The Roles of Professionals, Paraprofessionals and Nonprofessionals: : a View from the Academy

Citation

Duckett, B. (1999), "The Roles of Professionals, Paraprofessionals and Nonprofessionals: : a View from the Academy", Library Review, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 342-343. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr.1999.48.4.342.12

The issue of professionalism in libraries and of librarianship is one that waxes and wanes in importance. I am not sure where it is on the current UK agenda, but clearly it is a “hot” topic in North America (Canada as well as the USA); though with the advent of S/NVQ levels 4 and 5, the increasing use of technical staff and specialist support staff, contracting out of services and, indeed, library directors with no library background, maybe it is “hotter” than I imagine! In any case, hot or cold, it is important that we are clear why we need professional librarians, what we mean by the phrase, and how we relate to non‐professional staff. As one contributor in the book points out, the designation “non‐professional” is a particularly unfortunate one: its slightly derogatory connotation can fuel misperception. Even the phrase “junior staff” is no longer acceptable ‐‐ “mere juniors” (I still bear the scars inflicted from the time I misguidedly used that phrase) are work colleagues with different training and expectations. And when so many of our peers may not be qualified or chartered librarians, but have different qualifications and skills, or may even be our line managers, we have to be very careful. Issues such as these are perceptively, interestingly, and comprehensively treated in this, the first of two planned issues of Library Trends on the topic “professionals, paraprofessionals, and nonprofessionals”. This issue presents viewpoints on the topic from prominent academics. The second issue will feature the views of those who hold library positions as professionals, paraprofessionals and nonprofessionals.

Accustomed as we are to regard our professional status somewhat defensively, it was a tonic to learn that “The sociology of professions has yet to catch up with the wildly dynamic world of contemporary librarianship”. The trend is away from the traditional nineteenth century models of associational professionalism and towards a more federated structure whereby flexibility and adaptability are the hallmarks of survival. The world of work is dominated by large organisations and new technology, and librarianship is well adapted to survive the social and cultural changes provided it remains receptive to new media (particularly visual media), new user groups, and organisational demands. Data overload will continue and there will be a continuing need for specialists to make sense of it all. As with most areas of work, individual career paths will change more frequently.

The “Ethical considerations regarding library nonprofessionals” never really struck me as anything to worry about, but Professor Froehlich′s major contribution to this issue has shaken my complacency. What, and who, is a professional? What are the expectations of employers, the users, and other stakeholders in the library? Froehlich identifies eight categories of stakeholders. What obligations do we have to employers, and what are theirs to us? What service ethics do we employ? Again, several different service ethics are identified. How should we evaluate and value non‐professionals? These are big questions, and they heighten awareness of our position. Along the way is a realisation that US librarians bat on a weaker wicket than UK librarians: the accreditation of library courses and the Library Association charter are benefits we must be thankful for and should take care to cherish. Else the oft heard comment from library assistants that they cannot understand why on earth one needs qualifications to run a library will become more troublesome! The standing of the MA is clearly a troublesome issue in the USA.

Another major article concerns the education and training of library practitioners. A history and chronology is given. Highlighted is the distinction between academia and the library profession itself. With increasing technology, training needs are changing, and more attention is needed for the career and development needs of library technicians. Distance learning is another issue treated. A particular study is made of reference work and whether “there is a defining perimeter between the tasks and duties of the paraprofessional and those of the professional”. Thankfully, the author concludes there is; for while most staff can be trained to find specific information, there is still a need for those educated in the wider issues of information management and cultural history to remain alive to the broad issues. Two articles feature “library technicians”, a term of wider application than in the UK. One is about the role of the paraprofessional in technical services, and the second draws on the experience of a skills‐orientated programme. A Canadian study of staff attitudes looked at how different categories of staff viewed organisational and technical change. The findings echoed many of the theoretical considerations raised in Froehlich′s article, often with a disturbing edge. The final contribution is from the issue editor, who scans the literature and comes up with some iconoclastic results.

North American practice predominates, but this issue of Library Trends raises a large number of important issues which we would do well to note and act on. We must not be complacent in this rapidly changing world. What we do is too important to leave to the vagaries of fund holders, entropy, or the ill‐trained.