Subject specialization in a liaison librarian program

Abstract

The information specialist in context (ISIC) or informationist, a new career path evolving in health sciences, integrates hybrid specialists with formal training in both information management and a particular subject discipline or other expert training into clinical or research teams [7, 8]. The college of nursing liaison is not a nurse but has employed a variety of strategies to gain the needed expertise to provide such integrated service, including her previous experience as a hospital librarian working closely with nurse educators, appropriate continuing education courses from MLA and nursing organizations, extensive reading in the discipline, and discussions with faculty about their areas of specialization and research interests.

INTRODUCTION

Liaison librarians focus their work in a particular subject area and provide services to clients in that discipline. The value of and need for formal subject background for such liaisons have been debated for decades [I]. Some believe a relevant background (either through a degree or work experience in the field) is beneficial but not a necessity [2, 3], while others find a formal academic background is vital to this type of work [4, 5]. These differences of opinion are often related to the degree of subject-specific services provided by the liaison program; multitiered programs often require formal education in a subject area for liaisons at the higher or more specialized level [6]. The information specialist in context (ISIC) or informationist, a new career path evolving in health sciences, integrates hybrid specialists with formal training in both information management and a particular subject discipline or other expert training into clinical or research teams [7, 8].

Tennant et al. [9] described the formal evaluation of the University of Florida Health Science Center Library's (HSCL's) Liaison Librarian Program (LLP) 5 years after its inception. Although the response rate for the client portion of the survey was low, results indicated that 95% of faculty and student respondents who had contact with their liaisons (n = 101) supported continuing the LLP; furthermore, responses to open-ended questions suggested that clients were satisfied with both the program and their particular liaisons' services.

In discussion of such models, debate often arises regarding the amount of subject knowledge required for traditional liaisons to provide satisfactory subject-related services and strategies for obtaining such expertise. The current subset analysis of the survey by Tennant et al. [9] strives to address questions about clients' perception of subject background, effect of liaison background on client satisfaction, and potential educational strategies of these liaisons.

METHODS

Client (n = 323) and liaison (n = 10) responses to three questions in the surveys (Appendix) comprise the data source for the current report. Further details of the full survey-including construction and dissemination, data analysis, and potential study limitations-are provided in Tennant et al. [9].

RESULTS

Clients' perspective

When responses from faculty and students regarding the importance of subject background and liaison involvement in the client's field were considered, the same pattern was discerned across respondents from each of the colleges surveyed: subject background was rated higher than involvement in the field. On a scale of O to 2 (O = Not important, 1 = Important, 2 = Very important), students (mean 1.45, n = 133) ranked subject background as more important than did faculty (1.28, n = 109). No discernible patterns were noted among the surveyed Health Science Center (HSC) colleges (dentistry, health professions and public health, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine). Among all HSC faculty respondents, 89% indicated a subject background was "very important" or "important."

Conversely, liaison "involvement in field" seems to be somewhat less important to clients. Students (mean 1.03, n = 133) scored involvement higher than did faculty (mean 0.89, n = 111) on the O to 2 scale. College of nursing faculty provided the highest score (mean 1.14; n = 22), while the faculty score for the other 5 colleges combined was a mean of 0.83 (n = 89).

Liaisons' perspective

Surveyed liaisons were asked to indicate which of eight listed methods they have used to gain subject expertise (Appendix). The ten respondents performed a mean of four of the listed tasks (range 0-8) (Table 1). Liaisons reported a variety of methods that they used to keep abreast of the educational and research priorities and politics of their assigned academic units. They also listed strategies used to develop the personal touch that clients described as so important in the LLP evaluation [9]. Liaisons attended departmental seminars and social events; performed periodic literature searches on their faculty's publications; kept track of their students' dissertations; read faculty and unit Web pages, unit newsletters and other promotional materials; and attended faculty meetings.

DISCUSSION

The LLP has emphasized liaison development [10], and, considering the importance that faculty place on subject background (mean score of 1.28), this emphasis seems well placed. The results of the current survey subset analysis suggest that clients value liaison subject background, and such results have implications for liaison training and marketing. In a similar survey, Yang [11] reported that 82.1% of faculty representatives felt that it was "very important" or "important" for liaisons to have subject background.

At the HSCL, becoming involved in appropriate organizations has been one successful method for gaining subject background. For example, the HSCL liaisons are active in eleven different Medical Library Association (MLA) and Special Libraries Association subunits related to their liaison assignments. Some liaisons are active members in the professional societies of their clients or have exhibited at their conferences. Feedback gathered in the current survey indicates that liaisons find such mechanisms-including library association subunits, email lists, online journal clubs, programming, and continuing education opportunities-essential in developing subject expertise. Liaisons also use internal resources to develop their knowledgebases; to facilitate learning from the successes of other liaison librarians, the HSCL's LLP encourages open sharing of ideas in a quarterly liaison forum and has used written reports to keep track of activities and note patterns of similarity among unit and client information needs.

Some liaison programs, such as the HSCL's, have developed tiers for their liaisons or subject specialists in which liaisons in one service tier provide only basic assistance while liaisons in a higher tier provide more specialized services [6]. The majority of HSCL liaisons are library-based, with salaries paid by the library. Two liaisons are unit-based, with salaries paid by their respective college (nursing) or institute (genetics). These unit-based liaisons spend the majority of their time serving their respective constituents and are able to provide virtually any service requested by their units. Such integration approximates the ISIC model.

However, the two unit-based liaisons have taken disparate educational paths to reach this end. The bioinformatics librarian, funded by the UF Genetics Institute, has found her doctoral degree in biology essential to understanding vocabulary and becoming proficient in the use of bioinformatics fact-based databases and analysis tools [12]. The college of nursing liaison is not a nurse but has employed a variety of strategies to gain the needed expertise to provide such integrated service, including her previous experience as a hospital librarian working closely with nurse educators, appropriate continuing education courses from MLA and nursing organizations, extensive reading in the discipline, and discussions with faculty about their areas of specialization and research interests. Such strategies have been noted in the literature for their utility in developing a background in the area of nursing [13].

Only two other HSCL liaisons have an academic background in their assigned areas, yet the survey results (especially open-ended responses) suggest that the faculty and students from all subject areas who have been in contact with their liaisons are satisfied with the liaison program. These results imply that a formal background in the field is not the only way for liaisons to gain sufficient subject proficiency to provide services at a level satisfactory to clients. It remains unclear whether such "on-the-job" training is likely to be adequate for those seeking to perform duties at the ISIC level.

The survey results reported above, in combination with the experiences of the HSCL's liaison librarians, suggest that subject knowledge sufficient to meet the expectations of clients may be acquired through on-the-job training, continuing education courses, and membership and participation in professional associations and their subunits. Although the client survey response rate is low, respondents find subject knowledge to be important. These data suggest the importance of developing subject knowledge to provide liaison services that meet client needs.

References

REFERENCES

1. HORTON JJ. Library liaison with social-scientists-relationships in a university context. Aslib Proc 1977; 29(4):146-57.

2. GIBBS BL. Subject specialization in the scientific special library. Spec Libr 1993 Winter;84(1):1-8.

3. MILLER L. Liaison work in academic-library. RQ 1977 Spring;16(3):213-5.

4. PRATT GF. Liaison services for a remotely located biotechnology research center. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1991 Oct;79(4): 394-401.

5. HALLMARK J, LEMBO ME Leaving science for LIS: interviews and a survey of librarians with scientific and technical degrees. Iss Sci Tech Librariansh [serial online]. 2003 Spring; 37. [cited 26 Aug 2005]. <http://www.istl.org/030 -spring/ refereedl.html>.

6. KONATA LL, THAXTON L. Transition to a liaison model: teaching faculty and librarian perceptions. Urban Libr J 2001 Fall;11(1):28-56.

7. PLUTCHAK TS. The informationist-two years later. J Med Libr Assoc 2002 Oct;90(4):367-9.

8. FLORANCE V, GIUSE NB, KETCHELL DS. Information in context: integrating information specialists into practice settings. J Med Libr Assoc 2002 Jan;90(1):49-58.

9. TENNANT MR, CATALOG TT, SHERWILL-NAVARRO P, JESANO R. Evaluation of a liaison librarian program: client and liaison perspectives. J Med Libr Assoc 2006 Oct;94(4):xxx-xxx.

10. TENNANT MR, BUTSON LC, REZEAU ME, TUCKER PJ, BOYLE ME, CLAYTON G. Customizing for clients: developing a library liaison program from need to plan. Bull Med Libr Assoc 2001 Jan;89(1):8-20.

11. YANG ZY. University faculty's perception of a library liaison program: a case study. J Acad Libr 2000 Mar;26(2): 124-8.

12. TENNANT MR. Bioinformatics librarian: meeting the information needs of genetics and bioinformatics researchers. Ref Serv Rev 2005; 33(1):12-9.

13. SHERWILL-NAVARRO P. Nursing librarian: an educator of future nurses. Ref Serv Rev 2004; 32(1):40-4.

Received August 2005; accepted March 2006

Appendix

APPENDIX

Client survey: subject specialization questions

Some liaison librarians have expertise in the subject area to which they are liaison. How important is it mat your liaison librarian have a subject background in your field?

- Very important - Somewhat important - Not important

How important is it for your liaison librarians to involve themselves in your field (i.e., attend conferences, receive newsletters, read top journals, etc.)?

- Very important - Somewhat important - Not important

Liaison survey: subject specialization question

Which activities have you performed to help yourself become a better subject specialist/liaison?

- Joined the appropriate Medical Library Association (MLA)/Special Libraries Association (SLA) division, section, special interest group

- Joined the appropriate MLA/SLA email discussion list(s)

- Took continuing education course(s) in your subject area

- Took academic course(s) in your subject area

- Attended academic seminar(s) in your subject area

- Read the subject literature

- Read academic department newsletters

- Frequently visited department faculty Web pages

- Other. Please describe -