SPEC Kit 349: Evolution of Library Liaisons · 187
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
Organizational Review Team Report |Organizational Recommendations |Research and Learning Division
KU Libraries: Organizational Review Team Report
33
It is true this has aided immensely in the establishment of positive relations with faculty, albeit in an inconsistent
way. It is also true that librarians have often formed a close identification with the departments and disciplines
they serve. In our current milieu, however, ORT believes our needs have rendered this arrangement insufficient
to meet contemporary user expectations. Even now, for example, this model has been informally modified while
most liaisons continue to teach, a cohort of librarians designated as liaisons no longer perform either collection
development work and/or reference duties at either Anschutz or Watson service desks, instead preferring to
specialize in other areas (such as instruction). Other librarians who perform extensive outreach and instruction
with a variety of faculty are not officially considered “liaisons” since they have no formal affiliation with academic
units on campus. This is true of the library faculty in CDS, for example.
Our current model, created a number of years ago, has not evolved in parallel with the needs of our users. It
is largely uneven in how it is approached by liaisons themselves and in the expectations placed upon individual
liaisons by faculty supervisors. It is, in short, a model that is no longer sustainable.
As ORT discussed these issues, the team began to realize librarians and staff must be realigned and become
more conversant in 21st century fluencies required for the job. Many of these characteristics were noted by
both the consultants and the libraries’ own task force created over two years ago. Emphasis should be placed
more heavily on building relationships, not strictly on functions to be performed within a narrow range of
choices. There exists now the real possibility to build cross-functional teams that better serve our users. The
idea of “embedded” librarians involved in both teaching and research, for example, is one idea that could be
further developed, but this will require greater explication and could influence whether some subject specialist
designations be retained (Schumaker, 2012).
In light of these observations, ORT recognizes the following scenarios could exist:
• Subject specialists could be retained with roles and expectations explicitly defined.
• Subject specialists could be retained for the professional schools (e.g., engineering, social welfare,
education, business, journalism, etc.). In addition, librarians in International Area Studies (IAS) should
continue to be considered specialists in line with extant university centers on campus, such as those for
East Asian and Latin American Studies.
• Current subject specialists could be distributed across the spectrum of administrative units and teams
based on preference and need, or those with current subject specialization could be tapped to continue
to teach upper-level courses in areas they now do (viz., political science, history, psychology, and so on).
ORT recommends that we at least define responsibilities within the structure proposed in this report:
librarians and staff be redistributed to various departments and units (or centers and teams) within Research
and Learning, Content Discovery and Access, and Assessment Services, for example.This will better support
the activities and priorities that comprise the strategic plan.
As has been noted in the library literature, realignment along the lines we suggest “will have significant
implications for the library’s staffing profile and workforce skill set” (Luce, 2008). An explicit and ongoing
effort should be enacted to enable current library staff in all relevant areas to learn and develop the skills and
expertise required to support research and learning in the today’s environment.
ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
Organizational Review Team Report |Organizational Recommendations |Research and Learning Division
KU Libraries: Organizational Review Team Report
33
It is true this has aided immensely in the establishment of positive relations with faculty, albeit in an inconsistent
way. It is also true that librarians have often formed a close identification with the departments and disciplines
they serve. In our current milieu, however, ORT believes our needs have rendered this arrangement insufficient
to meet contemporary user expectations. Even now, for example, this model has been informally modified while
most liaisons continue to teach, a cohort of librarians designated as liaisons no longer perform either collection
development work and/or reference duties at either Anschutz or Watson service desks, instead preferring to
specialize in other areas (such as instruction). Other librarians who perform extensive outreach and instruction
with a variety of faculty are not officially considered “liaisons” since they have no formal affiliation with academic
units on campus. This is true of the library faculty in CDS, for example.
Our current model, created a number of years ago, has not evolved in parallel with the needs of our users. It
is largely uneven in how it is approached by liaisons themselves and in the expectations placed upon individual
liaisons by faculty supervisors. It is, in short, a model that is no longer sustainable.
As ORT discussed these issues, the team began to realize librarians and staff must be realigned and become
more conversant in 21st century fluencies required for the job. Many of these characteristics were noted by
both the consultants and the libraries’ own task force created over two years ago. Emphasis should be placed
more heavily on building relationships, not strictly on functions to be performed within a narrow range of
choices. There exists now the real possibility to build cross-functional teams that better serve our users. The
idea of “embedded” librarians involved in both teaching and research, for example, is one idea that could be
further developed, but this will require greater explication and could influence whether some subject specialist
designations be retained (Schumaker, 2012).
In light of these observations, ORT recognizes the following scenarios could exist:
• Subject specialists could be retained with roles and expectations explicitly defined.
• Subject specialists could be retained for the professional schools (e.g., engineering, social welfare,
education, business, journalism, etc.). In addition, librarians in International Area Studies (IAS) should
continue to be considered specialists in line with extant university centers on campus, such as those for
East Asian and Latin American Studies.
• Current subject specialists could be distributed across the spectrum of administrative units and teams
based on preference and need, or those with current subject specialization could be tapped to continue
to teach upper-level courses in areas they now do (viz., political science, history, psychology, and so on).
ORT recommends that we at least define responsibilities within the structure proposed in this report:
librarians and staff be redistributed to various departments and units (or centers and teams) within Research
and Learning, Content Discovery and Access, and Assessment Services, for example.This will better support
the activities and priorities that comprise the strategic plan.
As has been noted in the library literature, realignment along the lines we suggest “will have significant
implications for the library’s staffing profile and workforce skill set” (Luce, 2008). An explicit and ongoing
effort should be enacted to enable current library staff in all relevant areas to learn and develop the skills and
expertise required to support research and learning in the today’s environment.
ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
