Library Link
Career Viewpoints

the online discussion and information forum for Librarianship and Information Management


Home
About
Join
News
Discussion
Workshops
Free Article
Free Journal
Library Journals
Library Careers
Consortia Forum
Links
Free-Trials
Viewpoints
June 1998

PARAPROFESSIONALS IN U. S. LIBRARIES

James H. Sweetland, North American Convenor

Over the past thirty years or so, there has been a considerable amount written in the United States on the use of "paraprofessionals" as opposed to "professional" librarians. Beyond the obvious implication is that there is a clear set of professional duties, done by professionals and others done by not-quite professionals who also do some of these. The published literature often makes the key distinction as having or not having a master's degree in librarianship. But, of course, the degree in question may be a master's in librarianship, library science, library and information science, information and library science, library studies, and other variants. And, there are people who appear to be "librarians" to most of the profession who hold bachelor's degrees in one or the other, not to mention those with advanced degrees in other fields. Since the U. S. lacks any official licensing criteria, holding some kind of post-bachelor degree in something to do with "libarianship" appears to be the defining criterion for "librarian".

However, other than some training of some kind, and the lack of a master's degree, there seem to be no real agreement on what, if any, is the real distinction between "paraprofessional" and "clerk". Ironically, just to add to the confusion, there are more than a few people currently holding paraprofessional positions, who in fact do have a master's in library/information science.

Attempts at defining paraprofessional obviously relate to defining "professional" itself, an ongoing problem at least since the first decade of the 20th century. Thanks to the beneficence of Andrew Carnegie, who funded over 400 public libraries, and the serious efforts of the American Library Association to make people want and need libraries (along with other factors, of course), by the early 1900s, there was a shortage of librarians in the U.S. Charles Williamson, with funding from Carnegie, concluded in 1923 with the "Williamson Report" that librarianship should be a "profession", with a requirement for university-level training. In the report, he also noted the need to distinguish between clerical and professional duties. Within a few years, ALA began its attempts to define these positions, with the 1927 "Proposed Classification and Compensation Plans for Library Positions". At present, ALA recommends three levels of non librarian staffing�"library associates, library technical assistants, and clerks". [For more detail, see Library Link, Staffing in U.S. Libraries].

A major problem of the 1950s through the early 1970s was a lack of professionally trained librarians in the U. S., a fact which saw considerable discussion and action using non professionals to do what otherwise could have been defined as professional-level work. Ironically, about the time the supply of MLS graduates increased, not only had there been an increase in the acceptance of support staff, but libraries began automating in a big way.

Automation, particularly in cataloging, and especially thanks to the Online Computer Library Center, dramatically changed the operations and organization of cataloging departments. In particular, the need for catalog card typists and card filers disappeared, while the need for staff who could catalog new items by comparing an existing document to existing copy increased. This change worked both ways�clerks could increase their responsibilities (and salary and status) by becoming "copy catalogers." But, since much cataloging clearly no longer required professional training, librarians found that, unless they could find enough original cataloging to do, they could find their jobs disappearing. During the seventies, that is more or less what happened: libraries which were too small to need much original cataloging found they didn't need catalogers. In addition, as catalogers were often the first to become familiar with automation, they were able to move to computer-related jobs such as systems librarian. And, at least in this author's experience, potential professional catalogers were advised not to become actual catalogers, as there was little need projected for them. Thus, at present, the typical smaller library has no librarian-catalogers, yet the larger libraries find there is a shortage of professional catalogers. Both, however, rely on copy catalogers, who are rarely "librarians".

At present, a similar process appears to be under way in public service, notably in reference. To some degree, circulation and stack maintenance have always been seen as non professional work, although many librarians find themselves occasionally checking out or reshelving material. However, since about the late 1980s (about the time the shift in cataloging was nearly completed), more nonprofessionals found themselves doing reference work.

In some ways, this is ironic, since it was about the same time that online searching became a regular part of reference work�a factor that some saw as increasing the status of the professional librarian. It was, possibly, in part the result of this increased responsibility that more nonprofessionals began to be seen in reference: the professionals needed more time to do online searching, keep up with the changes, and the like.

However, at present, there appear to be two different threads to the increase in support staff in reference work. The first retains the implications of the early 1980s�free up librarians to do work which truly requires professionals. Thus, a growing number of libraries have separated the reference function into two parts�often two actually distinct areas at some distance from each other. The first, renamed the "Information Desk" or something similar, is staffed by paraprofessionals, often with he assistance of graduate students. The staff at this location in effect engage in a form of triage: they screen questions as they come in, answer the " easy" ones, and refer the difficult ones to the librarians, who may actually not be visible to the public. The theory here is that, since research has shown that about 80% (or more) of questions received at a general reference point require little if any professional training, these can and should be fielded by support staff. In theory, at least, this leaves the more in depth, difficult, and advanced questions to the professional librarians, who are able to devote sufficient time to solving them, because they are not run ragged by the endless directional and simple technical questions. In addition, of course, the librarians are then supposedly freed to engage in more collection development, participatory management and the like.

However, there is another thread to the increased used of para professionals�cost savingss. A review of the recent literature suggests that the experience of many of those who have become reference staff is based on emergencies or on clear cut cost savings. A common pattern seems to be that, due to lack of professional staff, a technical staff member is requested (or ordered) to serve on the desk; often apparently as a stop gap measure. Or, as the library adds more online catalog terminals, CD-ROMs and internet workstations, the desk becomes overwhelmed with users asking for help using the new automation. Once the staff member has been assigned, there seems to be less pressure to replace the formerly needed professional, or to add new staff for the increased work load.

Thus, in some cases, paraprofessional staff are trained (and often hired) to take on specific types of work, for more or less good, clear-cut reasons. In other cases, staff are in effect thrown into the breach, with some on the job training (if they are lucky). Either way, however, a possible professional job becomes paraprofessional.

This trend opens up a number of issues, which must be dealt with soon:

  • Since "librarian" is not clearly defined, how can we make the distinction between the "professional" duties and "paraprofessional" ones?
  • If there is no true distinction, how can we justify differences in status and pay?
  • Who, if anyone, will look out for the support staff? Often clerical staff are unionized and also come under the protections of the Wages and Hours laws; professional staff often are neither unionized nor under such protections. Where do paraprofessional staff fit?
  • If the reason for using more paraprofessional staff (as well as students) is to avoid boredom and burnout (especially at reference), how will we avoid boredom and burnout among the paraprofessionals?
For further reading:

Library Support Staff in an Age of Change: Utilization, Role Definition and Status. ERIC Digest. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, 1995. ERIC Document # ED 382 197.

Library Mosaics [journal of the Council on Library/Media Technicians]

Rodgers, Terry. The Library Paraprofessional: Notes from the Underground. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Co., 1997.

Murfin, Marjorie E. and Charles A. Bunge. "Paraprofessionals at the Reference Desk." Journal of Academic Librarianship 14 no. 1 (Mar. 1988): 10-14.

Turner, Diane J. and Marilyn E. Grotzky. "They Teach Too: A Role for Paraprofessionals in Library Instruction." Reference Librarian no. 51-52 (1995): 181-193.

Back to Career Viewpoints Back to Career Viewpoints


e-mail: [email protected]   tel: +44(0) 1274 777700   fax: +44(0) 1274 785201
60/62 Toller Lane    Bradford    West Yorkshire    England    BD8 9BY