College and Research Libraries The Emergence of the Paraprofessional in Academic Libraries: Perceptions and Realities Larry R. Oberg Several forces have contributed to a broad redistribution of tasks within the library workplace. Today, support staff accomplish much of the day-to-day work of the library and are routinely assigned tasks that a generation ago character- ized the work of librarians. This redistribution of the library work load has created a new and unique class of library worker, the paraprofessional. It has also resulted in a significant overlap in the tasks performed by the two groups, for librarians have been curiously reluctant to give up many traditional aspects of their work that today can be performed satisfactorily by paraprofessionals. Task overlap has caused the role blurring that, in turn, creates resentment in the workplace and confuses our clientele who may not distinguish clearly between the two groups. The author cites data from his as yet unpublished national survey of the role, status, and working conditions of paraprofessionals. He concludes that a new model of librarian ship is needed to define less ambigu- ously the role of paraprofessionals and librarians alike. lthough support staff consti- tute the majority of all library workers, interest in them on the part of librarians has never been profound or sustained. This is curious because the post-World War II period has been characterized by the in- creasing utilization of support staff. Specifically, the past twenty or more years have witnessed far-reaching changes in the division of duties be- tween the two groups. As academic librarians busied themselves with their newfound faculty status requirements of teaching, research, and governance, they became more and more dependent upon support staff. Librarians pressed sup- port staff into service in new areas and assigned them tasks they no longer had the time to perform or had come to con- sider routine. As a result, many support staff, although certainly not all, are now regularly assigned duties that once charac- terized the work of librarians. In addition to the new responsibilities faculty status has required of librarians, other forces have contributed to the rise or fall of many tasks within the library work hierarchy, for example, • the increasing complexity of the tasks associated with the automation of li- brary processes;1 • networking;2 • the shortage of qualified librarians and other problems related to their recruitment and retention; 3 • declining or static budgets that require a higher level of efficiency in order to control costs; • the direct substitution of support staff Larry R. Oberg is Director of Libraries at Stockwell-Mudd Libraries, Albion College, Albion, Michigan 49224-1879. 100 College & Research Libraries for librarians as a cost-saving measure; and • an increasing emphasis on public ser- vice, and their evaluation. The creation of new tasks and there- distribution of old ones have significantly upgraded the level of work performed by both support staff and librarians.4 Out of this process, a new class of library worker, the paraprofessional, has emerged. Para- professionals occupy the middle stratum of a three-tiered hierarchical staffing struc- ture. Within this model, paraprofessionals are ranked below librarians, but above clerical employees. The creation of new tasks and the redistribution of old ones have significantly. upgraded the level of work performed by both support staff and librarians. The phenomenon of paraprofessional- ism is not without its parallels in other professions, for example, law and medi- cine, where the increased complexity of the fields has dictated the delegation of many complex tasks to support staff members.5 Today, the legitimacy of the library paraprofessional classification is generally recognized. However, the tasks assigned to these positions, the preparation required of the incumbents, and the reward structures vary widely. THE CHANGING LIBRARY WORKPLACE Paraprofessionals have liberated librar- ians from the need to perform any but their highest-level tasks. Librarians, however, have remained curiously re- luctant to give up many aspects of li- brary work that no longer need be performed by them, either failing to grasp the potential of paraprofessionals or perceiving them as a threat to their own positions.6 Consequently, the dra- matic redistribution of the library work load has resulted in a wide zone of over- lap in the tasks performed by the two groups. Task overlap characterizes today's workplace and blurs the distinc- March 1992 tions between librarians and para- professionals. Role blurring angers para- professionals, who see themselves as doing what librarians do, but often for less money and always for less prestige. In all fields, of course, professionals occasionally perform work characteris- tic of paraprofessionals just as para- professionals occasionally perform work characteristic of professionals. The problem lies in the degree to which this overlap in duties occurs and the precision with which the work of each group is defined. John Levett notes that some task overlap in libraries is to be expected. However, the width of the zone of overlap should concern us, he cautions, for herein lie "the seeds of conflict and issues of de- marcation." The width of this zone, Levett continues, is determined by the relative maturity of the profession as measured in terms of social recognition and concessions granted. Levett con- cludes that one finds a wider zone of · overlap in librarianship and social work than one does in medicine or architecture.7 Today, few areas of library work are off limits to paraprofessionals, and they perform most of our traditional organiza- tional and archival tasks. Paraprofession- als perform original as well as copy cataloging, search remote online databases, administer major functional areas within libraries and are regularly assigned to work at reference and information desks.8 For the most part, these are tasks that only a few years ago librarians would not have permitted support staff to per- form. In many libraries, particularly those in the larger publicly supported institutions, task overlap has been deliberately structured into the career ladders that order the responsibilities and the compensation of the two groups. In these libraries, higher-ranked para- professionals may be better rewarded than lower-ranked librarians.9 In all li- braries, however, task overlap, and the role blurring it creates, not only angers paraprofessionals but also confuses our clientele, who perceive librarians and paraprofessionals to be doing the same thing. This perception, whether true or false, is not a desirable one and can erode the quality of contacts between the li- brary and its clientele. Larry R. Oberg, Mary Kay Schleiter, and Michael Van Houten argue, for example, that "librar- ians will need to communicate a clearer image of who they are and what it is they do. Otherwise, they perpetuate their isolation from institutional decision- making councils, ensure the continued un- derutilization of their abilities and knowledge, impoverish both client-librar- ian and client-collection contacts, and hinder their own efforts to become more involved in undergraduate education.'110 PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES In an environment where role blurring abounds, it is not surprising that ten- sions have developed between librarians and support staff. Allen B. Veaner states that in his experience, "the bitterest re- sentments and the greatest potential for explosive divisiveness are centered in this difficult personnel area." 11 The organiza- tional and administrative gulf that sepa- rates the two groups exacerbates the situation. The stage was set for conflict by 1971, when the Association of College and Research Libraries adopted the Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians. 12 The Standards document gave renewed impetus to the efforts of academic librarians to upgrade themselves. It also mandated self-deter- mination and "the maximum possible lati- tude" in fulfilling their responsibilities. Faculty status and, since the 1960s, a generalized movement away from the earlier authoritarian-based administra- tive models have given librarians more control over the content and organiza- tion of their work. With the adoption of the Standards, a flexible work schedule became both a necessity and a reality for academic librarians who were now re- quired to teach, conduct research, publish, and participate in college and university governance. The Standards also mandated an academic form of governance for librar- ians, and they promptly organized them- selves in a collegial manner parallel to that of their newfound teaching faculty colleagues. This more democratic or- Emergence of the Paraprofessional 101 ganizational model was then superim- posed upon the library, a prototypical bureaucratic organization. Of course, the bureaucratic format, with its compulsory forty-hour week, continues to dictate the schedules and organize the work lives of the support staff. Because the privileges of the col- legial model were not extended beyond the professional ranks, two very dissim- ilar forms of governance came to coexist, often in uneasy juxtaposition, within most academic libraries. Veaner notes that al- though this bifurcate model grew out of "the structure of higher education it- self," it nonetheless "impairs organiza- tional unity and fosters adversarial relationships. "13 The animosity Veaner and others find in the library setting does not have an exact parallel in academic departments. Here, collegial governance appears to be a more comfortable fit, no doubt because members of the teaching faculty out- number departmental secretaries who, in any case, are rarely in competition with them. 14 Anecdotal evidence indicates that librarians and paraprofessionals often misunderstand each others' roles. In many libraries, the new duties assumed by librarians and the reasons why they require collegial organizational models and flexible work schedules were never adequately explained to support staff. The seeming inability of librarians to state more precisely what it is that they do has contributed to the role blurring and resentment that exist today. Often, paraprofessionals appear not to comprehend the scope of the responsi- bilities that librarians are expected to as- sume and perceive themselves to be doing equivalent work. Librarians may misconstrue the resentment that the sup- port staff feel, treat them patronizingly, and even doubt the extent of their com- mitment to the library. Such attitudes on the part of librarians are, of course, coun- terproductive and become self-fulfilling prophesies that insure low self-esteem in paraprofessionals and prevent them from demonstrating a higher level of institu- tional and professional commitment. 102 College & Research Libraries The approach taken by librarians to these problems has been shortsighted, and we have failed to exercise leadership in this important area. Despite the real structural differences that exist, many librarians tend to ignore or minimize the distinctions between the two groups. This understandable desire to be democratic and not elitist is in conflict, however, with our traditional demand for two fundamen- tally different types of library workers- those who at least until recently were assigned only routine process-oriented work, and those who are responsible for the planning, decision making, and other pro- grammatic aspects of the library. Failure to deal explicitly with the stratification that is inherent, not only in academic librar- ies, but also in the academy .generally, results from our traditional unwillingness to come to terms with the problems of personnel utilization and contributes to the role blurring that characterizes our libraries today. THE LITERATURE Until quite recently, the literature that describes and analyzes the role, status, and working conditions of para- professionals within librarianship could at best be described as thin. With few exceptions, we have skirted these trouble- some personnel issues. At the national level, authors have focused upon the more peripheral concerns of training and outcomes of support staff utilization in nontraditional roles, for example, at the reference desk or performing complex cataloging tasks. This particular literature betrays a remarkable degree of apprehen- sion on the part of librarians about the advisability of assigning to para- professionals tasks that were previously performed by professionals. At the state and regional levels, the literature has been anecdotal, often condescending, and has added little to our understand- ing of the problems that beset para- professionals. A few exceptions, however, dot this rather bleak landscape. In 1923, Charles C. Williamson urged the differentiation of professional from clerical tasks in his Carnegie Corpora- tion-sponsored report, Training for Li- March 1992 brary Service.15 Although most of the Wil- liamson report addressed the specifics of curriculum reform, the author strongly recommended that library work be per- formed by two different classes of em- ployees, professional and clerical, and that each group be supported by its own distinct training program. In his history of library technician training programs in the United States and Canada, Charles Holborn Held notes with some irony that Williamson's educational solution had to wait forty-six years to be en- dorsed by the American Library Associa- tion.16 Despite the associational sanction it finally received, the concept has not found widespread acceptance at the grass-roots level. 17 The approach taken by librarians to these problems has been shortsighted, and we have failed to exercise leadership in this important area. Orvin Lee Shiflett, in his highly read- able 1981 monograph Origins of Ameri- can Academic Librarianship, defines the basic forces and events that have shaped academic librarianship. 18 Library train- ing in the pre-Williamson era, generally referred to as the Dewey to Williamson period, has been described by Sarah K. Vann in her monograph, Training for Librarianship before 1923.19 In 1979, Charles W. Evans traced the history of support staff and the evolution of para- professionals in a review article entitled "Evolution of Paraprofessional Library Employees." 20 A brief review of library support staff history, "In the Beginning, There Was Support Staff ... ," by Edward B. Mar- tinez, appeared in 1989 in the first issue of the support staff journal Library Mosaics. 21 The development of library paraprofessionals as a class has been sketched by Charlotte Mugnier in her 1980 monograph, The Paraprofessional and the Professional Job Structure.22 Mug- nier notes a growing acceptance of the con- cept of para professionalism within most service professions. Within librarian- ship, she suggests, acceptance is implicit in the promulgation of the American Li- brary Association's 1970 policy state- ment, Library Education and Personnel Utilization (LEPU).23 Among those rare librarians who have looked squarely at the problems of para- professionals is Richard M. Dougherty, who as early as 1977 pointed to "a grow- ing rift in the relations between pro- fessionals and other library staff." A University of California, Berkeley vet- eran of the social upheaval of the early 1970s, Dougherty warned that library assistants were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with their status as they as- sumed tasks relinquished by librarians. These higher-level responsibilities, here- marked, "too often have not been accom- panied by commensurate rewards." 24 In the early 1980s, Veaner traced a his- tory of rapid change in academic librar- ies over the prior two decades. The role confusion that emerged during this tu- multuous period, he notes, gave rise to the widespread "perception that two categories of employees are performing widely overlapping functions, seem- ingly at the same level, but in different employee series with different pay scales and different [perquisites]." Many librarians, Veaner notes, have con- tributed to this perception by failing to recognize "that changing times have drained away the professional challenge that once inhered in certain tasks." 25 At least two empirical studies support Dougherty and Veaner's somewhat pessimistic assessments. Although job satisfaction surveys have been relatively common in the library literature, only a few have included support staff. In 1983, Beverly P. Lynch and Jo Ann Verdin re- ported data they had collected in 1971- 1972 in three university libraries. They found "significant differences [in the levels of satisfaction] between the occu- pational groups," with "the professional librarians reporting higher satisfaction than the other members of the staff." 26 In a 1987 replication of their study, the authors concluded that these differences have held steady over time, and that "the Emergence of the Paraprofessional 103 professional group continues to report higher [levels of] job satisfaction than other staff members." 27 More recently, Patricia A. Kreitz and Annegret Ogden surveyed job responsi- bilities and job satisfaction among pro- fessionals and support staff at the nine-campus University of California system. In response to their question, "In general how satisfied are you with your present job?" the authors found that 76 percent of the librarians checked the two highest categories on a 5-point scale, while only 50 percent of the library as- sistants did. Kreitz and Ogden also found significant blurring of the roles of librarians and library assistants and re- ported "a major overlap of responsibili- ties in the area of creating bibliographic access, small but provocative overlaps in the areas of collection development and public services, and a strong division of responsibilities in management-related activities." 28 NEW INITIATIVES Fortunately, librarians' general lack of attention to paraprofessional concerns has begun to change. There has been a small but perceptible increase in the number of research-based articles to ap- pear in the literature. Library Mosaics, a new journal devoted exclusively to sup- port staff issues, began publishing in 1989; in 1990, a highly successful national conference for support staff en- titled Working in Libraries was held by the continuing education division of the School of Library and Information Stu- dies at the University of Wisconsin, Madi- son, and then repeated because of high demand. In recent years, significant growth has occurred in the number, strength, and activities of paraprofessional sections within state and regional library associations; and at least two major projects intended to review support staff con- cerns have been initiated at the national level. In 1990, the American Library Asso- ciation's Standing Committee on Library Education (SCOLE) and the Office for Library Personnel Resources' (OLPR) Advisory Committee received a World 104 College & Research Libraries Book-ALA Goal Award to complete a one-year project on the condition of sup- port staff. Project leaders presented a pre- conference program on paraprofessionals at the 1991 Annual Conference of the American Library Association, con- ducted focus group interviews with sup- port staff and librarians, and plan to publish a collection of commissioned ar- ticles on library support staff issues.29 Appointed in 1988, the Association of College and Research Libraries' Task Force on Paraprofessionals was charged with reviewing the academic prepara- tion of paraprofessionals, examining the career paths available to them, and rec- ommending an appropriate role for them within the ACRL. In December 1990, the task force, chaired by Sheila Creth of the University of Iowa, submitted its final re- port in which it recommended increased participation of paraprofessionals within the association.30 In her final recommendation as execu- tive director of the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries, JoAn Segal proposed that the ACRL add a new cate- gory of membership to accommodate paraprofessionals. A special member- ship category, Segal notes, "would strengthen relations in the workplace, serve as a recruitment tool for entry into the professional ranks, and indicate our willingness to provide educational and other activities for an important segment of the academic library work force." 31 Since its inception in 1967, the Council on Library /Media Technicians (COLT) has sought to improve the working con- ditions and defend the interests of li- brary support staff. An American Library Association-affiliated membership or- ganization, COLT provides a forum for the discussion of support staff issues and the promotion of support staff goals. COLT's annual conference is held in conjunction with the ALA's summer conference. WHAT'S IN A NAME? Paraprofessional position and em- ployment series titles have proliferated at the local level. Standardization has not occurred and terminology varies widely in usage and meaning. My and Mark E. March 1992 Mentges' as yet unpublished 1990 national survey of the role, status, and working conditions of paraprofessionals con- firms the widespread impression that there is significant concern about, but little agreement on, nomenclature. The responses of the library directors sur- veyed make it clear that the term para- professional is a highly charged one. A number of these directors responded that they simply do not like it. Others reported that it is considered demeaning by some staff who prefer such terms as support professional or even librarian. Still others noted that they employ only cleri- cal workers, none of whom they felt qualify as paraprofessionals by the defi- nition provided. My survey definition of paraprofession- als suggested that these positions have entrance-level requirements that are dis- tinctly different from those of librarians, that incumbents are assigned high-level support responsibilities, and that they commonly perform their duties with some supervision by a librarian.32 This slight attempt at definition, however, is not adequate to allow us to distinguish with confidence between paraprofession- als and clerical employees or between paraprofessionals and nonlibrarian pro- fessionals. Indeed, the lines that separate paraprofessionals from these other cate- gories are as indistinct as those that sep- arate them from librarians. Associational definitions of para- professionals, those of the American Li- brary Association and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), for example, are weak at best and stand in need of revision. 33 At the local level, titles, such as acquisitions clerk and refer- ence assistant, may not accurately reflect the scope of the responsibilities that these positions demand and risk offend- ing the incumbents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some para professionals and even a few librarians tend to deny the existence of clerical positions and consider all full- time support staff to be paraprofession- als. In some libraries, this perception results from a failure to distinguish be- tween the capabilities of exceptional in- dividuals and objective job requirements. In others, it accurately reflects the infor- mal patterns of use made of these sup- port staff. In small libraries, where support staff may be called upon to per- form a wide range of duties, the lines of demarcation frequently tend to blur. In all cases, however, paraprofession- als are a subset of the broader universe of support staff. The term is misleading when, as is often the case, it is applied without distinction to all classifications of library employees who are not librar- ians. Secretaries, typists, bookkeepers, and others whose jobs require only cleri- cal or office-related skills are not para- professionals. Student library employees; van drivers; mailroom workers; audio- visual technicians; or nonlibrarian pro- fessionals, for example, library business and personnel officers, accountants, ar- chivists, systems analysts, and program- mers, do not fit the current definitions of paraprofessional either. Many of the new tasks that automation is creating in libraries, for example, data input and the management of CD-ROM services and microcomputer laboratories, remain to be classified within the work hierarchy. THE CONDITION OF PARAPROFESSIONALS Despite the profound nature of the changes that have occurred in the library workplace, librarians have not thoroughly analyzed the impact of these changes upon the individuals affected or upon the profession itself. In fact, it is fair to say that the profession has yet to come to grips with the emergence of para- professionals as a distinct class of library worker. The accelerating movement toward the use of support staff to perform complex library tasks has come about at the grass-roots level, to a large extent unaffected by the few national policy statements that define support staff ac- tivities and educational qualifications. Many problems related to para- professional qualifications, utilization, classification, continuing education, and even nomenclature remain to be re- solved. The Library Education and Person- nel Utilization document, the most recent Emergence of the Paraprofessional 105 ALA Council-approved policy state- menton library staffing patterns, formal educational requirements, and continu- ing education dates from 1970, although it is now under revision. In addition to defining professional positions, LEPU currently recommends three categories of support staff: library associates, li- brary technical assistants, and clerks. The document delineates the training, edu- cational requirements, and some duties appropriate to each level. Although the term is not used in the document, LEPU nonetheless anticipates and codifies li- brary paraprofessionalism. LEPU was a breakthrough document for its time, but the model employment categories and the prerequisites that it proposes have not been widely accepted or implemented. The only other American Library As- sociation Council-approved policy state- ment that addresses the education of paraprofessionals is the Criteria for Pro- grams to Prepare Library/Media Technical As- sistants document. Published in 1969 and revised in 1979, the Criteria document establishes curricular standards for two- year educational programs for para- professionals.34 In the field, however, the educational qualifications that are required of paraprofessionals vary widely from in- stitution to institution and reveal a signal lack of standardization. Ad hoc standards are set in the workplace and equivalent tasks are performed by incumbents with widely varying backgrounds. My survey reveals that 98 percent of all academic libraries in the United States require a high school degree of some or all of the paraprofessionals in their employ; 62 percent, an associate degree (a figure that rises to 78 percent at the two-year schools that traditionally grant them); and 64 percent, a bachelor's degree. Nine percent of all responding libraries require a graduate degree of some, but not all, paraprofessionals. Still, most of these libraries get more than they ask for: 65 percent report em- ploying one or more paraprofessionals who hold a degree higher than that re- quired for their jobs. The recent spate of interest in para- professionals and, by extension, support 106 College & Research Libraries staff generally, has not yet translated into significant improvements in their condition. Despite the shift of many high-level tasks to paraprofessionals, they may not be receiving the training, support, and compensation they need to get the job done. For example, 90 percent of my respondents offer paraprofession- als released time to attend local andre- gional conferences and workshops, but only 32 percent extend this incentive for attendance at national meetings. Eighty- one percent of the responding libraries offer financial support for attendance at local and regional meetings, but that figure drops to 24 percent for attendance at national meetings. Rush G. Miller points out that "one of the greatest im- pediments to support staff development is the lack of funding for travel." Fund- ing, he insists, is vital for the success of any staff development program.35 Compensation for paraprofessionals varies greatly by type of library and geo- graphical location. In many libraries, adequate compensation is inhibited by inappropriate salary comparisons that continue to be made between increas- ingly complex paraprofessional posi- tions and totally unrelated jobs in physical plant, food services, business offices, and academic departments. 36 These traditional linkages are no longer useful and can severely depress para- professional salaries and status. It ap- pears that librarians have not done a good job of making campus administra- tors and personnel officers aware of the magnitude of the changes in the job de- scriptions of library support staff. My survey indicates that only 45 per- cent of the academic libraries in the United States provide paraprofessionals with a ranked classification system, or career ladder, that ensures the possibility of position reclassification. This figure rises to 87 percent at the large Associa- tion of Research ·Libraries institutions, but drops to 23 percent in the smaller liberal arts college libraries. In summary, the educational require- ments for paraprofessionals vary widely from institution to institution and often bear little resemblance to the LEPU March 1992 standards. Staff development programs and continuing education opportunities are spotty and funding is inadequate. Our seeming inability to distinguish be- tween the capabilities of individuals and objective position requirements con- fuses the issue. The problems of role definition and nomenclature are national in scope and result from the lack of a con- sensus on who paraprofessionals are and what it is that they should be doing. Our inability to define these groups more precisely hinders our research by ren- dering the statistics that we generate less than fully comparable. Perhaps most im- portantly, librarians have simply failed to demonstrate vision or exercise leader- ship in these areas. Librarians have not done a good job of making campus administrators and personnel officers aware of the magnitude of the changes in the job descriptions of library support staff. The following section contains some suggestions for dealing with these prob- lems, but it is not an exhaustive attempt to resolve all of them. It is offered only as a catalyst to discussion. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? Some of the apprehension librarians used to feel about the emergence of para- professionals has dissipated, and today we are less likely to perceive them as a threat. Most librarians understand that in an environment characterized by rapid change, it is the continued per- formance of the more routine tasks, not their delegation to support staff, that depresses the status of professionals. Michael Gorman reminds us that "the number of tasks deemed to be pro- fessional should not exceed the number of tasks which need to be performed by professionals." As a rule of thumb, Gor- man suggests, "no professiona,l should do a task which can be performed by a paraprofessional, no paraprofessional should do a task which can be performed by a clerical staff member, [and] no human being should do a task which can be performed by a machine."37 Still, librarians have not achieved a clean fit between the paraprofessional and professional groups that proliferate within the library workplace. Gorman warns that "we have to reach a point at which we can affirm the value of pro- fessionalism and the value of contribu- tions made by paraprofessionals and clerical staff without confusing their re- spective roles." 38 Herbert S. White has proposed a model for the integration of librarians and non- librarian professionals. In White's model, the librarians remain firmly in control of the library and information processes, but coexist with the other professionals to whom they accord equivalent rights and the compensation professionals expect and deserve. ''The point," White states, "has always been that there could easily be other professional skills represented in large and complex organizations."39 Because the nature of paraprofessional positions has changed as incumbents have assumed increasingly complex tasks, White's model could be expanded to include these new tasks. In the final analysis, what do para- professionals want? Most likely, I think, respect, trust, collegiality, just compen- sation, and a future--in short, a career, and not just a job. As librarians, we should grant them that. A library sus- tains an enormous waste of potential and talent when paraprofessionals are kept down, undertrained, and denied re- sponsibility and respect. In my opinion, the time is long past due for librarians to accept para professionals as colleagues in more than name only. Paraprofessionals should receive the systematic training, staff development, and continuing education opportunities that are needed to ensure the conditions required for their success. The edu- cational prerequisites these jobs demand must be reviewed closely, and realistic enforceable standards established. Most difficult of all, funding for attendance at state, regional, and even national meet- ings will need to be found and incumbents encouraged to attend. Mark E. Mentges Emergence of the Paraprofessional 107 notes that "if the recent interest ex- pressed by paraprofessionals in letters to national magazines such as Library Journal and American Libraries are [is] any indica- tion, large numbers are now thinking and acting on a nationallevel."40 At the national level, librarians must place a high priority upon paraprofessional con- cerns in their strategic planning councils and on their national research agendas. Of course, para professionals and librar- ians alike should assume increased re- sponsibility for upgrading their own qualifications. The challenge for librari- ans, who are often perceived by para- professionals to be doing less than professional-level work, is to give up their attachment to the lower-level tasks that they in fact need perform only oc- casionally and redefine their positions in terms of their most comp1ex and chal- lenging professional responsibilities. 41 What do paraprofessionals want? Most likely, I think, respect, trust, collegiality, just compensation, and a future-in short, a career, and not just a job. In a discussion of the qualifications required of catalogers, Sheila S. Intner challenges librarians "to [wake] up to the fact that they trivialize their field if they are satisfied doing jobs that should belong to well trained para profession- als." Were we to insist that these tasks be performed by properly trained para- professionals, she notes, librarians would "free [themselves] to do more challenging, interesting, and important work."42 Because certification does not exist in librarianship, librarians who persist in performing tasks that can be performed satisfactorily by less highly qualified staff are protected as they create role confusion for our clientele and embarrassment to the profession. The challenge for para professionals is to cast their gaze beyond the internal procedures that have traditionally pre- occupied them and make the service role and mission of the library their primary 108 College & Research Libraries point of reference. They should accept that not all support staff, not even all those who are doing library-specific tasks, qualify as paraprofessionals. Para- professionals also need to gain a clearer understanding of the librarians' role and the importance of their research, teach- ing, governance, planning, and adminis- trative responsibilities. Finally, they must stop blaming librarians for their own ills. Miller suggests that this a tti- tude "is no more likely to bridge the chasm between [the two groups] than is [the librarians'] insistence of superior- ity."43 In sum, many ingrained habits of librarians and paraprofessionals alike must change. The empowerment of paraprofession- als should not be perceived as a threat to professional positions. Many tasks, of course, continue to be driven downward in the work hierarchy by technology, net- working, resource sharing, and the other changes that are altering the information environment. These same forces, however, drive yet other tasks upward and create exciting new opportunities for librarians and all information professionals. In order to meet these challenges effec- tively, librarians must define their role less ambiguously. When they clarify their own ambivalent status, they will have gone a long way toward resolving the problems that cloud the role and sta- tus of the paraprofessional. Indeed, how can we as librarians expect to help para- professionals decide who they are if we cannot first decide who we are? THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION Over one hundred years have passed since Dewey rather optimistically pro- claimed us a profession, 44 yet we are still without an adequate definition of a librar- ian or a comprehensive model of librar- ianship. In 1933, Pierce Butler urged the scientific method upon the librarian, whom he found to be "strangely unin- terested in the theoretical aspects of his profession," an isolated figure who "stands alone in the simplicity of his prag- matism."45 In truth, librarians today re- main as unsure of what librarianship is or ought to be as they were nearly sixty March 1992 years ago when Butler implored them to look beyond process and toward function. Almost twenty years after the ACRL adopted the Standards for Faculty Status for Academic Librarians document, fa- culty status as the desired condition of all academic librarians has yet to be ac- cepted fully by the membership. A range of alternative status models proliferates on our campuses, and librarians (or, more likely, the administrators to whom they report) choose with impunity between faculty, academic, administrative, pro- fessional, and even librarian variants.46 Paraprofessionals should receive the systematic training, staff devel- opment, and continuing education opportunities that are needed to ensure the conditions required for their success. For decades, librarians have at- tempted to sort the professional wheat from the paraprofessional chaff by com- piling lists of the tasks that putatively define each category. In most respects, this has been a singularly unrewarding exercise. Its one great virtue, however, has been to demonstrate that librarian- ship is more than the sum of its parts. Still, a new theoretical model of the pro- fession, a lens through which librarians can view, organize, and evaluate prac- tice, has yet to emerge. When it does, however, this new model will surely see librarians concentrating more of their time upon the most professional aspects of their work and less upon the repetitive tasks. Almost certainly, it will see librari- ans accord paraprofessionals considerably greater responsibility for the day-to-day running of the library. In 1982, Veaner challenged the profes- sion to decide between two mutually ex- clusive concepts of librarianship, concepts he terms continuous and discontinuous.47 Under the terms of his continuous model, no sharp breaks occur between the various levels of work or the catego- ries of workers required to perform them. The tasks required of this model, no matter how difficult, complex, or challenging, may be learned by incumbents through apprenticeship, and the individual worker advances on a potentially unlimited con- tinuum. If continuity characterizes librari- anship, Veaner warns, we must accept that it is a craft and not a profession. Veaner contends, however, that librar- ianshi p is in fact characterized by discon- tinuity. He maintains that two funda- mentally different types of work exist, each requiring its own separate and dis- tinct group of workers. One group func- tions in a support capacity and is characterized by the performance of process-oriented tasks, i.e., the craft work of libraries. The other group requires graduate- level training and is characterized by pro- grammatic responsibilities and the abstract, intellectual nature of the work performed, i.e., the professional work of libraries. In Veaner' s discontinuous model, the librarian not only assumes responsibility for research, teaching, governance, collec- tion development, bibliographic control, and direct patron aid, but also for plan- ning, design, analysis, evaluation, problem solving, and administration. In brief, the librarian is responsible for creating the con- ditions that ensure the success of the library. Emergence of the Paraprofessional 109 The time is at hand to decide between these two fundamentally opposed con- cepts of librarianship. If librarians con- tinue to avoid endorsing one or the other, we cannot say that we have not been warned. Veaner tells us that "the prob- lem of personnel utilization can be pos- tulated as a fundamental question of librarianship" and, he cautions, "the an- swer may have profound implications for the status of librarians, for graduate education in library science, for the aca- demic institution's budget, for collective bargaining, and potentially for class ac- tion litigation in the area of equal pay for equal work."48 The problem of role definition and ar- ticulation is at the heart of our predica- ment. The inability of librarians to define their own role less ambiguously inhibits us from describing paraprofessionals more precisely, from explaining our- selves to clients who fail increasingly to distinguish between the two groups, and from exercising leadership in this impor- tant arena. The emergence of the para- professional as an active, vital force in our libraries compounds librarians' age- old identity crisis and challenges us to resolve at last the problem of our status. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. The fact that "the productivity tools which automation has made possible have reduced the skill level required to do certain types of library work," is noted in "Changing Staffing Patterns in Academic Libraries," Library Issues: Briefings for Faculty and Administrators 7:2 (Sept. 1986). 2. Patricia Glass Schuman notes that "networking does tend to move tasks formerly considered professional downward-particularly in the areas of circulation, catalog- ing, acquisitions, and interlibrary loan." See Schuman, "Library Networks: A Means, Not an End," Library Journal 112:34 (Feb. 1, 1987). The fact that "the standardization which the national cataloging systems has made possible permits many libraries to use paraprofessional and clerical staff to handle work which formerly required the skills of a professional catalog librarian," is noted in "Changing Staffin~ Patterns," p.2. 3. Kathleen M. Heim, "Librarians for the New Millennium," in Lrbrarians for the New Millennium, ed. William E. Moen and Kathleen M. Heim (Chicago: Office for Library Personnel Resources, American Library Association, 1988), p.1-10. 4. In a discussion of the "technological imperative," Allen B. Veaner suggests that the application of a technology drives very complex, but routine, mental work downward in the hierarchy of tasks. No longer essential to the performance of these tasks, professionals cease to be production workers. Their work then becomes abstract and predominately intellectual, comprehending new and challenging responsibilities. See Veaner, "Librarians: The Next Generation," Library Journal109:624 (Apr. 1, 1984). 5. For a comparison of the status of library paraprofessionals with their counterparts in law and medicine, see Kathleen M. Heim and Debbie Wolcott, with the assistance of 110 College & Research Libraries March 1992 Ed McCormack, "Staff Utilization in Libraries: The Historical and Environmental Context for Renewed Attention to Education, Role Definition, and Articulation with Special Consideration of Medicine and Law," Louisiana Library Association Bulletin 52:149-57 (Spring 1990). See also John Levett, "Paraprofessional Workers in Four Fields: A Comparative Study," The Australian Library ]ournal30:47-54 (May 1981). 6. Ralph M. Edwards points out that "many people who are supposed to be functioning as librarians have always avoided professional responsibility by immersing them- selves in routine clerical work. Uninformed management attitudes and techniques in libraries have frequently abetted this dereliction of professional function." See Ralph M. Edwards, "The Management of Libraries and the Professional Functions of Librar- ians," Library Quarterly 45:150 (Apr. 1975). 7. Levett, "Paraprofessional Workers in Four Fields," p.48. 8. In 1990, Mark E. Mentges (University of California, Berkeley) and I conducted an as yet unpublished survey of all ARL reference libraries and a random sample of almost 400 Carnegie classification libraries nationally. Of the responding Carnegie classifica- tion libraries, 61 percent regularly assign to paraprofessionals Library of Congress input copy cataloging and approximately 20 percent assign original cataloging, includ- ing description, subject analysis, and classification. Online database searching is regularly performed by paraprofessionals in 21 percent of these libraries; 46 percent assign substantial administrative responsibility to paraprofessionals in circulation, 30 percent in interlibrary loan, 33 percent in periodicals, 27 percent in acquisitions, and 22 percent in cataloging. Sixty-six percent of these libraries regularly schedule para- professionals to work at the reference/information desks. 9. Thirty percent of the library directors in all libraries responding to my survey report that they have at least some paraprofessionals in their employ who earn a salary comparable to or higher than entry-level librarians. This figure rises to 87 percent in large research institutions and declines to 14 percent in liberal arts colleges. 10. In a survey of Albion College faculty, Oberg, Schleiter, and VanHouten found that "77% [of their respondents] could not identify by name all five Albion College librar- ians although the campus community is quite small and the nature of professional employment clearly outlined on the questionnaire. Further, 40% identified as librarians one or more members of the support staff. These were most often staff with whom they have frequent contact-circulation, interlibrary loan, and periodicals department em- ployees, for example." Larry R. Oberg, Mary Kay Schleiter, and Michael VanHouten, "Faculty Perceptions of Librarians at Albion College: Status, Role, Contribution, and Contacts," College & Research Libraries 50:225 (Mar. 1989). In a survey of the image of the librarian, Joan C. Durrance suggests that "the profession that fails to distinguish between librarians and other staff (who have not had the benefit of a professional education) is culpable for any opinions that the public may form about librarians' ability." Durrance, "Librarians: The Invisible Professionals," in The Bowker Annual Library and Book Trade Almanac, 35th ed., (New York: Bowker, 1990), p.96. 11. Allen B. Veaner, personal communication, Sept. 28, 1990. 12. Association of College and Research Libraries, Academic Status Committee, "Stan- dards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," in Academic Status: Statements and Resources (Chicago: American Library Association, 1988), p .9-10. 13. Allen B. Veaner, Academic Librarians/tip in a Transformational Age: Program, Politics, and Personnel (Boston: Hall, 1990), p.439. 14. Miller notes that "Secretaries and faculty members may have conflicts, but the secretary would not dream of aspiring to be a faculty member, nor would the faculty see a rivalry in the relationship. In other words, their respective roles are clearly delineated and few inherent conflicts arise." Rush G. Miller, "Support Staffs in Academic Libraries: The Dilemma and the Challenge," Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences 25:357 (1988). 15. The two Charles C. Williamson reports, the original unpublished manuscript and the published report, have been reissued as Training for Library Work (1921) and Training for Library Service (1923), (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1971), 2v. 16. Charles Holborn Held, The Status of Library Technicians in the United States: A Dissertation (Detroit: Wayne State University, Graduate Division, 1969). It was not until1969 that Emergence of the Paraprofessional 111 the American Library Association published its Criteria for Programs to Prepare Library Technical Assistants: Statement of Policy. 17. For a discussion of the postsecondary educational programs for library technicians, see Ian M. Johnson, "The Development of Library Technicians: A Review of Experience in Selected Countries," International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) General Conference, 1990, Booklet 3. (The Hague: IFLA, 1990; Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 329 284, 1991), p. 53-61. 18. Orvin Lee Shiflett, Origins of American Academic Librarianship (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1982). 19. Sarah K. Vann, Training for Librarianship before 1923 (Chicago: American Library Asso- ciation, 1961). 20. Charles W. Evans, "The Evolution of Paraprofessional Library Employees" in Advances in Librarianship 99:64-97 (New York: Academic, 1979). 21. Edward B. Martinez, "In the Beginning, There Was Support Staff," Library Mosaics 1:6-8 (Sept./Oct. 1989). . 22. Charlotte Mugnier, The Paraprofessional and the Professional Job Structure (Chicago: American Library Association, 1980). 23. American Library Association, Library Education and Personnel Utilization: A Statement of Policy by the Council of the American Library Association, June 30, 1970 (Chicago, 1976). The LEPU document, originally entitled Library Education and Manpower, was revised and edited in 1976 by the Office for Library Personnel Resources' (OLPR) Advisory Committee to remove sexist terminology. 24. Richard M. Dougherty, "Personnel Needs for Librarianship's Uncertain Future," in Herbert Poole, ed., Academic Libraries by the Year 2000: Essays Honoring Jerrold Orne (New York: Bowker, 1977), p.112. 25. Allen B. Veaner, "Continuity or Discontinuity-A Persistent Personnel Issue in Aca- demic Librarianship," Advances in Library Administration & Organization 1:3 (1982). In the original published source, the author notes, the word perquisites was inadvertently transposed into prerequisites. 26. Beverly P. Lynch and JoAnn Verdin, "Job Satisfaction in Libraries: Relationships of the Work Itself, Age, Sex, Occupational Group, Tenure, Supervisory Level, Career Com- mitment, and Library Department," Library Quarterly 53:442 (Oct. 1983). 27. Beverly P. Lynch and JoAnn Verdin, "Job Satisfaction in Libraries: A Replication," Library Quarterly 57:199 (Apr. 1987). 28. Patricia A. Kreitz and Annegret Ogden, "Job Responsibilities and Job Satisfaction at the University of California Libraries," College & Research Libraries 51:307 (July 1990). 29. "Research and Action Agenda for Support Professionals in Libraries," Application for World Book-ALA Goal Awards, unpublished manuscript, 1990. 30. American Library Association, Public Information Office, ACRL Task Force Recommends Increased Paraprofessional Participation (Chicago: American Library Association, 1990). 31. Association of College and Research Libraries, Academic Librarians: Partners in Higher Educa- tion: Tite 1989-90 Annual Report (Chicago: American Library Association, 1990), p.9. 32. The definition of paraprofessionals that I wrote for my 1990 survey-based to a large extent upon ALA and !PEDS definitions-follows: "The term paraprofessional desig- nates library positions with entrance-level requirements that are distinctly different from those of librarians. Paraprofessionals are assigned high-level support responsi- bilities in positions whose tasks are specific to libraries. They commonly perform their duties with some supervision by a librarian. The term is often applied to personnel classified as library assistants, associates, technicians, and technical assistants. Ex- amples of paraprofessional position titles include: head of circulation, interlibrary loan assistant, acquisitions coordinator, catalog assistant, periodicals supervisor, reference assistant, etc. The following members of the support staff should not be included as paraprofessionals: secretaries, typists, bookkeepers, and others whose positions re- quire primarily office-related skills; student library assistants, photographers, photo- copy room and mailroom employees, audiovisual technicians, etc.; or professionals who may not hold a master's degree in librarianship, for example: systems analysts and other computer specialist~, library business officers, library personnel officers, etc." 112 College & Research Libraries March 1992 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. For a survey of definitions of paraprofessionals see "Support Staff by Any Other Name," Library Mosaics 1:1D-12 (Sept./Oct. 1989). Criteria for Programs to Prepare Library/Media Technical Assistants (Chicago: American Library Association, 1979). The revised statement was adopted by the American Library Association Council on June 2, 1979. The other elements of staff development that Miller considers important are participa- tion in decision making, orientation programs, workshops and other in-house pro- grams, formal and not-so-formal courses, and job swapping. See Rush G. Miller, "A Model for Support Staff Development in Academic Libraries," unpublished paper, 1988, p.4-5. Miller is dean of libraries, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0175. In my survey, the percentage of Carnegie classification respondents that use certain comparison criteria in the determination of paraprofessional salaries is: other campus support staff salaries, 83 percent; equivalent salaries at other institutions, 41 percent; librarians' salaries at the same institution, 14 percent; other government employees' salaries, 22 percent; and salaries established through collective bargaining negotia- tions, 24 percent. · Michael Gorman, "The Organization of Academic Libraries in the Light of Automa- tion," in Advances in Library Automation and Networking," 1:158 (1987). Michael Gorman, "The Academic Library in the Year 2001: Dream or Nightmare or Something in Between?" Journal of Academic Librarians/tip 17:8 (Mar. 1991). Herbert S. White, "Professional Librarians and Professionals in Libraries," Libran; ]ournal116:74 (Jan. 1991). Mark E. Mentges, "Library Paraprofessionals in Academic Libraries-Where to Now?" Library Mosaics 2:15 (Mar./ Apr. 1991). A paraprofessional colleague from California wrote me after reading a typescript version of this article: "Not to be too critical of your concept ofhigh-levellibrarianship, but from my observations here at ... and other libraries I have visited or have contacts at, I really feel that perhaps only 1D-20% of the professionals are operating at the teaching and research level you envision. In looking at the overall picture, para- professionals might not be the group in doubt, but librarians may be the endangered species. The closing of Columbia's library school, and the real possibility of Berkeley's closing, send a chilling message. Certainly, to the campus administrations, library education seems to be expendable. Isn't this the fault of the profession for failing to be perceived as an integral part of scholarship? I am afraid the caretaker role too many librarians perform might be all too prevalent in academic settings .... " Sheila S. Intner, "The Education of Copy Catalogers," Technicalities 11:6 (Mar. 1991). Rush G. Miller, "Support Staff in Academic Libraries: The Dilemma and the Chal- lenge," Journal of Educational Media and Libraru Science 25:364 (1988). Melvil Dewey, "The Profession," American Ltbrary ]ourna/1:5 (Sept. 30, 1876). Dewey wrote that "the time has at last come when a librarian may, without assumption, speak of his occupation as a profession." Pierce Butler, An Introduction to Library Science (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1933), pp.xi-xii. An as yet unpublished national survey of the "status of academic status" conducted in 1990 by Charles B. Lowry, Larry R. Oberg, Irene B. Hoadley, and Rush G. Miller reveals that 67 percent of all academic libraries in the United States grant (some form of) faculty status to their librarians; 7 percent grant academic status; 24 percent grant professional/ administrative status, and 2 percent impose civil service classifications. Veaner, "Continuity or Discontinuity," p. 1-20. Ibid., p.2.