In response to the question of how to structure a subject librarian model and the principles upon which it is designed, I want to share the experiences of UNC Chapel Hill. In brief, at UNC we think that the best and most effective model is one that fits liaisons within a larger vision, makes corresponding changes beyond just assigning librarians subject liaison responsibilities, and incorporates new structures that re-enforce the paradigm.
UNC rationale for subject librarians:
Moving to a subject librarian liaison model was not an isolated change. Rather, it was part of larger strategic planning process designed to increase library support for and engagement with the academic enterprise. Specifically, the design of the liaison model was influenced by the need to more effectively and directly connect library-provided content to faculty by not only adopting/adapting the structure in place at many academic research libraries but also making related changes to realize maximal advantages. As a consequence, creating subject liaisons across the disciplinary spectrum was not a single action, but it included higher service expectations and also changing the collections budgetary structure so as to create a distinctive UNC philosophy and model.
UNC definition of model & primary objectives:
UNC recommends considering what is desired explicitly as a first step. Our liaison model is an interactive, responsive, and service-oriented approach to the development of library collections and services. The liaison librarian serves as the primary link between the University Library and the faculty and students of specific schools, department or program. The ultimate goal of a liaison system is to build relationships that help the library offer more focused, effective and personalized, and higher-value services, while maintaining the library's commitment to build collections that serve both this and future generations of scholars. Consequently, at UNC the ideal is for subject librarians to be actively engaged intellectually with their subjects.
UNC duties expectations of subject librarians:
The role of a liaison librarian is complex and varied, depending on the individual needs of the department they serve. In general, the liaison librarian works with faculty and students to ensure that the library's collections support their teaching and research needs. They design and conduct appropriate user education programs and provide specialized reference and research services. The liaison may also assist with digitization projects, assist with accreditation reviews, contribute to research grant applications, or otherwise support the academic enterprise. The model consequently recognizes that the mix in terms of number of subjects and time demands varies from one liaison to another.
UNC organizational expectations of subject librarians:
The interactions of subject librarians are predicated upon the following principles:
* • Shared governance;
* • Collective responsibility; and
* • Broad participation
Collections responsibilities are defined in terms of Library of Congress classifications (with no overlap)—with the understanding that even the clearest divisions only can indicate primary but not exclusive charge. While each individual is based in a specific library administrative and physical unit, all subject librarians are assigned to one of three subject teams: arts & humanities, sciences, and social sciences. In this manner subject libraries have a shared as well as individual professional life that minimizes administrative organization and physical location.
UNC re-organization of collections funding:
Whenever possible, subject-related funding was consolidated and re-configured to correspond to subject teams, which powerfully re-enforces the organizational expectations listed above by creating an on-going need for active cooperation. By placing the bulk of non-central funding into three large multi-disciplinary allocations—arts & humanities, sciences, and social sciences—the library also facilitates on-going responsiveness to academic program changes and fiscal flexibility to meet new needs especially with interdisciplinary fields. In this manner UNC tries to both break down subject silos and encourage liaisons to be responsible for both specific subjects while not losing sight of the larger academic enterprise.
If year-end funds become available a competitive process ensures that the most critical/important/useful resources are acquired. The model for allocating this funding begins with individual subject librarians submitting suggestions to their respective teams, the subject teams then making recommendations using a shared priority scale outlined, and the central Collections Steering Committee making spending decisions largely based on team recommendations. This process results in an open, dynamic, and needs-oriented re-calibration of the collections budget in response to unplanned additional funding becoming available.
When new funding is permanently added to the collections budget beyond what is required to cover projected costs for core databases, “big deals”, major English-language approval plans, and subscriptions inflation, no funds are automatically added to existing allocations as a rule. Rather, solicitations go out for both additional program support and central funding of essential/important expensive resources. The competitive budget process outlined above for year-end funds is used to make allocations. This model re-enforces the ideology and strategy that no selector, no subject, and no program “owns” a share of the collections budget and past allocations patterns are not relevant while encouraging the subject librarians to work together.
Final Thoughts:
UNC decided that extensive training coupled with on-going support was critical: that is, you cannot simply assign new responsibilities and raise service expectations. In particular, it was vital that subject librarians understand the fiscal and technical services aspects inherent in their jobs and get proper collections training (including one-to-one mentoring, as needed).
UNC learned how vital it was to keep faculty fully informed—and to do from the beginning. In particular, the library needs to assure faculty that their collections needs will continue to be met fully when it transitions to a new model.
*******************************************************************************
Luke Swindler Collections Management Officer
Davis Library CB #3918 luke_swindler_at_unc.edu<mailto:luke_swindler_at_unc.edu>
University of North Carolina TEL (919-962-1095)
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA FAX (919-962-4450)
*************************************************“*****************************
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin
On Oct 3, 2012, at 4:56 PM, <acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org>>
<acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org>> wrote:
Our liaison program assigns every librarian to serve as liaison to one or more academic department. Each academic department has a library representative who works with their respective liaison on collection development. They, along with department faculty, are the first line in book selection. Liaisons support them in this and supplement selection as necessary; and liaisons maintain communication with departments regarding library resources and services. Liaisons are not subject specialists (necessarily) but all work with a subject specialist to maintain a Research Guide (LibGuides) for their departments' academic disciplines. The program has been in place for a very long time and don't know by what process it came to be. I suspect it is modeled on another library's and/or resulted from studying the literature.
James Rodgers
MA, MLIS | Assistant Professor | Acquisitions | Mississippi State University Libraries | 395 Hardy Road | P.O. Box 5408 | Mississippi State, MS 39762 | 662-325-0778
>>> <acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:acqnet-l_at_lists.ibiblio.org>> 10/2/2012 2:14 PM >>>
I am on a task force here at The UT Arlington Library working on a new structure for Liaison Librarians. Collection Development/Acquisitions will be one element of that role. We would like to pose two questions:
1. How are your Liaison (subject) Librarians structured?
2. How did you decide on this structure?
Thank you,
Debra Lou Carter
Monographs Manager
carter_at_uta.edu<mailto:carter_at_uta.edu>
Universtiy of Texas at Arlington Library
Information Resources
702 Planetarium Place
Arlington, TX 76019-0497
Ph: 817-272-1507<tel:817-272-1507>
Fax: 817-272-5804<tel:817-272-5804>
_______________________________________________
ACQNET-L mailing list
ACQNET-L_at_lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:ACQNET-L_at_lists.ibiblio.org>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/acqnet-l
_______________________________________________
ACQNET-L mailing list
ACQNET-L_at_lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/acqnet-l
Received on Mon Oct 29 2012 - 15:24:20 EDT