Knowledge, Skills and Attributes for Academic Reference Librarians

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]On: 10 October 2014, At: 05:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Academic & ResearchLibrariesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20

Knowledge, Skills and Attributes forAcademic Reference LibrariansGaby Haddow aa Senior Lecturer, Department of Information Studies, School ofMedia, Culture and Creative Arts , Curtin University , GPO BoxU1987 , Perth WA 6845 E-mail:Published online: 08 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Gaby Haddow (2012) Knowledge, Skills and Attributes for AcademicReference Librarians, Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 43:3, 231-248, DOI:10.1080/00048623.2012.10722279

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2012.10722279

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uarl20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00048623.2012.10722279

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2012.10722279

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

September 2012 231Volume 43 Number 3

Gaby Haddow

A survey of Australian academic reference librarians was conducted as part of an international collaboration seeking to identify the most important knowledge, skills and attributes now and for the next ten years. Librarians working in or managing reference-related services at university and vocational education and training institutions participated in the online survey. Their responses indicate that a core professional skill, searching, is the most important skill for reference librarians, followed by other generic skills, such as verbal communication and customer service skills.

GabyHaddow,SeniorLecturer,DepartmentofInformationStudies,SchoolofMedia,CultureandCreativeArts,CurtinUniversity,GPOBoxU1987,PerthWA6845Email:[email protected]

INTRODUCTIONLibrary and information science (LIS) practitioners are experiencing major changes in the workplace. Several factors are implicated in these changes, not least the advances in technology which have impacted on how information professionals work and the skills needed to undertake that work. At the same time, the Australian LIS profession is ageing and a significant cohort of new graduates are needed to replace the large numbers who will retire in the next decade. To ensure the new LIS professionals are equipped to work effectively in the changing workplace, it is imperative that library education provides them with the knowledge and skills needed now and in the future.

This paper reports on the Australian results of an international collaboration led by Simmons College in Boston that examined the knowledge, skills and attributes of academic librarians involved in reference-related activities. A survey developed at Simmons was used by each of the fifteen collaborating countries, with minor alterations to accommodate local conditions. In the Australian survey, participants included library staff employed by university

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTRIBUTES FOR ACADEMIC REFERENCE LIBRARIANS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

232 Australian Academic & Research Libraries

Knowledge, skills and attributes for academic reference librarians

and vocational education and training (VET) institutions. Specifically, the survey was aimed at gaining responses from staff working in or responsible for managing reference services in these libraries. The survey’s findings provide a snapshot of the knowledge, skills and attributes that these LIS professionals perceive as important to their current work and presents their predictions for the knowledge, skills and attributes that will be most important over the next decade.

BACKGROUNDConcern about the future role and education of the Australian LIS profession is reflected in three major reports published between 2008 and 2011 (Hallam, 2008a; 2008b; Partridge, et al., 2011). Each presents extensive data and only the findings relating to aspects of the study reported in this paper are included in the discussion below.

The survey reported in the NeXus project (Hallam, 2008a) attracted over 2,300 responses from all sectors and position-types in Australia, providing extensive demographic and employment data about LIS professionals. An important finding related to the ageing LIS workforce, indicating that approximately a third of university and VET library staff were planning to retire within ten years (before the end of 2016) (80). The continued importance of reference services, which take in a range of activities, is demonstrated in the responses of professionally qualified staff when asked about their activities in the workplace: “Reference, information service and research support” (43.6 %) was the activity undertaken most frequently, with the next most frequent activity (28.3%) being “Instruction in information literacy, library use, library resources and research” (66).

NeXus2 focused on employers of LIS professionals to gain an understanding of the knowledge, skills and attributes they required or preferred. When asked about qualifications, 60% of the university employers preferred postgraduate LIS qualifications, while undergraduate qualifications were preferred by 71% of VET employers. In terms of the attributes employers were looking for in recruits, “Excellent interpersonal or ‘people’ skills” was the most important, noted by 97% of the respondents (Hallam, 2008b: 64).

The most recent report (Partridge et al., 2011) collected data from employers, current students and recent graduates, and LIS educators about their expectations, needs and experiences; producing discussion points and recommendations to direct the future development of LIS education in Australia. This project found that recent graduates recommend increased content about “IT and management” in LIS education programs (39), although other topics, such as “cataloguing, education, research and publishing, webpage construction” (37), were also mentioned as lacking. From the workforce (employer) perspective, the report concluded that “skills in communication and generic IT usage”, as well as “personal characteristics eg adaptability (71%), initiative (59%), organisational skills (54%) and negotiation skills (45%)”, were important attributes (56). Web use skills were seen as relevant to all types of libraries

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

and there was “a growing role for information professionals in training and education” (58). A key finding of the report noted the “increasing demand for staff who have a good understanding of the research process” in academic libraries (94). Issues relating to information technology skills were discussed in the results for all groups involved in the study, with LIS educators indicating that technology was the most influential factor in LIS curricula renewal (86).

Most of the research that has examined the knowledge, skills and attributes needed by LIS professionals has collected data which reflects the current environment rather than future possibilities. Retrospective studies are useful for identifying trends over time, providing a sense of what the future may hold. For example, Genoni and Lodge (2008) tracked undergraduate and postgraduate enrolments and Kennan, Cole, Willard, Wilson and Marion (2006) examined LIS job advertisements over thirty years. Together with research from the UK and US, the focus and findings of these studies fall into three areas: qualifications, information technology, and generic and jurisdictional attributes and skills. Comparing the findings of this research is problematic due to the variety of research approaches and the different methods of categorising knowledge, skills and attributes.

QUALIFICATIONSOpinions differ about the professional qualification needed for LIS professionals, demonstrated in the Nexus2 report that found VET and university employers give quite opposing responses to preferred qualifications. From the perspective of student recruitment to LIS education programs, Genoni and Lodge (2008: 2) found a relatively sharp drop in undergraduate enrolments (from 1209 to 811) between the years 2001 and 2005, while graduate enrolments increased slightly, from 1425 to 1539. The lower number of undergraduate students who responded to the online questionnaire in the study by Partridge et al. (2011) may indicate that this trend has continued. It is also possible that employers’ preferences will influence potential students in their degree selection. Sanders’ study (2008) found graduate qualifications were generally preferred, especially by academic library employers (121) and went on to note that employers rated the importance of qualifications less highly than personal characteristics and motivation. Adding weight to this finding, Kennan et al. (2006: 185) reported that 37% of Australian LIS job advertisements did not mention a requirement for a specific qualification, while Choi and Rasmussen (2009) found over 11% of advertisements for digital library positions in academic institutions made no mention of qualification requirements.

INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYNot surprisingly, there has been increasing focus on the impact of information technology on the knowledge, skills and attributes needed by LIS professionals. It was a feature of the project by Partridge et al. (2011), has been the primary subject for examination in several

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



other studies, and was a component of more general research on the topic. In their snap-shots of job advertisements over thirty years, Kennan et al. (2006: 181) noted a general “increase in demand for computer and IT skills”, although information technology-related skills was ranked 12th in the frequency of terms found in advertisements. ‘Web design and maintenance’ was included in 47% of the 2004 advertisements analysed in their study and noted as an important skill by Stephens and Hamblin (2006). On the other hand, the analysis of LIS job advertisements by Reeves and Hahn (2010) reported “general IT skills” as the most frequently mentioned general skill, and Wang, Tang and Knight (2010) specifically noted technology skills as an important feature of reference work.

Researchers who have focused on aspects of information technology and its impact on the LIS profession have commented that “libraries are not keeping apace of user expectations” (Ross & Sennyey, 2008: 151) and stressed the importance for academic librarians to be aware of “current trends, practices, standards” when delivering digital library services (Choi & Rasmussen, 2009: 462). Partridge, Menzies, Lee and Munro (2010) investigated skills in the library 2.0 context and Howard (2010) examined the skills necessary for digital library environments. Both studies found generic and personal skills took precedence, with Partridge et al. (2010: 271) concluding that although keeping up with technological change was important, the skills required were “more to do with attitudes and traits than … with technology”.

A different approach was taken by Agosto, Rozaklis, MacDonald and Abels (2010: 180), who asked LIS educators to identify barriers to teaching students about reference work. Technology was seen as a major barrier, both in relation to student skills and the rapid changes in resources used in the workplace.

GENERICANDJURISDICTIONALATTRIBUTESANDSKILLSMany studies have discussed the increasing need for generic attributes over jurisdictional or professionals skills. In most cases these generic attributes relate to communication and interpersonal skills. They are highly ranked by surveyed employers and frequently mentioned in job advertisements (Kennan et al., 2006; Howard, 2010; Reeves & Hahn, 2010; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006; Wang, Tang & Knight, 2010). Kennan et al. (2006: 191) found that job ads mentions of generic knowledge (including information technology skills) requirements had increased over 30 years, while jurisdictional knowledge mentions in the ads had decreased from 72 to 41%. The importance of generic attributes, also in job advertisements, was discussed by Reeves and Hahn (2010: 115) who reported that “social skills” (including communication, collaboration and cooperation, and team capabilities) was the highest category in the emotional intelligence traits they examined; over 57% of the advertisements mentioned these attributes. A similar proportion of advertisements for digital positions in academic libraries listed “communication and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

interpersonal skills” as requirements for the job (Choi & Rasmussen, 2009: 461).

Alongside generic attributes, researchers have identified a range of professional or jurisdictional skills required for LIS professionals. In the last year of a study by Kennan et al. (2006: 191), the results showed a close grouping of jurisdictional skills most frequently mentioned, including reference services and client services, noted in less than 25% of the advertisements. Abell, Chapman, Phillips, Stewart and Ward (2006) and Hall and Abell (2006) examined job advertisements and conducted surveys to determine major drivers in the “e-information job market”. Customer focus was an important issue facing the public and private sectors (Abell, et al., 2006: 243), with “information research and analysis” followed by “user support, education & training” listed as priority functions. Noting that “Some of the roles identified build on traditional library and information service functions but have broadened in scope”, the authors conclude that a “skills mix and personal attributes” are most valued by employers in recruitment decisions (250). This broader role for LIS professionals is supported in the findings of Wang, Tang and Knight (2010), in their excellent review of changes in reference librarianship in the US over 44 years. Their analysis of job advertisements indicates that since the 1960s there has been a major shift from purely reference duties to a role which includes instruction and collection development responsibilities (492). Also looking at US job advertisements, Reeves and Hahn (2010: 117) found “service orientation” was second to communication in the skills required. Of the technical skills listed in the advertisements, cataloguing (at 12.1%) and collection management (10.2%) were mentioned most frequently.

Research into employment agencies preferences concluded that “core skills … organisation of information, collection management and enquiry work … are still much in demand” (Stephens & Hamblin, 2006: 222). Looking specifically at academic libraries, the authors found teaching-related qualifications or experience were important, along with “customer care”, “performance measurement”, and “library administration” (223). Their participants predicted the need for “online skills, basic skills, research skills, awareness of legislation, web development, application of IT within an organisation, and awareness of the library and information sector as a whole” in the future (224).

An interesting study, commissioned by the Association of College & Research Libraries (Staley & Malenfant, 2010), sought to identify probable future scenarios and their impact for academic libraries in 2025. It is unique amongst the papers discussed in that its focus was on the future, rather than extrapolating from trends in the past or results from one point in time. Using participants’ quotes as illustration, the report identified nine highly probable and high impact scenarios, of which seven are relevant to the research reported in this paper. For these scenarios, they commented:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



• There is an “opportunity for libraries to prove their worth as information collectors, organizers and evaluators” (10);

• Libraries “need to reconsider what their relevance is in the research process” (10);

• There is “an opportunity to play a larger role in the teaching function of the academy” (12);

• In relation to new students: “training … to be excellent researchers and creators of digital media and participants in digital scholarly conversations” (15);

• “They [students] still want to talk with librarians about how to approach a particular topic since the librarian is still the friendly face they trust” (18);

• “We need to stay ahead of the issues in publishing, open access” (18); and

• In relation to costs and the potential for sponsorship: “What about traditional services like circulation, database availability, e-content subscriptions” (20).

These points correspond to a number of issues raised in the research discussed above, such as professional skills relating to information organisation, collection management, teaching, and research. They also allude to generic skills, in terms of communication and information technology.

Previous research has focused on different sectors and position types, as well as categorising their data in a variety of ways. To some extent this undermines the potential for making close comparisons between the findings, although across these very different studies there are some common threads. A unique feature of the study being reported here is that it specifically asks LIS professionals to reflect on the knowledge, skills and attributes they believe are most important now and then prompts them to consider which of these will be relevant for academic LIS professionals working in reference services in the future.

METHODSThe research instrument used in this study was an online questionnaire uploaded to SurveyMonkey . The questionnaire included categorical, ordinal and open questions. A number of demographic questions to establish the age, gender and working background of the participants were included in the first pages of the survey, followed by a series of questions about current and future knowledge, skills and attributes required by academic reference librarians. These questions were categorised as: general skills and qualifications; technology skills; and personal skills. With a few exceptions to ensure the questionnaire reflected local conditions in Australia, the survey was identical to those distributed in the other fourteen collaborating countries. Maintaining consistency across the participating countries’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

surveys meant that some items in the questionnaire were pitched at a less advanced technological level than Australia enjoys. The items within the ‘general skills and qualifications’ and ‘technology skills’ attempted to distinguish between the types of skills that might be regarded as core to librarianship and general technology skills, respectively. However, as noted above, technology is now central to many of these core skills and this is likely to influence how participants responded to the separated ‘search skills’ and ‘online searching’ items in the questionnaire. These items were listed in the general skills and technology skills, respectively, with no definitional or explanatory information to differentiate between them. Participants were not restricted to in their answers to the three skills questions. The response format was open so that participants could use the items listed or add their own responses. Very few participants recorded responses which were not listed in the question.

All university librarians in Australia, a total of 39 institutions listed by the Council of Australian University Libraries, were contacted by personal email to request participation in the survey by staff at their institution. In addition, ten representatives from the VET sector in all states and territories, listed on the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) web pages, were asked to distribute the survey to as many VET institutions as possible. The requesting email stated that the study sought responses from “reference librarians and their managers” and included a link to the survey which was open for five weeks from 30th September to 4th November, 2011. A definition of reference librarian was not provided on the basis that the email recipients would be fully aware of the term and would circulate the survey to staff involved in reference-related activities.

A total of 254 responses were received, of which 56 were excluded from the analysis because no questions relating to knowledge, skills and attributes had been answered. In the 56 excluded surveys, 18 indicated they held a management position. The response rate is difficult to determine due to the lack of data available for reference-related positions in the sector. The Council of Australian University Librarians statistics for 2010 list 2,603 professional and paraprofessional positions in Australian university libraries. The NeXus report (Hallam, 2008a) attracted 700 responses from the university and VET sector in 2006, of which 85% and 93% respectively were professional and paraprofessional staff; approximately 600 respondents. Of these, a smaller proportion would be responsible for carrying out reference-related activities. Extrapolating from the NeXus data, and given that response rates to surveys are generally low, it is possible that the responses analysed in this research represents around 10% of the target population.

Participants were asked to enter the name of their employing institution and although this was not a mandatory field most (186) did so. Of these, 30 participants (16.1%) were from the VET sector and 156 (83.9%) worked in university libraries. From the 39 universities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



approached, 27 were represented in the participant group. Several participants from the VET sector noted only ‘TAFE’, although 13 different VET institutions were identified in the responses.

The demographic data were analysed by the survey software to produce descriptive statistics including frequency counts and percentages. The categorical, ordinal, and open-ended questions about activities, qualifications and skills were analysed manually and with Excel. As not all participants responded to each question, in calculating the response percentages for a particular question, the denominator used was the total number of surveys that included a response to that question. Percentages are rounded. The total number of complete responses to a question is noted in the findings as ‘n’. In the figures which present the findings for the most important skills and attributes for reference librarians, only the items that attracted 20% or more participant responses are included.

FINDINGSThe participant group’s demographic characteristics were compared with previous Australian findings to test whether these participants were representative of the wider LIS community. Female participants made up 84.3% of the responses; a profile that is consistent with the NeXus results (Hallam, 2008a). Reflecting the ageing workforce discussed previously (Hallam, 2008a; Partridge et al., 2011), almost three-quarters (72.9%) of the participant group were 41 years or older. The age of the participants is also evident in the years worked in information services, with 34.2% having over 20 years’ experience and slightly less than half (14.6%) of this subset had been in their current workplace for over 20 years. A relatively high number of participants worked part-time (24%).

Participants were encouraged to note all their qualifications, rather than the most recent, highest or relevant to librarianship qualification. Analysis of the responses showed that there were more LIS graduate (graduate diploma or masters) than LIS undergraduate qualifications in the participant group; 62.2% compared with 27.9%. The response options to this question used the term ‘diploma’ rather than ‘graduate diploma’ which appears to have resulted in some participants with a LIS technician’s qualification recording this response. Further analysis suggests that up to 7% of the ‘graduate’ group are library technicians.

Figure 1 illustrates the types of positions held by participants. Due to the high proportion of ‘other’ responses, additional analysis was conducted on these data and the main position types noted by participants are included in Figure 1. It is likely that librarians in these “other” roles have reference as a part of their duties.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

Figure 1: Position types of participants (n=198)

Over 70% of the participant group identified with the position description ‘reference librarian’, managed reference areas, or worked in liaison or subject librarian roles. While the latter differentiated themselves from reference librarians in the responses, the activities undertaken in these roles usually include reference work of some kind. This is evident in the responses participants gave to an open-ended question about the three to five activities they performed most frequently in a typical week. The text of these responses was analysed manually to arrive at frequencies for commonly occurring terms and phrases. As a result, some of the activities presented in Table 1 are not mutually exclusive; rather they reflect the participants’ terminology and perceptions of their work.

Activities % No. responses

Desk shifts (circulation, enquiries, reference) 37.4 74

Collection development (including ordering) 31.8 63

Assist students and staff 25.2 50

Reference queries 24.2 48

Information literacy activities (planning, training, developing materials)

22.2 44

Table 1: Most frequent activities performed in a typical week (n=198)

All other activities, including attending meetings and management duties, listed in the responses were noted by less than 20% of the participants. As managers of reference areas were asked to participate in the survey, their responses are likely to have influenced these findings. Even so, it is useful to consider the responses presented in Figure 1 with those in Table 1. Position names may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



vary, but the activities undertaken are clearly aligned with traditional reference duties and only 28 participants (14%) did not mention one or more of the activities listed in Table 1.

General skills and qualifications

There were nineteen possible response options available in the question about the most important ‘General skills and qualifications’. These items included knowledge of a professional and more general type, as well as four items relating to qualifications. The survey asked participants to tick two or three items. In total, 529 responses were recorded for the question relating to today’s skills and 513 for the later question about skills over the next decade. As Figure 2 illustrates, the most important of these for over 60% of the group was ‘customer service’, followed by ‘search skills’ (over 50%). It is notable that the same six responses were regarded as the most important for today’s reference librarian and for the next decade. There were no data to indicate why fewer participants listed customer service and why more participants noted a ‘Bachelor degree in LIS’ as most important in the future. However, in an open question later in the survey the increasing focus on teaching and instruction was remarked on, which may explain why more participants listed ‘pedagogic knowledge and skills’ as important in the future. Although ‘familiarity with online sources’ appears to drop slightly as a skill believed to be most important over the next decade, the actual difference in number of responses is only 15 (from 76 to 61). A more pronounced difference is evident in participants responses to the importance of the ‘traditional reference interview’, but this drop comes off a relatively low base with only one third of the group identifying ‘traditional reference interview’ skills as most important today.

Other than the six items presented in Figure 2, less than 10% of the participant group noted the remaining thirteen items as being the most important general skills and qualifications for today’s reference librarians. Three items, ‘marketing’, ‘research/publishing’, and ‘assessment and evaluation’ were noted by 5%, 5.5% and 8.5% of the participant group, respectively, as most important currently. Of the items attracting less than 10% of responses for most important today, these three saw the most marked rise (to 13.1%, 14.7%, and 13.7%, respectively) as most important in the future.

Other than the six items presented in Figure 2, less than 10% of the participant group noted the remaining thirteen items as being the most important general skills and qualifications for today’s reference librarians. Three items, ‘marketing’, ‘research/publishing’, and ‘assessment and evaluation’ were noted by 5%, 5.5% and 8.5% of the participant group, respectively, as most important currently. Of the items attracting less than 10% of responses for most important today, these three saw the most marked rise (to 13.1%, 14.7%, and 13.7%, respectively) as most important in the future.

Figure 2: Respondents perceptions regarding the most important general skills and qualifications now and for the next decade (now: n=198; next decade: n=183)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

Technology skills

There were eight items listed as response options for technology skills, of which only four attracted over 20% of the participant group’s responses for most important, either for today’s or the next decade’s reference librarians. There were 453 separate responses recorded for technology skills today and 442 responses to the question about these skills over the next decade. The findings are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Respondents perceptions regarding the most important technology skills now and for the next decade (now: n=198; next decade: n=186)

Online searching skills were regarded as the most important technology skill for today’s reference librarians; far exceeding that of any other response item in the question. When participants were asked which of the technology skills they believed would be most important over the next decade, the same items attracted the highest proportion of responses. Of the other items listed, the biggest proportional increase in the participants’ responses for the most important technology skill in the future was for ‘web design’, which almost doubles. Other response items that didn’t meet the threshold of 20% responses, such as ‘chat/IM’ and ‘hardware troubleshooting’, showed slight decreases in responses between today’s most important technology skills and those perceived to be most important over the next decade. Most of the participant group did not regard ‘programming’ as an important technology skill, now or in the future; attracting only 2% and 1.1% of responses, respectively.

Personal skills

The survey included fourteen items as response options for ‘Personal skills’ which included generic skills, such as communication, and personal attributes. When asked about the most important skills for today’s reference library, a total of 567 responses were recorded.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



For the same question over the next decade, 543 responses were received. There were marginal differences in the responses for the most important personal skills for today’s reference librarian compared with those participants believed would be most important in the future, but the same six items appeared in both. As Figure 4 demonstrates, over 50% of the participant group listed ‘verbal communication’ and ‘listening’ as the most important personal skills for today’s reference librarian. ‘Approachability’ was also regarded as an important skill, although the responses to this item and to ‘adaptability/flexibility’ were reversed when participants were asked what they believed would be most important over the next decade.

For the same question over the next decade, 543 responses were received. There were marginal differences in the responses for the most important personal skills for today’s reference librarian compared with those participants believed would be most important in the future, but the same six items appeared in both. As Figure 4 demonstrates, over 50% of the participant group listed ‘verbal communication’ and ‘listening’ as the most important personal skills for today’s reference librarian. ‘Approachability’ was also regarded as an important skill, although the responses to this item and to ‘adaptability/flexibility’ were reversed when participants were asked what they believed would be most important over the next decade.

Figure 4: Respondents perceptions regarding the most important personal skills now and for the next decade (now n=198; next decade n=188)

Personal skills relating to working in teams, self-motivation, building relationships and organisational awareness attracted low response rates, ranging from 16.2% for the first item to 4.5% for the last.

Most important skills for today’s reference librarians

When the participants’ responses to the skills required for today’s reference librarian were analysed across the three primary questions above, professional and generic skills are noted by 50% or more of the participant group as being most important. Table 2 presents these findings, which indicate the importance placed on search skills, either in the context of technology skills or framed in the professional skills question. The generic skills noted by over 50% of the participant group all relate to communication skills and potentially, as regards ‘customer service’, to attitude.

Skills and attributes % No. responses

Online searching 93.4 185

Customer service 66.2 131

Verbal communication 59.1 117

Search skills 52.5 104

Listening 52.5 104

Table 2: Most important skills and attributes for today’s academic reference librarians

Taking a broader view across the findings, it is perhaps understandable that the ‘traditional reference interview’ did not attract

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

a high proportion of responses (33.3%) due to the increasing use of alternatives to face-to-face interactions, although it is arguable that elements of traditional reference interviews are equally important in a virtual environment. Of more concern is the finding that ‘familiarity with online reference sources’ are viewed as most important by only 38.4% of the group. Even when open responses to the question that related to knowledge of sources generally are added to this item, less than 50% (44.9%) of the participants believed that familiarity/knowledge of online reference sources is most important. Also, ‘pedagogic knowledge and skills’ (in the general skills question) and ‘comfort with instruction/teaching’ (in personal skills) attracted 17.7% and 20.2% respectively, despite teaching and instruction activities being one of the most frequent activities undertaken by participants in the study. Respondents appear to believe these skills will be more important over the next decade, with increases in responses to 28.9% and 23.4%.

It is of note that when participants were asked which of the skills they believed would be most important over the next decade only three items attracted over 50% response; they were ‘online searching’, ‘verbal communication’, and ‘search skills’.

Other findings

Several open questions concluded the survey and asked participants to comment on changes they had experienced in the workplace, skills missing from new recruits, and any other feedback. There were 192 responses to the question about change in the past five to ten years and the pervasiveness of technology in the workplace was implicit in the participants’ comments. The increasing availability of online sources (and decline in printed formats), the move from face-to-face to virtual reference services, and the need to keep up-to-date with new technologies were all mentioned by 20% or more of the participant group.

In terms of the knowledge or skills missing in new recruits, a number of participants acknowledged that those new to the workplace would learn with experience. The highest proportion of the 192 responses (10.9%) suggested technology skills are missing, with knowledge of resources (10.4%) the next highest response. Only 79 participants provided additional general comments about reference work. A theme that emerged involved the use of the term ‘reference librarian’. It was felt that the term is out-dated and that the role of librarians who perform reference work is much broader. Specifically, these participants mentioned an understanding the research process and delivering research support, and a growing focus on teaching and instruction was increasingly important. Seven participants commented on the personal reward they experienced in their work and six emphasised the need to demonstrate the value of their services to their institution through improved marketing activities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



DISCUSSIONANDCONCLUSIONIt is interesting to note that while a number of participants were vexed by the use of the term ‘reference’ to describe their work, the activities performed most frequently by a large proportion of the participant group were directly related to traditional reference work, such as desk shifts, assisting students and staff, reference queries, and information literacy activities. With the inclusion of collection development activities, the findings demonstrate agreement with previous research (Hallam, 2008a; Wang, Tang & Knight, 2010) and they are evident in participants’ responses to the most important general skills for today’s reference librarian.

In contrast to previous research which has indicated a shift to graduate qualifications (Genoni & Lodge, 2008; Hallam, 2008b; Partridge et al., 2011; Sanders, 2008), the participants in this study rated undergraduate qualifications as more important than graduate qualifications. However, it is possible these results were influenced by the response options in the survey which, to maintain consistency across the fifteen collaborating countries, included bachelors and masters degrees only.

The importance of information technology skills is evident across the findings of the study. This is hardly surprising given the pervasiveness of information technology in all aspects of reference activities. Some participants in the study suggested that new recruits were lacking information technology skills, which aligns with the recent graduates’ comments that LIS education programs should increase the information technology content (Partridge et al., 2011). Others touched on the issue of keeping up-to-date with information technologies and associated user expectations, a finding that also resonates with previous research (Abell, et al., 2006; Partridge et al., 2011; Ross & Sennyey, 2008). Beyond these general comments about information technology skills, participants believed social media skills are among the most important skills for academic reference librarians over the next decade. These findings are not specifically supported by earlier studies (such as Partridge et al., 2010; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006; Wang, Tang & Knight, 2010), but the increasing importance of web design for academic reference librarians is seen in the high number of mentions in LIS job advertisements (Kennan et al., 2006).

Communication skills and personal qualities, such as adaptability/flexibility, are regarded as some of the most important attributes for academic reference librarians today. The emphasis on these attributes is discussed extensively in the literature (Choi & Rasmussen, 2009; Howard, 2010; Kennan et al., 2006; Partridge et al., 2010; Partridge et al., 2011; Reeves & Hahn, 2010) and is alluded to in one of Staley and Malenfant’s (2010) highly probable and high impact scenarios. It is possible that the slight decline in participants’ responses to the items ‘verbal communication’ and ‘listening’ for skills in the next decade is due to the increasing use of technology to conduct reference work; an issue raised in responses to the later open question. However, a number of attributes discussed in previous research, such as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

initiative, negotiation skills, teamwork, management and leadership (Partridge et al., 2011; Reeves & Hahn, 2010; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006) were not amongst the most important general and personal skills for the majority of the study’s participants. In fact, other than teamwork these attributes attracted less than 10% of responses for most important skills.

Customer service skills were regarded as an important generic attribute for today’s reference librarian. While the data do not allow for investigating why fewer (around 20% less) participants believed these skills were most important over the next decade, customer service skills were perceived by participants as one of the most important attributes; a finding that is consistent with previous research (Abell, et al., 2006; Reeves & Hahn, 2010; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006).

A number of core LIS professional skills and knowledge areas have been identified as important by the earlier studies, including: online searching skills; organisation of information; collection management; user assistance; teaching skills; research process knowledge; publishing; and evaluation (Abell et al., 2006; Partridge et al., 2011; Staley & Malenfant, 2010; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006; Wang, Tang & Knight, 2010). For the academic reference librarians responding to this survey, online searching and search skills (split over general and technology skills in the questionnaire) were the most important jurisdictional skills, exceeding any other LIS professional skills, now and in the future. Skills relating to teaching and instruction were among the items that were believed to be increasingly important for the next decade, and individual comments indicated this was an area in which they had experienced higher demand over the last five to ten years. These findings are consistent with those of earlier studies (Abell et al., 2006; Partridge et al., 2011; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006; Wang, Tang & Knight, 2010) and Staley and Malenfant’s (2010) scenario research, and suggests a trend that is useful to consider when LIS educators engage in curriculum renewal.

The need for academic reference librarians to be aware of the research process and publishing was evident in the survey responses. The number of participants who believed ‘research/publishing’ was a most important skill almost trebled for the next decade’s academic reference librarian. Like teaching and instruction skills, knowledge about research and publishing appears to be a growing area of activity (seen also in the research by Abell et al., 2006; Partridge et al., 2011; Staley & Malenfant, 2010). In addition, marketing and assessment and evaluation skills were particularly noted in participants’ comments. The proportion of responses was well below those for searching and communication skills, but these skills were perceived as becoming more important over the next decade and correspond with components of two highly probable and high impact scenarios in Staley and Malenfant’s study (2010). If current challenges to the LIS academic sector, such as funding constraints and increased focus on institutional research strategies, continue – and there is no indication that they won’t – marketing, assessment and evaluation,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



and awareness of research and publishing may assume an even more important role than speculated by the participants in this study.

When the responses and the types of items which participants noted as the most important skills were analysed overall, what appears to be missing is a strategic approach to the role of reference librarian. Admittedly, the response items tended to focus on specific skills and attributes, but there were a number of items, such as organisational awareness and current events awareness, that imply a broader view and these attracted very few responses (less than 10%). While a strategic view may seem irrelevant to many academic reference librarians, it is an aspect of the LIS profession that has been touched on by other authors (Staley & Malenfant, 2010; Stephens & Hamblin, 2006) and in a climate of funding pressures and performance measurement possibly deserves more attention.

Impacting on the responses is the content and structure of the questionnaire. In both the general and personal skills questions, there were numerous items available from which participants were asked to select two or three most important. It is possible that the number of items, combined with the variety of positions in which participants carried out or managed reference-related activities, resulted in the scatter of responses and low numbers of responses to many items. Furthermore, the terminology and categorisation of skills in the survey resulted in items that were not mutually exclusive and potentially ambiguous. This applied in particular to the items ‘online searching’ and ‘search skills’. It may also have affected responses to the item ‘online reference sources’ if participants interpreted the term ‘reference’ in its most narrow form. Related to this issue, it is arguable that technology skills should be considered a generic skill. Information technology is embedded in nearly all activities performed by academic reference librarians today. And while LIS education programs are duty-bound to include content that educates for today’s library, the rapid advances in technology mean it is more difficult to predict what skills and knowledge the academic reference librarian will require in ten years.

This survey of Australian academic reference librarians has confirmed previous findings relating to the skills and attributes required for LIS professionals and raised additional issues for consideration. It is clear that some core professional skills, such as searching, are important now and predicted by respondents to remain important in the future. There was also recognition that web design and social media, along with teaching and instruction skills all appear to be on an upward trend in terms of importance to reference librarian positions. However, it is the generic skills, such as ‘customer service’ and ‘adaptability/flexibility’, which are most likely to challenge LIS educators because while some aspects of these skills can be taught, others are closely related to an individual’s personal attributes. Understanding how best to meet this challenge while retaining and promoting the profession’s unique skills are questions that require further exploration.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Gaby Haddow

NOTEA copy of the questionnaire is available on request to the author

ACKNOWLEDGMENTGrateful thanks to Mary Jordan and Laura Saunders at Simmons College, Boston, for the invitation to join the international collaboration and for their support in making the survey available online. Thanks also go to all the study participants who put aside time to complete the survey.

REFERENCESAbell, A., Chapman, D., Phillips, P., Stewart, H., & Ward, S. 2006. Roles in the e-landscape: Who is managing information? Business Information Review, 23(4), 241-251. doi:10.1177/0266382106072249

Agosto, D. E., Rozaklis, L., MacDonald, C., & Abels, E. G. 2010. Barriers and challenges to teaching reference in today’s electronic environment. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science 51, 177-186.

Choi, Y., & Rasmussen, E. 2009. What Qualifications and Skills are Important for Digital Librarian Positions in Academic Libraries? A Job Advertisement Analysis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(5), 457-467. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2009.06.003

Council of Australian University Librarians 2010. CAUL statistics. http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-programs/caul-statistics/previousyears

Genoni, P., & Lodge, D. 2008. Qualifications - what is the preferred professional qualification. Presented at the ALIA Education and Workforce Summit 2008. http://www.alia.org.au/education/summit08/revised.qualifications.19%20dec.pdf

Hall, H., & Abell, A. 2006. New role realities: Avenues for extending the reach of information specialists. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1-13. doi:10.1002/meet.14504301267

Hallam, G. C. 2008a. NeXus: An investigation into the library and information services workforce in Australia. Final report. Canberra: Australian Library and Information Association. http://www.alia.org.au/employment/workforce/NeXus%20StageOne%20Australia%20Final.pdf

Hallam, G. C. 2008b. NeXus2: An investigation into the library and information services workforce in Australia: The institutional perspective: Final Report. Canberra: Australian Library and Information Association. http://www.alia.org.au/employment/workforce/neXus2_FinalReport1.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4



Howard, K. 2010. Programming not required: Skills and knowledge for the digital library environment. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 41(4), 260-275.

Kennan, M. A., Cole, F., Willard, P., Wilson, C. S., & Marion, L. 2006. Changing workplace demands: what job ads tell us. Aslib Proceedings, 58(3), 179-196. doi:10.1108/00012530610677228

Partridge, H., Menzies, V., Lee, J. & Munro, C. 2010. The contemporary librarian: Skills, knowledge and attributes required in a world of emerging technologies. Library & Information Science Research, 32, 265-271

Partridge, H., Hanisch, J., Hughes, H., Henninger, M., Carroll, M., Combes, G., Genoni, P., Reynolds, S., Tanner, K., Burford, S., Ellis, L., Hider, P., & Yates, C. 2011 Re-conceptualising and repositioning library and information science education. Final Report. Australian Learning and Teaching Council. http://www.liseducation.org.au/resources/PP9-1326%20QUT%20 Partridge%20Final_Report.pdf

Reeves, R. K., & Hahn, T. B. 2010. Job advertisements for recent graduates: Advising, curriculum, and job-seeking implications. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(2), 103.

Ross, L. & Sennyey, P. 2008. The library is dead, long live the library! The practice of academic librarianship and the digital revolution. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(2), 145-152.

Sanders, R. 2008. Current demand and future need for undergraduate LIS education in Australia. Australian Library Journal, 57(2), 102-127.

Staley, D.J. & Malenfant, K.J. 2010. Futures thinking for academic librarians: Higher education in 2025. Association of College & Research Libraries. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/issues/value/futures2025.pdf

Stephens, D., & Hamblin, Y. 2006. Employability skills: Are UK LIM departments meeting employment needs? New Library World, 107(5/6), 218.

Wang, H., Tang, Y., & Knight, C. 2010. Contemporary development of academic reference librarianship in the United States: A 44-year content analysis. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(6), 489-494.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 0

5:34

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Knowledge, Skills and Attributes for Academic Reference Librarians