: positioning liaison librarians for the 21st century. Research Library Issues: a bimonthly report from ARL, CNI, and SPARC 265: 1–2. URL: http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/rli/archive/rli265.shtml (accessed 23.06.2016).
35. Hardy G and Corrall S (2007) Revisiting the subject librarian: a study of English, law and chemistry. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39(2): 79–91.
36. Hepworth M (2000) Approaches to providing information literacy training in higher education: challenges for librarians. New Review of Academic Librarianship 6(1): 21–34.
37. Herther NK (2009) Research evaluation and citation analysis: Key issues and implications. The Electronic Library 27(3): 361–375.
38. Heseltine R (1995) The challenge of learning in cyberspace. Library Association Record 97(8): 432–433.
39. Jaguszewski JM and Williams K (2013) New Roles for new times: transforming Liaison roles in research libraries: report for the Association of Research Libraries. Association of Research Libraries. URL: http://www.arl.org/component/content/article/6/2893 (accessed 23.03.2016).
40. Jain P (2011) New trends and future applications/directions of institutional repositories and the role of library staff. Library Review 60(2): 125–141.
41. Jantz RC (2012) Innovation in academic libraries: an analysis of university librarians’ perspectives. Library & Information Science Research 34(1): 3–12.
42. Jeal Y (2014) Strategic alignment at the University of Manchester Library: ambitions, transitions, and new values. New Review of Academic Librarianship 20(3): 278–295.
43. Mamtora J (2013) Transforming library research services: towards a collaborative partnership. Library Management 34(4/5): 352–371.
44. Martin JV (1996) Subject specialization in British university libraries: a second survey. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 28(3): 159–169.
45. Miller KE (2014) Imagine! On the future of teaching and learning and the academic research library. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 14(3): 329–351.
46. Moran BB (2001) Restructuring the university library: a North American perspective. Journal of Documentation 57(1): 100–114.
47. Palys T (2008) Purposive sampling. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Method. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 698–699.
48. Pickard A (2013) Research methods in information. 2nd ed. London: Facet.
49. Pinfield S (2001) The changing role of subject librarians in academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 33(1): 32–38.
50. Potvin S (2013) The principle and the pragmatist: on conflict and coalescence for librarian engagement with open access initiatives. Journal of Academic Librarianship 39(1): 67–75.
51. Pugh L (2005) Managing 21st century libraries. Langham: Scarecrow Press.
52. Research Information Network (RIN) (2007) Researchers’ use of academic libraries and their services: a report commissioned by the Research Information Network and the Consortium of Research Libraries. London: RIN. URL: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Researchers-librariesservices-report.pdf (accessed 23.03.2016).
53. Research Information Network (RIN) (2010) Challenges for academic libraries in difficult economic times: a guide for senior institutional managers and policy makers. London: RIN. URL: http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Challenges-for-librariesFINALMarch10.pdf (accessed 23.03.2016).
54. Rodwell J and Fairburn L (2008) Dangerous liaisons? Defining the faculty liaison librarians service model, its effectiveness and sustainability. Library Management 29(1/2): 116–124.
55. Shank JD and Bell S (2011) Blended librarianship: [re] envisioning the role of the librarian as educator in the digital information age. Reference and User Services Quarterly 51(2): 105–110.
56. Shumaker D (2009) Who let the librarians out? Embedded librarianship and the library manager. Reference & User Services Quarterly 48(3): 239–242.
57. Stueart R and Moran B (2007) Library and information center management. 7th ed. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
58. Sykes J (2007) Improving the student experience: how can the library help? New Review of Information Networking 13(1): 23–30.
59. Walters TO (2007) Reinventing the library: how repositories are causing librarians to rethink their professional roles. Portal: Libraries and the Academy 7(2): 213–225.
60. Woodhead PA and Martin JV (1982) Subject specialization in British University libraries: a survey. Journal of Librarianship 14(2): 93–108.
61. Young H and Lund P (2008) Reflections on a benchmarking survey of research support provided by 1994 Group libraries. SCONUL Focus 43: 51–56.
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
Худлесс К., Пинфилд С. Предметный подход против функционального: следует ли заменить библиотекарей-предметников функциональными специалистами в университетских библиотеках? Библиосфера. 2020;(4):21-39. https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2020-4-21-39
For citation:
Hoodless C., Pinfield S. Subject vs. functional: Should subject librarians be replaced by functional specialists in academic libraries? Bibliosphere. 2020;(4):21-39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2020-4-21-39
Просмотров:
792
Послать статью по эл. почте 