Preview

Библиосфера

Расширенный поиск

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

Полный текст:

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


Стивен Пинфилд
Университет Шеффилда
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.


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: 120


Creative Commons License
Контент доступен под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1815-3186 (Print)
ISSN 2712-7931 (Online)