Subject Liaison Versus Functional Library Service Models in Academic Libraries: A Narrative Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: The primary objective of this article is to determine what is the available evidence in the library and information science literature on subject liaison library service model and the functional library service model in academic libraries in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States of America. Methods: This article uses a narrative review methodology to examine the qualitative themes of both the subject liaison and the functional library service model in academic libraries in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States of America from 2009-2024. Library and Information Science databases were searched using a “keyword search strategy” and the results were screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria. The themes were determined from the data extraction process for included research studies. Results: As reported using the PRISMA flowchart (figure 1), there were 141 records that were screened. After exclusion criteria were applied, 43 reports were assessed for eligibility to be included in this review. It was determined that 29 studies were included in this narrative review on subject liaison and functional academic library service models. The main themes identified in the literature were: academic libraries strategic alignment with affiliated institutions of higher education, restructuring of the academic library, team-based library services model (subject and functional librarian teams), relationship management, embedded librarianship, and new roles of liaison librarians. Conclusion: Academic libraries have increased pressure to better align with the strategic goals of the institution of higher education to which such libraries are affiliated. This alignment pressure often results in reorganization of academic libraries from a subject based library service model to a functional based library service model. The literature suggests that a highly effective service model is the blending of best practices from both the subject based library service model and the functional based library service model (hybrid model). This involves building teams comprising both subject liaison librarians and functional specialists. There obviously are advantages and disadvantages of both models and the most effective service delivery may depend on the individual academic library.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».