Library School Curricula in the US Should Address Liaison Responsibilities for Students Interested in Academic Librarianship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Attebury, R. I., & Finnell, J. (2009). What do LIS students in the United States know about liaison duties? New Library World, 110(7), 325-340. Objectives – The two main objectives of this study were to determine the level of prevalence of liaison work in academic library job advertisements and to investigate whether the current library & information science (LIS) students are aware of liaison duties. Design – The mixed methods used in this study are job postings analysis and online survey. Setting – The research settings were the following: (1) Online academic job advertisements published between November 15, 2007 and January 15, 2008 and collected from Chronicle of Higher Education’s Web site and lisjobs.com; (2) Fifty-three electronic mail lists of ALA-accredited library schools in the US. Subjects – The subjects of the study were 313 online academic job advertisements and 516 LIS students. Methods – The sample size and methodology for the first part of this study were based on four previously published studies. Duplicated job postings were removed and the remaining were organized into 15 categories of access/public services, reference, instruction, bibliographer/subject specialist, combination (instruction and reference), archives/special collections, special libraries, director/dean, department head or coordinator, interlibrary loan (ILL), systems/web development, cataloguing, outreach, and acquisitions/collection-development. Only those job ads containing the term “liaison” were included in the analysis. For the second part of the study, the authors conducted an online survey. They attempted to investigate the knowledge of LIS students on liaison librarianship, to measure the level of exposure to liaison responsibilities in their course work, and to gauge the confidence of the individual in their ability to become successful liaison librarians. The survey was distributed among 53 LIS school electronic mail lists, resulting in 516 respondents. Main Results – The job ad analysis revealed that 29% of job postings were directly related to liaison duties. The liaison component of the positions related to access/public services, instruction, bibliographer/subject specialist, special, and outreach were the highest (50% or more). The liaison activities described in the job ads related to reference, a combination of reference and instruction, ILL, department head/coordinator, and system/Web development were also high (29% to 50%). The positions categorized as librarian, archives, director/dean, cataloguing, and collection development/acquisitions had less liaison responsibilities (
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".