College and Research Libraries


The Role, Status, and Working 
Conditions of Paraprofessionals: A 
National Survey of Academic Libraries 
Larry R. Oberg, Mark E. Mentges, P. N. McDermott, 
and Vitoon Harusadangkul 

The emergence of paraprofessionals as a growing force in academic libraries is 
a much discussed but little investigated phenomenon. The rapid change that 
characterizes academic libraries today has affected profoundly staff deployment 
and workplace task assignment. The profession's response to these new condi-
tions, however, has been weak, and librarians have not exercised leadership. 
Librarians speculate, but do not know with certainty, the education, skills, and 
other competencies required of paraprofessionals, the tasks and levels of author-
ity assigned them, the salaries and staff development incentives offered, or the 
potential of their contribution. The authors present the results of their 1990 
national survey of the role, status, and working conditions of paraprofessionals 
in two populations, a census of the Association of Research Libraries, and a 
random sample of the Carnegie Classification libraries. They review the litera-
ture, analyze the data results, make recommendations for further research, and 
propose actions to be taken by the profession. 

ersonnel utilization and role 
definition have been persistent 
problems within librarianship. 
The separation of workplace 

tasks into categories unambiguously defined 
by their levels of complexity and con-
sistently performed by staff with appr<r 
priate educational qualifications and 
training continues to elude the profession. 
A high degree of overlap has come to exist 
between the work performed by librarians 
and that performed by support staff, par-
ticularly paraprofessionals.1 Task overlap 
contributes to the role blurring that has 
plagued generations of library workers. 

Role blurring confuses the library's 
clientele and contributes to the general-
ized impression that there is little differ-
ence between the work performed by 
librarians and that performed by sup-
port staff. Many librarians compound 
this problem, often to the point of pro-
fessional embarrassment, by continuing to 
perform once innovative but now routine 
work that should be delegated to competent 
paraprofessionals. Unfortunately, librarian-
ship does not possess a mechanism to cen-
sure or prevent this abuse. 

Task overlap and role blurring degrade 
the quality of client-library contacts. In 

Larry R. Oberg is Director of Libraries, Albion College, Albion, Ml49224; Mark E. Mentges is Head, 
Circulation Division, Education-Psychology Library, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; P. N. 
McDermott may be contacted at 199 River Oaks Drive, Plymouth, MI48170; Vitoon Harusadangkul is a 
mathematics and physics double major at Albion College. The authors thank the Association of College and 
Research Libraries for financial and technical assistance on this project. 

215 



216 College & Research Libraries 

academic libraries, these factors hinder 
the acceptance of librarians as colleagues 
of the teaching faculty and as experts by 
their clients generally. Task overlap also 
creates resentment among support staff, 
who see themselves performing the same 
duties librarians perform, only for less 
money and less prestige. 

The rapid change that characterizes 
today's library workplace contributes to 
the problems of personnel deployment 
and use, task overlap, and role blurring.2 

Some of the forces that account for this 
accelerated rate of change include: 
• the automation of library processes 

and the growth of networking; 
• the creation of new tasks and shifts 

within the status hierarchy of many 
old ones; . 

• static or declining budgets; 
• the research, teaching, and gover-

nance demands that faculty status has 
required of librarians, 

• the move away from administrative 
models based on authority toward those 
based on consensus and participation; 

• the emergence of a true paraprofessional 
level of employment, and; 

• a new generation of committed, in-
creasingly vocal paraprofessionals. 
Although automation and other change 

agents contribute to role blurring, they 
also create exciting new opportunities 
for librarians as well as support staff. It 
is particularly vexing, therefore, to find 
professionals who persist in defining 
their positions by other than their 
highest-level responsibilities. 

The response of the profession to the 
problems of staff utilization and role 
definition has been weak. Librarians 
have shown little inclination to exercise 
leadership in these areas. The Library Ed-
ucation and Personnel Utilization (LEPU) 
document dates from 1970 and remains 
the profession's only national policy 
statement.3 LEPU proposes two pro-
fessional and three support staff grades, 
thereby implicitly acknowledging and 
codifying a paraprofessional class of em-
ployment. Although it has been widely 
ignored at the grass roots level, the LEPU 
document is nonetheless a milestone in 
the evolution of staff differentiation. It 

May1992 

does not, however, serve the profession 
well as a guide to the division of tasks 
and responsibilities between the various 
support staff levels it proposes or, for 
that matter, between paraprofessionals 
and librarians. Currently under review, 
the revised LEPU document may define 
less ambiguously the roles of both 
groups, although a full resolution of the 
problem may require nothing less than a 
redefinition of librarianship.4 

The response of the profession to the 
problems of staff utilization and role 
definition has been weak. 

Finding a solution to these problems is 
hampered by a lack of concrete data on 
the role, status, and working conditions 
of paraprofessionals and other library 
support staff. Speculation is based 
largely upon anecdotal evidence, and 
librarians do not know with certainty 
what competencies are required of para-
professionals, what they are assigned to 
do, how well or poorly they are treated, 
how involved they are in library 
processes, and the extent of their poten-
tial contribution. This broad descriptive 
survey was designed to elicit prelimi-
narydata that may shed light upon some 
of these questions.5 

The authors chose to survey para-
professionals rather than all support staff 
because the emergence of paraprofession-
alism within American libraries is a com-
paratively recent phenomenon, the work 
assigned to paraprofessionals is of a high 
order and specific to libraries, and the 
broadest band of task overlap within the 
library workplace most likely exists be-
tween librarians and paraprofessionals. 
Conclusions are drawn from the data, and 
areas for further research and recommen-
dations to the profession are proposed. 

THE LITERATURE 

A limited but growing North Ameri-
can literature describes the role, status, 
and working conditions of para-
professionals in academic libraries. Until 
recently, much of it has addressed their 



use and eff~ctiveness at the reference 
desk and their ability to perform high 
level technical services duties not pre-
viously assigned them. Because of a new 
wave of interest, this literature shows 
signs of expanding and diversifying. J. 
Keith Ostertag's "Annotated Bibliogra-
phy: Library Paraprofessionals, 1965-
1991" is the best currently available 
guide to the general literature on the 
topic /; 

Historical Literature 

The emergence of paraprofessionals 
as a class has been traced by Charlotte 
Mugnier in her brief 1980 monograph 
entitled The Paraprofessional and the Pro-
fessional Job Structure. 7 Charles W. Evans 
reviews the development of support staff 
since the late 1800s ina paper entitled "The 
Evolution of Paraprofessional Library 
Employees."8 The historical context that 
shaped the changes in the professional sta-
tus of librarians in both the United States 
and Canada is discussed by Olga B. Bishop 
in 17ze Use of Professional Staff in Libraries: 
A Review 1923-1971. 9 

The first wave of widespread interest 
in support staff issues and emergent li-
brary paraprofessionalism occurred in 
the late 1960s and early 1970s. Debates 
within the profession raged around the 
issues of support staff classification and 
use. A number of papers from that period 
documented and, indeed, influenced the 
development of paraprofessionalism in 
North American libraries. Many remain 
of immediate or historical interest. 
Lester Asheim made several important 
contributions to this debate, including 
"Education and Manpower for Librari-
anship: A Position Paper Suggesting 
First Steps Toward a Statement of 
Policy." Asheim' s work was instrumen-
tal in the formulation and adoption of 
the LEPU policy statement. 10 

In his 1967 dissertation research project, 
Charles A. Bunge gathered data on the 
relationship between formal library ed-
ucation and reference efficiency. Bunge 
reported the trained participants to be 
significantly more efficient than the un-
trained, although he found little differ-
ence between the two groups in the ratio 

Role of Paraprofessionals 217 

of questions answered correctly. Bunge's 
study triggered a debate that continues 
today on the advisability of using para-
professionals at the reference desk. 11 

Louis Shores' 1968 paper entitled "Li-
brary Technician: A Professional Oppor-
tunity" advocates educational standards 
for this "middle group," whose inten-
sified utilization, he suggests, offers 
librarians the opportunity to assume 
"the high role in our society for which 
we are destined."12 Leo Nelson Flanagan's 
197 4 article entitled "A Sleeping Giant 
Awakens: The Unionization of Library 
Support Staffs" captures the militant spirit 
of a period of intense organizing on many 
of the nation's campusesY 

In an important essay, "The Manage-
ment of Libraries and the Professional 
Functions of Librarians," Ralph M. Ed-
wards describes the tension and confu-
sion that exist between the professional 
duties of librarians and library manage-
ment tasks. 14 Only when librarians are 
freed from mundane tasks, Edwards 
contends, will the profession flourish. 
Ostertag suggests that Edwards' article 
"lays the foundation for later discus-
sions concerning task shifting from pro-
fessionals to paraprofessionals." 

ContemporanJ Literature 

Of the articles that provide a context 
for the study of library paraprofession-
alism today, perhaps the most useful is 
Margaret Myers' "Staffing Patterns," an 
authoritative overview of changes in li-
brary staff deployment and utilization. 15 

Myers discusses duties, organizational 
structures, standards, policies, regula-
tions, and external and internal forces 
that affect all library staff, including 
paraprofessionals. In a 1981 article en-
titled "Improving the Effectiveness of Li-
braries through Improvements in the 
Quality of Working Life," Charles Mar-
tell proposes a redesigned library work 
environment that he suggests will im-
prove the services libraries offer and the 
ability of library staff to cope with rapid 
change and enhance the quality of li-
·brary work life.16 Robert E. Molyneux's 
"Staff Patterns and Library Growth at 
ARL Libraries, 1962/63 to 1983/84," re-



218 College & Research Libraries 

views expenditures for personnel and 
reports an increase in the ratio of support 
staff to librarians. 17 

In a seminal1982 article entitled "Con-
tinuity or Discontinuity-A Persistent 
Personnel Issue in Academic Librarian-
ship," Allen B. Veaner challenges the pro-
fession to come to grips with its long-
standing problems of personnel utiliza-
tion.18 His later two-part paper, "1985 to 
1995: The Next Decade in Academic 
Librarianship," anticipates change and 
assesses its implications for the status, 
welfare, and contribution of library per-
sonnel and the profession generally. 19 

The forces that are changing the role 
and status of both professionals and 
paraprofessionals were discussed in 
1986 by Joanne R. Euster in her brief but 
still useful "Changing Staffing Patterns 
in Academic Libraries." 2° Kathleen M. 
Heim and Debbie Wolcott review prob-
lems of support staff nomenclature and 
definition, the development of ALA 
policy on staff deployment, and com-
pare library paraprofessionals with their 
counterparts in law and medicine in 
their article entitled "Staff Utilization in 
Libraries." 21 In a 1992 essay entitled "The 
Emergence of the Paraprqfessional in Aca-
demic Libraries: Perceptions and Reali-
ties," Larry R. Oberg assesses the impact 
of this phenomenon upon the library 
workplace and analyzes the problems it 
poses for the profession. 22 

Non-U.S. Literature 

Numerous essays on library support 
staff have been published outside the 
United States. These studies are often 
more objective and less exhortative than 
those published here, but they have not 
been cited extensively. They add perspec-
tive and deserve closer attention. In 1981, 
John Levett compared library para-
professionals with their counterparts in 
social work and medicine in ''Para-
professional Workers in Four Fields: A 
Comparative Study."23 Ian M. Johnson re-
views the development of library techni-
cians in the United States, Czechoslovakia, 
Hungary, and Australia in "The Develop-
ment of Library Technicians: A Review of 
Experience in Selected Countries." 24 

May1992 

The pressures that lead to the emer-
gence of paraprofessionalism are ana-
lyzed in Brian A. Nettlefold's study 
entitled "Paraprofessionalism in Librar-
ianship."25 The division between pro-
fessional and support staff within 
information science and librarianship is 
treated by Karen Beales in a 1989 study 
entitled "Non-professional Information 
and Training." 26 

The political and historical contexts 
that have shaped the changes in the ed-
ucation and deployment of library sup-
port staff in England are discussed by 
Donald E. Davinson in his "Non-pro-
fessional Library Staff Education: A State 
of the Art Report and Proposals for the 
Future."27 Education for support staff 
within the English context is discussed 
by Josephine Webb in ''The Non-pro-
fessional in the Academic Library: Edu-
cation for Paraprofessionalism."28 Finally, 
Helen Smeaton describes the role and his-
tory of library technicians in the 
Australian work force in "Library Tech-
nicians in Australia: Past, Present and 
Future." 29 

STUDY DESIGN 

The basic objectives of this study are 
to determine the competencies required 
of paraprofessionals, how they are 
treated, and wha tthey are assigned to do 
in the academic library workplace. The 
authors also wished to ascertain any dis-
cernible patterns in the role, status, and 
working conditions of paraprofessionals 
that are attributable to the size of the 
library, the type of institutional control 
exercised (public or private), or the 
gender composition of the staff. These 
topics are much discussed, but little in-
vestigated. 

Because this is a broad descriptive sur-
vey, formal hypotheses were not elabo-
rated. Nonetheless, a number of ques-
tions guided the research: 
• What is the ratio of paraprofessionals 

to librarians and has that ratio changed 
over time? 

• What entry-level educational degrees 
are required of paraprofessionals and 
what degree levels have been attained 
by incumbents? 



To what extent are certain skills and 
competencies required of para-
professionals? 

• To what extent are paraprofessionals 
assigned work traditionally performed 
by librarians? 

• What level of administrative author-
ity is assigned to paraprofessionals? 

• To what extent are paraprofessionals 
involved in the governance of aca-
demic libraries? 

• To what extent does salary overlap 
occur between librarians and para-
professionals? 

• To what control groups are para-
professionals compared when salaries 
are reviewed? 

• To what extent are certain staff develop-
ment incentives made available to para-
professionals? And, 

• What is the average length of employ-
ment of paraprofessionals in academic 
libraries? 
Responses to all of these questions, in 

the form of data or comment, are in-
cluded in the tables and the Survey Re-
sults and the Discussion sections of this 
report. 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

With financial and technical support 
for the project provided by the Associa-
tion of College and Research Libraries 
(ACRL), the authors developed an orig-
inal21-ques tion survey instrument. This 
questionnaire was designed to elicit in-
formation on the discernible differences 
in the role, status, and working condi-
tions of paraprofessionals and librari-
ans. It includes a 150-word definition of 
the term paraprofessional and a 50-word 
definition of librarian.30 A copy of the 
survey instrument is available from the 
authors. After review by numerous 
librarians and other academics, the 
questionnaire was pretested in approxi-
mately 40 academic libraries. 

Sample Characteristics 

In January 1990, the questionnaire and 
a cover note printed on ACRL stationery 
were sent to two distinct populations.31 
The first and larger of the two is com-
posed of a random sample of 488 librar-

Role of Paraprofessionals 219 

ies drawn from the 2,747 institutions 
listed in the 1987 edition of the Carnegie 
Foundation's A Classification of Institu-
tions of Higher Education. This sample in-
cludes 17% of all public and 11% of all 
private institutions in the Carnegie 
Classification categories chosen for the 
survey.32 

Three hundred and ninety usable re-
sponses were received from this popula-
tion, yielding a return rate of 80%. 
Thirty-four questionnaires-mainly, but 
not exclusively, from small two-year in-
stitutions-were returned partially com-
pleted because these libraries reported that 
they employed no paraprofessionals as 
they were defined in the survey. 

The basic objectives of this study 
are to determine the competencies 
required of paraprofessionals, how 
they are treated, and what they are 
assigned to do in the workplace. 

The second population is composed of 
108 members of the Association of Re-
search Libraries (ARL) in the United 
States and Canada. Seventy-seven 
usable responses were received for a re-
turn rate of71% (see table 1). This second 
population was chosen because it consti-
tutes a well-defined group of libraries 
that represents, however imperfectly, 
the elite of the North American research 
library world. The ARL libraries also em-
ploy a disproportionately high percen-
tage of all academic library employees. 
Finally, because the ARL membership is 
chosen frequently as the subject of re-
search, the authors wished to add to the 
existing body of data and help flesh out 
the profile of this important group. 

The data from both the Carnegie 
Classification and the ARL samples were 
sorted by institution, type of institu-
tional control (public or private), and by 
the number and the gender of the para-
professional subjects. The Carnegie 
sample data were sorted by five Car-
negie Classification institutional catego-
ries as well as globally.33 Although the 
ARL institutions are included in the Car-



220 Coll~ge & Research Libraries May1992 

TABLEl 
INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 

Characteristic 

Type of Control 

Carnegie Classification 

Public 

Private 

ARLsample 

Public 

Private 

Carnegie Classification 

Research university I, research university II 

Doctorate-granting I, doctorate-granting II 

Comprehensive I, comprehensive II 

Liberal arts I, liberal arts II 

Two-year institutions 

ARL 

Volumes in library 
. 

Carnegie Classification 

0 to 24,999 

25,000 to 49,999 

50,000 to 99,999 

100,000 to 249,999 

250,000 to 499,999 

500,000 to 749,999 

750,000 to 1,000,000 

More than 1,000,000 

Total Sample 
Population Population 

1,482 246 

1,265 144 

70 55 

38 22 

104 15 

109 12 

595 90 

572 89 

1,367 184 

108 77 

52 

87 

79 

96 

39 

13 

4 

20 

% 
Total 

16.6 

11.4 

64.9 

57.9 

14.4 

11.0 

15.1 

15.6 

13.5 

71.3 

% 
Sample 

63.1 

36.9 

71.4 

28.6 

3.8 

3.1 

23.1 

22.8 

47.2 

100.0 

13.4 

22.3 

20.3 

24.6 

10.0 

3.3 

1.0 

5.1 

.... For the ARL sample, 76 of the 77 reporting institutions hold more than 1 million volumes. 

negie Classification, no overlap exists be-
tween the two samples. In the tables that 
accompany this report, the data generated 
by the Carnegie Classification categories 
of research universities and doctorate-
granting colleges and universities have 
been collapsed into a single category. 34 

The smallest library in the survey re-
ports holdings of 2,000 volumes; the 
largest seven million. Within the ARL 
sample, 76 of the 77 responding libraries 
report holdings of more than one million 
volumes. There is a total of 3,235 para-
professional jobs in the Carnegie and 
6,231 in the ARL sample libraries; the 
total number of librarian positions in the 

Carnegie sample is 2,940 and the total 
number in the ARL sample is 4,704. 
Within the Carnegie sample, there is a 
ratio of 1.10 paraprofessional to 1librar-
ian and a ratio of 4.40 female to 1 male 
paraprofessional. Within the ARL sample, 
the corresponding figures are 1.32:1 and 
3.07:1 (see table 2). 

SURVEY RESULTS 

The survey data indicate that impor-
tant changes have occurred in the ratio 
of librarians to paraprofessionals over 
the past twenty years. One-fourth of all 
respondents-24% of the Carnegie 
sample and 27% of the ARL sample-re-



Role of Paraprofessionals 221 

TABLE2 
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 

Ratio of 

No. of Paraprofession~ to Female-to-Male 
Paraprofessionals Librarians Paraprofessionals Population Sample 

Carnegie Classification 

Research university I, research 
university II 

Doctorate-granting I, doctorate-
granting II 

Comprehensive I, comprehensive ll 

Liberal arts I, liberal arts II 

Two-year institutions 

Total 

ARL 

1,066.5 1.15 2.68 

378.0 1.44 5.18 

792.0 0.98 6.12 

446.0 1.09 7.14 

552.0 1.10 5.19 

3,234.5 1.10 4.40 

6 231.0 1.32 3.07 

• This ratio was calculated by dividing the total number of paraprofessionals by the total number of 
librarians. 

port more paraprofessionals and fewer 
librarians on their staffs today than in 
the past. Less than half-44% of the Car-
negie and 40% of the ARL sample re-
spondents-report that the ratio has 
remained the same. Only 11% of the Car-
negie and 8% of the ARL sample respon-
dents report fewer paraprofessionals and 
more librarians than in the past. Another 
8% of the Carnegie Classification and 14% 
of the ARL respondents suggest that 
something else has occurred, most often 
noting that the number of librarians has 
remained constant while the number of 
paraprofessionals has increased. Thir-
teen percent of the Carnegie and 10% of 
the ARL respondents report that they do 
not know if change has occurred in the 
composition of their staffs. 

Education 

Educational requirements for para-
professionals vary widely by size and 
type of library. The educational levels 
attained by incumbents are often higher 
than what is required for their jobs. The 
data indicate that 93% of all responding 
ARL sample libraries require a high 
school degree of all or some of their 
paraprofessionals, 58% an associate 
degree, 76% a bachelor's degree, and 24% 
a graduate degree. The corresponding 
figures for the Carnegie sample libraries 

are 98%, a high school degree; 62%, an 
associate degree; 64%, a bachelor's degree; 
and 9%, a graduate degree (see table 3). 

Ninety-seven percent of the ARL and 
65% of the Carnegie sample libraries re-
port that they employ at least some para-
professionals who hold a degree higher 
than that required for the job (see table 4). 

Skills and Competencies 

A number of higher-level skills and 
competencies are required of para-
professionals in a high percentage of the 
libraries surveyed. For example, com-
puter skills are required of all or some 
paraprofessionals by 96% of the re-
sponding ARL and by 93% of the re-
sponding Carnegie sample libraries. 
Supervisory skills are required by 97% 
and administrative skills by 89% of the 
responding libraries within the ARL 
sample. The corresponding percentages 
for the Carnegie sample are 90 and 64. 
The requirements for interpersonal, oral, 
and written communication skills are 
also high (see table 5). 

Foreign language skills are required 
primarily by the large research libraries, 
a fact that no doubt reflects their more 
specialized collection needs. Eighty-one 
percent of the responding ARL sample 
libraries require foreign language skills 
of some or all of their paraprofessionals, 



222 College & Research Libraries May1992 

TABLE3 
FORMAL EDUCATIONAL DEGREES REQUIRED OF PARAPROFESSIONALS 

Degree 

HighSchool Associate Bachelor's Graduate Other 
Population Sample (l?'o) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Total Carnegie Classification / eN=348> (N=211) (N=237) (N=140) (N=79) 

Required of: 

All 91 26 23 0 20 

Some 7 36 41 9 5 

None 2 37 36 91 ' 75 

ARL (N=73) (N=54) (N=71) (N=55) (N=21) 

Required of: 

All 79 4 13 0 24 

Some 14 54 63 24 14 

None 7 43 24 76 62 

Gender 

Female (N=206) (N=114) (N=125) (N=69) (N=51) 

Required of: 

All 93 31 29 0 24 

Some 6 33 30 6 6 

None 1 36 42 94 71 

Male (N=75) (N=47) (N=59) (N=32) (N=13) 

Required of: 

All 89 28 24 0 7 
Some 9 40 51 16 8 

None 1 32 25 84 85 

TABLE4 
LIBRARIES EMPLOYING PARAPROFESSIONALS WHO HOLD EDUCATIONAL 

DEGREES HIGHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED FOR THEIR POSITIONS 

Population Sample 

Total Carnegie Classification (N=351) 

ARL (N=77) 

Gender 

Female (N=210) 
Male (N=75) 

while these skills are required by only 
3% of the two-year community, junior, 
and technical colleges and 18% of the 
liberal arts college libraries in the Car-
negie sample. 

Response 

Libraries That Employ: 

Some(%) 

65 

97 

55 
75 

Tasks Assigned 

None(%) 

35 

3 

45 
25 

Eighty-eight percent of all responding 
ARL sample libraries regularly schedule 
paraprofessionals to work at their refer-



Role of Paraprofessionals 223 

TABLES 
SKILLS AND OTHER COMPETENCIES REQUIRED OF PARAPROFESSIONALS 

Skill 

Oral and 
Written 

Foreign Com- Adminis- Inter-
Population Language Computer munication Supervisory trative personal Other 
Sample (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Total Carnegie 
Classification (N=307) (N=344) (N=347) (N=343) (N=323) (N=346) (N=35) 

Required of: 

All 2 35 70 34 13 80 23 

Some 13 58 26 56 51 17 29 

None 85 7 4 10 36 3 49 

ARL (N=76) (N=77) (N=76) (N=75) (N=73) (N=74) <N=10) 

Required of: 

All 21 57 7 3 53 20 

Some 80 75 41 90 86 47 40 

None 18 4 3 3 11 0 40 

TABLE6 
LIBRARIES THAT REGULARLY SCHEDULE PARAPROFESSIONALS AT THE 

REFERENCE/INFORMATION DESK AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED 

None 
Population Sample (%) 

Carnegie Classification 

Research/ doctoral 63 
(N=27) 

Comprehensive 40 
university (N=85) 

Liberal arts (N=86) 57 

Two-year (N=156) 54 

Total (N=354) 52 

ARL (N=77) 68 

Gender 

Female (N=210) 49 

Male (N=77) 69 

ence or information desks. Twenty per-
cent of these libraries impose restrictions 
upon their performance, typically requir-
ing a librarian to be present as backup. Of 
the total Carnegie sample, 66% regularly 
schedule paraprofessionals at their refer-
ence or information desks. Fourteen per-

Restriction Imposed 

Librarian 
Required as Not Permitted to 

Backup Other Work 
(%) (%) (%) 

15 0 22 

8 51 

9 6 28 

13 5 28 

11 3 33 

14 6 12 

11 5 35 

12 18 

cent of this group impose equivalent re-
strictions (see table 6). Size of library 
appears to be a factor, with large research 
libraries more likely than smaller ones to 

·use paraprofessionals at these desks. 
When the data from the Carnegie 

sample are sorted by number of para-



224 College & Research Libraries May1992 

TABLE7 
LIBRARIES THAT REGULARLY SCHEDULE PARAPROFESSIONALS TO 

PERFORM DIALOG, BRS, ORBIT, OR SIMILAR 
ONLINE DATABASE SEARCHES AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED 

Restriction Imposed 

Perform Ready 
None: May Perform Reference Searching Not Permitted to 
In-depth Searching 

Population Sample (%) 

Carnegie 
Classification 

Research/ doc- 18 
toral (N=22) 

Comprehensive 6 
university 
(N=85) 

Liberal arts 9 
(N=86) 

Two-year 3 
(N=157) 

Total (N=350) 6 

ARL (N=77) 12 

Gender 

Female 4 
(N=210) 

Male (N=77) 9 

professionals employed, they indicate 
that 74% of all paraprofessionals in the 
sample work in libraries in which at least 
some paraprofessionals are regularly as-
signed to the reference or information 
desks. All paraprofessionals in these li-
braries, therefore, are at least theoreti-
cally eligible to work at reference desks. 

Twenty-one percent of the responding 
Carnegie and 44% of the ARL sample 
libraries report regularly scheduling 
paraprofessionals to perform DIALOG, 
BRS, Orbit, or similar online database 
searches. Some libraries in both groups 
impose restrictions upon some of these 
paraprofessional database searchers, for 
example, limiting them to ready refer-
ence searching only. The utilization of 
paraprofessionals for online database 
searching, as well as their deployment 
at reference or information desks, is 
more likely to occur in the larger, 
rather than the smaller, sample librar-
ies (see table 7). 

Only 
(%) 

27 

11 

10 

8 

10 

27 

9 

16 

Other Search 
(%) (%) 

0 55 

82 

7 73 

6 83 

5 79 

5 56 

4 83 

6 69 

When weighted by the total number 
of paraprofessionals, the Carnegie sample 
data indicate that 46% of all para-
professionals in this group work in en-
vironments where at least some para-
professionals are regularly assigned to 
perform online database searching. 

Respondents were queried about the 
use of paraprofessionals to perform 
various other tasks, many of which have 
not been traditionally assigned to them. 
The data indicate that 92% of the re-
sponding ARL libraries regularly assign 
LC-input copy cataloging tasks to para-
professionals, and 91% assign them util-
ity member-input copy cataloging tasks. 
The corresponding percentages for Car-
negie Classification respondents are 61 
and 49. 

Fifty-one percent of all ARL respon-
dents regularly assign original descrip-
tive cataloging, and 36% assign both 
subject analysis and classification to para-
professionals. Considerably fewer Car-



Role of Paraprofessionals 225 

TABLES 
VARIOUS TASKS REGULARLY ASSIGNED PARAPROFESSIONALS 

Population Samples 

Total Carnegie Classification ARL 

Task (%)Yes 

Tours of library 

Formal instruction in library use 

Online catalog instruction 

CD-ROM instruction 

Book selection 

Collection development 

Copy cataloging: LC input 

Copy cataloging: Member input 

Original cataloging: Descriptive 

Original cataloging: Subject analysis 

Original cataloging: Classification 

negie sample libraries assign these origi-
nal cataloging duties to paraprofessionals, 
with 23% assigning descriptive, 16% as-
signing subject analysis, and 22% assign-
ing classification duties. 

Paraprofessionals are regularly as-
signed to lead tours of the library by 71% 
of the ARL and 40% of the Carnegie 
sample respondents. They are assigned 
formal instruction in library use by 21% 
of the ARL and 14% of the Carnegie re-
spondents; online catalog instruction by 
67% of the ARL and 26% of the Carnegie 
respondents; and CD-ROM instruction 
by 53% of the ARL and 36% of the Car-
negie respondents. Book selection and 
collection development duties are regu-
larly assigned to paraprofessionals by 21 
and 19% of the ARL respondents respec-
tively and by 23 and 16% of the Carnegie 
Classification respondents (see table 8). 

Administration and Governance 

Size of library is a factor in the level of 
administrative responsibility accorded para-
professionals. Respondents were asked if 
paraprofessionals in their libraries have as-
sumed substantial administrative re-
sponsibility in eleven functional areas, for 
example, budget formulation and training, 
supervision, and evaluation of full-time 
staff. In all of these areas, the ARL respon-

40 

14 

26 

36 

23 

16 

61 

49 

23 

16 

22 

No. (%)Yes No. 

(N=346) 71 (N=76) 

(N=339) 21 (N=75) 

(N=329) 67 (N=76) 

(N=337) 53 (N=77) 

(N=340) 21 (N=75) 

(N=338) ' 19 (N=75) 

(N=342) 92 (N=77) 

(N=341) 91 (N=75) 

(N=345) 51 (N=75) 

(N=340) 36 (N=76) 

(N=340) 36 (N=73) 

dents report assigning more administra-
tive responsibility to paraprofessionals 
than the Carnegie sample respondents. 

Fifty-one percent of all ARL 
respondents regularly assign original 
descriptive cataloging, and 36% 
assign both subject analysis and 
classification to paraprofessionals. 

Paraprofessionals are most frequently 
assigned substantial administrative re-
sponsibility in circulation (84% in the 
ARL and 46% in the Carnegie sample 
libraries); next in acquisitions (71 %, 
ARL; 27%, Carnegie); then in periodicals 
(66%, ARL; 33%, Carnegie); cataloging 
(64%, ARL; 22%, Carnegie); serials (63%, 
ARL; 24%, Carnegie); and interlibrary 
loan (58%, ARL; 30%, Carnegie). 

The ARL respondents are also more 
likely to assign substantial administra-
tive responsibility to paraprofessionals 
in branch units, documents, special col-
lections, and archives than are Carnegie 
respondents. Comparisons based on size 
may be biased, however, by the fact that 
larger libraries are more likely than 
smaller ones to offer these particular col-
lections and services (see table 9). 



226 College & Research Libraries May1992 

TABLE9 
LIBRARIES THAT REGULARLY ASSIGN PARAPROFESSIONALS SUBSTANTIAL 

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY IN VARIOUS FUNCTIONAL AREAS 
Population Samples 

Total Carnegie Classification ARL 
I 

Area of Responsibility (%)Yes No. (%)Yes No. 

Circulation 46 (N=346) 84 (N=75) 

Interlibrary loan 30 (N=342) 58 (N=74) 

Periodicals 33 (N=340) 66 (N=73) 

Acquisitions 27 (N=339) 71 (N=75) 

Serials 24 (N=334) 63 (N=73) 

Cataloging 22 (N=332) 64 (N=74) 

Branch units 9 (N=318) 55 (N=69) 

Documents 13 (N=328) 38 (N=68) 

Special collections 10 (N=326) 37 (N=70) 

Archives 11 (N=319) 24 (N=63) 

Other 14 (N=175) 53 (N=19) 

TABLElO 
LEVEL OF PARAPROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN LIBRARY GOVERNANCE 

Very 
Substantial 

Population Sample (%) 

Total Carnegie Classification 12 
(N=354) 

ARL (N=77) 

Gender 

Female (N=210) 14 

Male (N=77) 12 

Respondents were asked to character-
ize the level of involvement of para-
professionals in the governance, policy 
formulation, planning and other admin-
istrative functions of their libraries. Thirty-
eight percent of the Carnegie Classification 
respondents characterize this involve-
ment as substantial or very substantial. 
Forty-five percent report some para-
professional involvement. The corre-
sponding percentages for the ARL sample 
respondents are somewhat lower at 19 and 
60 percent respectively. 

The differences in the responses of the 
Carnegie Classification and the ARL re-
spondents indicate a degree of correla-
tion with the size of the libraries. For 

Level of Involvement 

Substantial Some Little None 
(%) (%) (%) (%) 

26 45 13 3 

18 60 21 0 

28 39 15 4 

30 48 8 3 

example, the smaller liberal arts colleges 
and the two-year community, junior, and 
technical colleges report more involve-
ment at the level characterized as very 
substantial (see table 10). 

Working Conditions 

Eighty-seven percent of all respond-
ing ARL libraries have ranked classifica-
tion systems, or career ladders, that 
differentiate paraprofessional jobs by 
level of responsibility. When these re-
sponses are weighted by the total number 
of paraprofessionals, the data indicate that 
these libraries employ 91% of all para-
professionals in the ARL sample. The 
Carnegie Classification data indicate 



Role of Paraprofessionals 227 

TABLE 11 
LIBRARIES WITH RANKED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS THAT 

DIFFERENTIATE PARAPROFESSIONALS BY LEVELS OF RESPONSIBILITY 

Population Sample 

Institutional Response 

(%) Yes 

Response Weighted by ~o. of 
Paraprofessionals 

(%) Yes 

Carnegie Classification 

Research/doctoral (N=27) 

Comprehensive university (N=85) 

Liberal arts (N=86) 

TlV~year(N=157) 

Total (N=355) 

Type of Control 

Public (N=222) 

Private <N=133) 

ARL (N=77) 

Type of Control 

Public 

Private 

Gender 

Female (N=210) 

Male (N=77) 

85 

58 

23 

44 

45 

59 

21 

87 

89 

82 

38 

47 

94 

76 

43 

67 

78 

91 

• These data lVere lVeighted by the number of paraprofessionals at each responding library. 

that 45% of the libraries in this sample 
have ranked classifica~ion systems; 
however, this 45% employs 78% of all of 
the paraprofessionals in this same 
sample. The Carnegie Classification 
category with the fewest ranked classifi-
cation systems is the liberal arts colleges 
with 23%. 

In general, the survey results reveal 
few differences in the responses of pri-
vate and public institutions. A few impor-
tant variations, however, were recorded. 
For example, more than half (59%) of the 
publicly supported institutions have 
ranked classification systems for their 
paraprofessionals. But this is true for less 
than one-fourth (21 %) of the libraries in 
private institutions (see table 11). 

Ninety-one percent of all responding 
ARL libraries report some overlap be-
tween professional and paraprofessional 
salaries. Salary overlap indicates that ali-
brary pays at least some of its para-
professionals wages comparable to or 

higher than those of entry-level librari-
ans. The corresponding figure for the 
Carnegie sample libraries drops to 30%. 
Within the Carnegie sample, 14% of the 
responding liberal arts college libraries 
and 23% of the responding two-year 
community, junior, and technical college 
libraries report salary overlap between 
the two groups (see table 12). 

Most institutions use comparisons 
with other employee groups as criteria 
in the determination of paraprofessional 
salaries. The data indicate that a high 
percentage of both samples-83% of the 
Carnegie Classification and 78% of the 
ARL respondents-use other support 
staff salaries on campus as a comparison 
criterion. Less frequently cited criteria 
are salaries for equivalent jobs in librar-
ies at other institutions (41 %, Carnegie; 
47%, ARL); librarians' salaries at the same 
institution (14%, Carnegie; 8%, ARL); and 
other government employees' salaries as 
mandated by the state (22%, Carnegie; 



228 College & Research Libraries 

TABLE12 
LIBRARIES REPORTING SALARY 

OVERLAP BETWEEN 
PARAPROFESSIONALS AND 

LIBRARIANS 
Response 

Some No 
Overlap Overlap 

Po~ulation Sam~le (%) (%) 

Total Carnegie 
Classification (N=350) 30 70 

ARL (N=77) 91 9 

Gender 

Female (N=208) 22 78 

Male (N=76) 41 59 

40%, ARL). Twenty-four percent of the 
Carnegie and 45% of the ARL sample 
respondents report that salaries are es-
tablished through collective bargaining 
negotiations (see table 13). 

The ARL sample are more likely than 
the Carnegie sample libraries to make 
various incentives available to para-
professionals. 

The privately controlled institutions 
are more likely than the publicly sup-
ported ones to refer to other campus sup-
port staff categories (91% versus 77%) or 
librarians at the same institution (19% ver-

May1992 

sus 10%) in determining paraprofessional 
salaries. Private institutions, however, are 
less likely to make comparisons with 
equivalent jobs at other institutions (34% 
versus 46%) or to arrive at salary deter-
minations through collective bargaining 
negotiations (9% versus 32%) than are 
publicly supported ones. 

Staff Development 

Respondents were queried about staff 
development incentives offered all para-
professionals and incentives offered 
only those seeking to acquire the M.L.S. 
In both cases, the ARL sample libraries 
are more likely than the Carnegie sample 
libraries to make various incentives 
available to paraprofessionals. For ex-
ample, 84% of the Carnegie respondents 
offer orientation to new staff members, 
and 78% offer workshops and other in-
house training programs. The corre-
sponding percentages for the ARL 
libraries are 97% in both cases. Ninety-
six percent of the ARL sample respon-
dents offer released time and 87% 
funding to attend local, state, and re-
gional meetings; the corresponding per-
centages for the Carnegie sample are 90 
and 81. 

Released time to attend national meet-
ings is offered to paraprofessionals by 
68% of the ARL respondents, but by only 
32% of the Carnegie Classification re-
spondents. Funding to attend national 

TABLE 13 
COMPARISON CRITERIA USED TO DETERMINE 

PARAPROFESSIONAL SALARIES 

Population Samples 

Total Carnegie Classification 

Criteria (%)Yes No. (%)Yes 

Other support staff salaries on campus 83 (N=305) 78 

Salaries of equivalent positions in libraries 
at other institutions 41 (N=265) 47 

Librarians' salaries at the same institution 14 (N=259) 8 

Other government employees' salaries as 
mandated by the state 22 (N=260) 40 

Salaries established through collective 
bargaining negotiations 24 (N=274) 45 

Other 31 (N=77) 50 

ARL 

No. 

(N=65) 

(N=57) 

(N=53) 

(N=55) 

(N=66) 

(N=22) 



Role of Paraprofessionals 229 

TABLE14 
STAFF DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES OFFERED PARAPROFESSIONALS 

Population Samples Gender-based Samples 

Total Carnegie 
Classification ARL Sample Female Male 

Incentive %Yes No. 

Orientation of new staff members 84 (N=337) 

Workshops and other in-house 
training programs 78 (N=343) 

Released time to attend local, state, 
and regional meetings 90 (N=349) 

Released time to attend national 
meetings 32 (N=327) 

Funding to attend local, state, and 
regional meetings 81 (N=350) 

Funding to attend national 
meetings 24 (N=327) 

Other 21 (N=57) 

meetings is offered by 61% of the ARL, 
but only 24% of the Carnegie respon-
dents (see table 14). The smaller Car-
negie Classification category libraries are 
less likely to grant paraprofessionals re-
leased time and funding to attend national 
meetings than are their larger counter-
parts. For example, only 27% of the re-
sponding liberal arts colleges grant 
released time and 20% funding. The corre-
sponding percentages for the two-year com-
munity, junior, and technical colleges are 
30 and 22%, and for the comprehensive 
colleges and universities, 31 and 26%. 

Libraries in private institutions are 
more likely than those in public institu-
tions to grant released time for classes 
(53% versus 44%), adjusted work sched-
ules (88% versus 77%), and preference 
for a professional position upon gradua-
tion (47% versus 23%) to paraprofession-
als who wish to acquire the M.L.S. 

When respondents were queried about 
the incentives they offer paraprofessionals 
seeking an M.L.S., the ARL respondents 
were again found to be the more gener-
ous. For example, 51% of the ARL respon-
dents offer paraprofessionals seeking an 
M.L.S. released time for classes, 91% offer 
adjusted work schedules, and 60% offer 
tuition remission or reimbursement. The 

%Yes No. %Yes No. %Yes No. 

97 (N=75) 82 (N=194) 89 (N=75) 

97 (N=76) 74 (N=199) 87 (N=76) 

96 (N=77) 90 (N=205) 96 (N=76) 

68 (N=77) 24 (N=188) 42 (N=74) 

87 (N=76) 78 (N=206) 86 (N=76) 

61 (N=75) 18 (N=189) 31 (N=74) 

58 (N=12) 14 (N=35) 45 (N=ll) 

corresponding percentages for the Carnegie 
sample respondents are 37, 67, and 33%. 

When respondents were asked if they 
would grant preference for reemploy-
ment in a professional position to former 
paraprofessionals upon graduation, 
however, only 9% of the ARL, compared 
with 24% of the Carnegie sample respon-
dents, replied yes. With a 39% response 
rate, the liberal arts college libraries are 
the Carnegie Classification category 
most likely to reemploy in professional 
positions paraprofessionals who attain 
the M.L.S. (see table 15). 

The differences in the responses of the 
two samples are highlighted when the 
Carnegie data are weighted by number 
of paraprofessionals. For example, only 
24% of the Carnegie Classification re-
spondents report that they would be 
willing to fund paraprofessional atten-
dance at a national meeting. This 24%, 
however, employs 40% of all para-
professionals in the total Carnegie sample. 

Length of Employment 

The Carnegie respondents' estimates 
of the average length of employment of 
paraprofessionals are somewhat lower 
than those of the ARL respondents. For 
example, 33% of the Carnegie and 22% 



230 College & Research Libraries May1992 

TABLEtS 
INCENTIVES OFFERED PARAPROFESSIONALS SEEKING TO ACQUIRE AN M.L.S. 

Incentive 

Preferential 
Rehire in a 

Tuition Professional 
Released Time Adjusted Remission or Position upon 

for Classes Work Schedule Reimbursement Graduation Other 
Population Sample (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 

Carnegie Classification 

Research/ doctoral 
(N=27) 56 96 56 15 4 

Comprehensive 
university (N=90) 36 74 36 24 6 

Liberal arts (N=89) 51 79 22 39 6 

Two-year (N=184) 28 53 33 17 4 

Total (N=390) 37 67 33 24 5 

ARL (N=77) 51 91 60 9 5 

Gender 

Female (N=170) 47 74 39 32 20 

Male (N=65) 47 88 36 39 43 

TABLE 16 
AVERAGE LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT OF PARAPROFESSIONALS 

0-1 
Population Sample (%) 

Carnegie Classification (N=350) 

ARL (N=77) 

Gender 

Female (N=207) 

Male (N=76) 

of the ARL respondents estimate the 
average length of paraprofessional em-
ployment to be 2 to 5 years. Twenty-six 
percent of the Carnegie and 19% of the 
ARL respondents estimate the average 
length of paraprofessional employment 
to be 11 or more years (see table 16). 

Gender Perspective 

Results based on gender were arrived 
at by sorting all Carnegie Classification 
responses into male and female samples. 
The female sample includes the data 
from 211 libraries reporting all-female 
paraprofessional staffs. The male sample 
includes the data from 77 libraries re-

1 

0 

1 

1 

Years of Employment 

2-5 6-10 11 or More 
(%) (%) (%) 

33 39 26 

22 58 19 

35 33 31 

38 41 20 

porting a male-to-female ratio of 1:4 or 
more. The male sample is referred to as 
"a considerable male paraprofessional 
presence" and the female sample as "all-
female paraprofessional staff members." 

The data derived from these gender-
based sorts reveal that the reward struc-
tures and working conditions for all 
paraprofessionals are better in libraries 
where this cohort includes a high or rela-
tively high proportion of males. For ex-
ample, 41% of all Carnegie Classification 
libraries with a considerable male para-
professional presence report some salary 
overlap between paraprofessionals and 
librarians, but at libraries with all-female 



paraprofessional staffs that figure de-
clines to 22% (see table 12). Forty-seven 
percent of the responding libraries with a 
considerable male paraprofessional pre-
sence offer a ranked classification system, 
or career ladder, for all paraprofessionals. 
This holds true, however, for only 38% 
of the reporting libraries with all-female 
paraprofessional staffs (see table 11). 

More libraries with a considerable 
male paraprofessional presence report 
regularly assigning paraprofessionals 
tasks traditionally performed by librari-
ans than do libraries reporting all-female 
paraprofessional staffs. For example, 82% 
of the responding libraries with a con-
siderable male paraprofessional presence 
regularly schedule paraprofessionals to 
work at the reference desk, but this holds 
true for only 65% of those with all-feJ.ru,lle 
paraprofessional staffs. Also, fewer re-
strictions are imposed upon para-
professionals performing these tasks in 
libraries with a considerable male para-
professional presence (see table 6). 

This gender-related differential re-
mains constant in sample libraries that 
regularly schedule paraprofessionals to 
perform DIALOG, BRS, or Orbit search-
ing of remote online databases. Thirty-one 
percent of the responding libraries with a 
considerable male paraprofessional pre-
sence regularly schedule paraprofessionals 
to perform this task, while only 17% of 
those with all-female paraprofessional 
staffs do (see table 7). 

The data also indicate that there is a 
slightly higher level of support for staff 
development activities in responding li-
braries with a considerable male para-
professional presence. This difference is 
most apparent in the level of support 
granted for attending national confer-
ences. Of those libraries reporting a con-
siderable male paraprofessional presence, 
42% offer released time and 31% offer 
funding to paraprofessionals who wish 
to attend national workshops or confer-
ences. The corresponding percentages for 
libraries with all-female paraprofessional 
staffs drop to 24 and 18% respectively (see 
table 14). No major gender differences 
were found, however, in the level of sup-
port for paraprofessionals seeking to ac-

Role of Paraprofessionals 231 

quire an M.L.S. Released time, adjusted 
work schedules, and tuition remission or 
reimbursement are granted both groups 
in approximately equal measure (see 
table 15). 

The educational level of paraprofession-
als is reported by the director-respondents 
to be higher in libraries with a considerable 
male paraprofessional presence. Seventy-
five percent report that they employ some 
paraprofessionals who hold a degree 
higher than that required for the job. Of 
those libraries with all-female para-
professional staffs, that estimate de-
clines to 55% (see table 4). 

The working conditions for all para-
professionals are better in libraries 
where this cohort includes a high or 
relatively high proportion of males. 

Turnover among paraprofessionals is 
somewhat higher in responding libraries 
whose staffs include a considerable male 
paraprofessional presence. Only 20% of 
these institutions report the average 
length of employment to be more than 10 
years, while the figure for libraries with 
all-female paraprofessional staffs is 31% 
(see table 16). At the same time, no mean-
ingful differences in the perceived levels 
of involvement of paraprofessionals in 
the governance of their libraries are found 
between these two subject groups. Forty-
two percent of each group of respondents 
report substantial or very substantial para-
professional involvement (see table 10). 

DISCUSSION 

The collective portrait of paraprofession-
als that emerges from this survey is that of 
a vital, growing force within academic li-
braries. Few traditional or newly created 
tasks are off-limits, and paraprofession-
als are routinely assigned complex du-
ties that a generation ago characterized 
the work of librarians. Paraprofessionals 
are better off in large research libraries 
than they are in small college libraries 
and better off when the staff includes a 
considerable number of males. In many 
cases, the data confirm widely held im-



232 College & Research Libraries 

pressions that until now were supported 
by anecdotal evidence only. 

Many of the respondents report not 
only employing more paraprofessionals 
today than in the past, but fewer librari-
ans as well. Most paraprofessionals are 
female. The large libraries are character-
ized by a higher ratio of paraprofession-
als to librarians and a higher ratio of 
male-to-female paraprofessionals than 
the smaller ones. The survey, however, 
was not designed to respond to the ques-
tions of whether library administrators 
are replacing professionals with para-
professionals and, if they are, in what 
areas and for what reasons. These ques-
tions deserve closer scrutiny. 

The collective portrait of paraprofes-
sionals that emerges from this survey 
is that of a vital, growing force within 
academic libraries. 

As a group, paraprofessionals tend to 
be better qualified than their job descrip-
tions require them to be. The ARL and 
the other large research libraries have 
higher formal degree requirements than 
do the smaller libraries. This trend may 
reflect both availability and the more 
specialized staffing needs of the larger 
libraries. Overqualification likely con-
tributes to task overlap between librari-
ans and paraprofessionals. 

Why paraprofessionals often are over-
qualified warrants investigation. Over-
qualification may result from the pro-
longed slowdown of the economy and the 
general contraction of higher education in 
the United States. Poor job design, poor 
task assignment, restrictions on mobility, 
or simply the fact that educated candidates 
find library jobs to be intellectually appeal-
ing no doubt contribute. Newly minted 
liberal arts graduates who lack market-
able job skills may be attracted to the 
service role of the library, the prestige of 
the academy, and the high level of toler-
ance for cultural diversity and noncon-
formity found on campuses. 

There is also the possibility that librar-
ians seek out applicants with qualifica-

May1992 

tions higher than what their institutions 
permit them to require. In college librar-
ies, for example, the librarian's right to 
require a bachelor's degree can be chal-
lenged by campus administrators who 
prefer to keep library jobs in line with other 
campus jobs that do not require the B.A. 

Many high-level skills are demanded 
of paraprofessionals. Tasks that in the 
past were the exclusive preserve of 
librarians are now routinely assigned to 
paraprofessionals. In a majority of all 
academic libraries, for example, para-
professionals are regularly scheduled to 
work at reference and information 
desks. 35 A surprisingly high number are 
regularly scheduled to perform online 
database searches. Although restrictions 
are placed upon their performance in 
relatively few libraries, the long-stand-
ing debate over whether paraprofession-
als should be used at reference desks 
appears to be resolved, at least in prac-
tice. Here again, large libraries are more 
likely than small ones to use para-
professionals for this task, possibly be-
cause these large schools have lower 
librarian-to-student ratios. 

How successfully paraprofessionals 
perform at the reference desk has been a 
concern of library researchers for many 
years. The question of why significant 
numbers of paraprofessionals have been 
pressed into service at the reference 
desk, however, is less well researched 
and deserves further attention. On the 
one hand, it may be that as librarians 
assumed their new database-searching 
and faculty status-related obligations of 
governance, research, and teaching, bud-
get constraints kept them from hiring 
enough additional librarians to staff the 
desk exclusively with professionals. On 
the other hand, the increased use of par-
aprofessionals at the reference desk may 
reflect the fledgling trend toward the di-
vision of reference work into its two logi-
cal components, information provision 
and research support. 

In both technical and public services, 
paraprofessionals are routinely assigned 
tasks that in the past they were rarely if 
ever allowed to perform. An important 
issue that future studies should investi-



gate is whether paraprofessionals are 
being assigned levels of responsibility 
higher than what is required by their 
classification. Today, paraprofessionals 
perform copy cataloging in a majority of 
all academic libraries. A considerable 
number of the ARL libraries assign para-
professionals original cataloging as well. 
Fewer Carnegie Classification libraries as-
sign original cataloging tasks to para-
professionals, but this difference may 
simply reflect the fact that less original 
cataloging is performed at the smaller 
libraries. More surprisingly, approxi-
mately one-fifth of all academic libraries 
surveyed assign book selection and col-
lection development duties to para-
professionals. The figure is somewhat 
higher than the 10 to 11% of the library 
assistants whom Patricia A. Kreitz and 
Annegret Ogden found to be engaged in 
collection building at the University of 
California. 36 

The data indicate that considerably 
more administrative responsibility for 
various functional areas is invested in 
paraprofessionals by the ARL than by 
the smaller Carnegie Classification librar-
ies. At the same time, Carnegie library 
respondents report paraprofessionals to 
be more deeply involved in library 
governance than do their ARL counter-
parts. Of course, the sheer size of the 
larger institutions may preclude the 
level of involvement that can be 
achieved at the smaller ones. 

One measure of the recognition ac-
corded support staff is whether a career 
ladder, or ranked classification system, 
is made available to them. Here, size of 
institution plays a clear role. Almost 90% 
of the ARL respondents report career 
ladders for paraprofessionals, a figure 
that varies little by type of institutional 
control. This percentage drops precipi-
tously in the smaller institutions. 

Traditional wisdom holds that career 
ladders are confined to larger libraries 
because little opportunity for advance-
ment predicated on specialization or 
added supervisory responsibility exists in 
the smaller ones. It is not clear, however, 
that this argument can be maintained in a 
period of rapid change and technologi-

Role of Paraprofessionals 233 

cal innovation. It is probable, however, 
that a higher degree of unionization in 
the larger libraries accounts for at least 
some of this difference. In the liberal arts 
college libraries, the lack of a career lad-
der may be attributed to the gentlemen's 
agreement that is presumed to exist be-
tween employees and administration 
and its logical outgrowth, an honor sys-
tem in which careers are codified with a 
handshake rather than a contract. 

Tasks that in the past were the 
exclusive preserve of librarians are 
now routinely assigned to para-
professionals. 

The same polarization of response by 
size of library was recorded when direc-
tors of large and small institutions were 
asked if salary overlap exists between 
paraprofessionals and librarians. Here 
as well, larger libraries are more likely 
than smaller ones to report such overlap. 
Unionization may play a role. It would 
be interesting to compare salaries in 
schools at which the paraprofessionals 
are unionized and the librarians are not, 
with salaries at schools where the 
reverse is true. 

The determination of paraprofessional 
salaries at both large and small libraries 
appears to depend heavily upon job com-
parisons with other support staff on the 
local campuses. The responses received 
raise doubts about whether librarians 
have communicated effectively to cam-
pus administrators and personnel officers 
the magnitude of the changes that have 
occurred in paraprofessional jobs. Cam-
pus personnel officers hold considerable 
power, yet often know little about what 
goes on in a library. Research focused in 
this area should aim at determining if 
these comparisons are being made with 
appropriate nonlibrary support staff 
jobs. Clearly, inappropriate comparisons 
of library paraprofessional jobs with un-
related clerical jobs in food services, physi-
cal plant, and business or departmental 
offices would degrade library para-
professional salaries and status. 



234 College & Research Libraries 

A high percentage of the respondents 
offer a variety of staff development in-
centives to paraprofessionals, although 
the number dips sharply when higher 
levels of funding are involved, for ex-
ample, attendance at national meetings. 
As more paraprofessionals begin to 
speak and act at the national level, fund-
ing will assume greater importance to 
them. Because it is likely that librarian ad-
vancement is more directly correlated to 
attendance and participation than support 
staff advancement, however, travel funds 
for paraprofessionals should not be in com-
petition with those for professionals. 

The ARL libraries are somewhat more 
likely than the Carnegie sample libraries 
to offer certain staff development incen-
tives, although the differences are not 
great. The data do not, however, address 
the question of how equitably travel 
funding is distributed, nor whether para-
professionals are encouraged to apply 
for it or are even informed that it is avail-
able. In fact, several respondents noted 
that they would, indeed, grant travel 
support to paraprofessionals were it re-
quested, but added that none had yet 
come forth to apply. 

The large libraries offer more incen-
tives than the smaller ones for para-
professionals seeking to acquire the 
M.L.S., yet they are much less likely than 
their smaller counterparts to reemploy 
paraprofessionals in professional posi-
tions upon graduation. Whether librar-
ies should rehire as professionals 
support staff who attain the M.L.S. bears 
directly upon the pattern of education 
librarianship should provide. A discus-
sion of whether the abrupt rupture of 
forced relocation is an appropriate entry 
requirement into the profession would 
be useful. Another phenomenon that 
should be investigated is the effect of 
hiring candidates with graduate library 
degrees into paraprofessional positions. 

In sum, the data indicate that the ARL 
libraries expect more, pay more, offer 
more tangible benefits, employ more 
males, and have a higher rate of para-
professional turnover than do the smaller 
Carnegie Classification libraries. Librari-
ans in smaller libraries may wish to emu-

May1992 

late some of the practices of their counter-
parts in the larger institutions, but it is 
doubtful that the larger institutions con-
stitute a definitive model. Progress 
towards equity in the ARL libraries re-
mains slow. 

Although the large libraries have 
more clearly defined benefits and expec-
tations, it is often suggested that the 
smaller ones, particularly those at the 
liberal arts colleges, have more informal 
flexibility, offer deeper involvement in 
the life of the library and the campus, 
and provide more intangible rewards. 37 

Small liberal arts college libraries also 
have captive applicant pools populated 
to an unknown degree by faculty and 
student spouses and those seeking tui-
tion remission for themselves or their 
dependents. Further, better job oppor-
tunities no doubt exist in the larger 
metropolitan areas where many ARL li-
braries are located. 

Perhaps not unexpectedly, the data in-
dicate that all paraprofessionals are bet-
ter off in libraries that employ a con-
siderable number of males. The more 
males there are on the paraprofessional 
staff, the higher the salaries relative to 
the salaries of librarians, the higher the 
level of involvement in administrative 
decision making, the more likely it is that 
paraprofessionals are allowed to work at 
the reference desk and perform online 
database searching, and the better 
their chances of obtaining released 
time and funding to attend national 
conferences. 

The implications of these data are self-
evident for such issues as occupational 
segregation, pay equity, and comparable 
worth. These data also tend to confirm 
that paraprofessionals as well as librari-
ans suffer the effects of working within 
a majority-female profession and the ef-
fects of female socialization into passive 
roles. 38 The remarkable ability of librari-
ans to deny these problems should not, 
however, be allowed to hinder research 
in this area.39 

At the same time, numerous forces are 
changing profoundly the nature of li-
brary work. Two changes in particular, 
increased automation and the growing 



intellectualization of the field, hold promise 
of improving the status of all who work 
within librarianship.40 Both computers 
and intellectual work are traditionally 
associated with majority-male profes-
sions. Their more recent association with 
libraries can contribute to changing the 
generalized perception of librarianship 
as woman's work. This change should 
enhance the status of the profession and 
give both women and men in libraries a 
greater sense of empowerment. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The results of this survey can be inter-
preted as a mandate to the profession to 
define less ambiguously the role, status, 
and working conditions of librarians 
and paraprofessionals alike. The rapid 
changes occurring in the library work-
place underscore the need for continu-
ing local and national review of the 
deployment and utilization of all library 
staff. The emergence of para profession-
als as a distinct class of library employee, 
the dangerously broad band of task 
overlap between paraprofessionals and 
librarians, and the failure of leadership 
and vision within the profession pose 
severe problems. 

Role of Paraprofessionals 235 

The resolution of these problems re-
quires the development of standards, 
guidelines, and other policy statements 
that address such primary concerns as 
staff structures, classification systems, 
basic and continuing education, and ed-
ucational degree and certification re-
quirements. The coping mechanisms 
adopted by other majority-female pro-
fessions, for example, nursing and teach-
ing, should be examined closely. At the 
national level, librarians need to create 
model staff development programs that 
can be replicated locally and define pro-
ductive roles and appropriate member-
ship categories for paraprofessionals 
within their professional associations. 

Librarianship will certainly fail to at-
tain full professional status unless librar-
ians come to grips with the problems 
that inhere in poor staff deployment, 
task overlap, role blurring, and their pas-
sive acceptance of the profession as sex-
typed. Unfortunately, librarians shy 
away from and even deny these prob-
lems. A lack of collective self-esteem, 
however, must not prevent the resolu-
tion of this staffing dilemma, a dilemma 
that is nothing less than a metaphor for 
a profession at the crossroads. 

REFERENCES AND NOTES 
1. Paraprofessionals are generally defined as a category of employee that ranks above 

clerks and below professionals in a status hierarchy. See note 30 for the definition of 
paraprofessionals used in this survey. 

2. Oberg discusses the effects of task overlap and role blurring in the workplace and the 
profession in Larry R. Oberg, "The Emergence of the Paraprofessional in Academic 
Libraries: Perceptions and Realities," College & Research Libraries 53:99-112 (Mar. 1992). 

3. American Library Association, Libran; Education and Personnel Utilization (Chicago: 
American Library Assn., 1976). LEPU was originally promulgated in 1970 as Library 
Education and Manpower 

4. The need for a new model of librarianship to define less ambiguously the roles of all 
players is discussed in Oberg, "The Emergence of the Paraprofessional," p. 108-9. 

5. Although the data would support more rigorous statistical analysis, additional 
manipulation was considered beyond the scope of the present effort. A second paper, 
focusing on several aspects of paraprofessionalism that the authors feel would profit 
from further examination, may appear at a later date. 

6. J. Keith Ostertag, "Annotated Bibliography," in J. Keith Ostertag and Kathleen M. 
Heim, eds., Libran; Support Staff: Challenges for the 90s (Chicago: American Library 
Assn., Office for Library Personnel Resources, 1992). 

7. Charlotte Mugnier, The Paraprofessional and the Professional Job Structure (Chicago: 
American Library Assn., 1980). 

8. Charles W. Evans, "The Evolution of Paraprofessional Library Employees," in Advances 
in Librarians/zip v.9 (New York: Academic, 1978), p.64-101. 



236 College & Research Libraries May1992 

9. Olga B. Bishop, The Use of Professional Staff in Libraries: A Review 1923-1971 (Ottawa: 
Canadian Library Assn., 1973). 

10. Lester Asheim, "Education and Manpower for Librarianship: A Position Paper Sug-
gesting First Steps Toward a Statement of Policy," ALA Bulletin 62:1096-1106 (Oct. 
1968). 

11. Charles A. Bunge, Professional Education and Reference Efficiency (Springfield, lll.: illinois 
State Library, 1967). 

12. Louis Shores, "Library Technic~an: A Professional Opportunity," Special Libraries 
59:240-45 (Apr. 1968). 

13. Leo Nelson Aanagan, "A Sleeping Giant Awakens: The Unionization of Library Sup-
port Staffs," Wilson Library Bulletin 48:491-99 (Feb. 1974). 

14. Ralph M. Edwards, "The Management of Libraries and the Professional Functions of 
Librarians," Library Quarterly 45:150-60 (Apr. 1975). 

15. Margaret Myers, "Staffing Patterns," in Sheila Creth and Frederick Duda, Personnel 
Administration in Libraries, 2d ed. (New York: Neal-Schuman, 1989), p.40-63. 

16. Charles Martell, "Improving the Effectiveness of Libraries through Improvements in 
the Quality of Working Life," College & Research Libraries 42:435-46 (Sept. 1981). 

17. Robert E. Molyneux, "Staffing Patterns and Library Growth at ARL Libraries, 1962/63 
to 1983/84," Journal of Academic Librarians/zip 12:292-97 (Nov. 1986). 

18. Allen B. Veaner, "Continuity or Discontinuity-A Persistent Personnel Issue in Aca-
demic Librarianship," Advances in Library Administration & Organization 1:1-20 (1982). 

19. Allen B. Veaner, "1985 to 1995: The Next Decade in Academic Librarianship, Part I," 
College & Research Libraries 46:209-29 (May 1985), and Allen B. Veaner, "1985 to 1995: 
The Next Decade in Academic Librarianship, Part II," College & Research Libraries 
46:295-308 (July 1985). . 

20. Joanne R. Euster, "Changing Staffing Patterns in Academic Libraries," Libran; Issues 
7:[1]-[3] (Sept. 1986). 

21. Kathleen M. Heim and Debbie Wolcott, with the assistance of Ed McCormack, "Staff 
Utilization in Libraries: The Historical and Environmental Context for Renewed At-
tention to Education, Role Definition, and Articulation with Special Consideration of 
Medicine and Law," Louisiana Library Association Bulletin 52:149-58 (Spring 1990). 

22. Oberg, "The Emergence of the Paraprofessional." 
23. John Levett, "Paraprofessional Workers in Four Fields: A Comparative Study," The 

Australian Library Journal30:47-54 (May 1981). 
24. Ian M. Johnson, "The Development of Library Technicians: A Review of Experience in 

Selected Countries," IFLA General Conference, 1990, Booklet 3 (The Hague, 1990; 
Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 329 284), p.53-61. 

25. Brian A . Nettlefold, "Paraprofessionalism in Librarianship," International Library Re-
view 21:519-31 (1989). 

26. Karen Beales, "Non-professional Information and Training," Education for Information 
7:29-41 (1989). 

27. Donald E. Davinson, "Non-professional Library Staff Education: A State of the Art 
Report and Proposals for the Future," in Studies in Library Management, v.7 (London: 
Bingley, 1982), p.37-60. 

28. Josephine Webb, "The Non-professional in the Academic Library: Education for Para-
professionalism," Personnel Training and Education 7:21-30 (1990). 

29. Helen Smeaton, "Library Technicians in Australia: Past, Present and Future," 
Australasian College Libraries 1:34-37 (May 1983). 

30. The lack of an unambiguous shared definition of the term paraprofessional is vexing. 
The description of paraprofessionals that the authors used in their questionnaire is 
based upon American Library Association and Integrated Postsecondary Education 
Data System (IPEDS) definitions. It lists positions characteristic of the class as well as 
uncharacteristic positions that respondents were instructed to exclude. A number of 
respondents were nonetheless confused by or critical of the term. Some report that 
higher-level support staff consider themselves to be support professionals, not para-
professionals. A few others suggest that they consider all support staff to be clerical. 
Some respondents found it difficult to draw the line between clerical and para-
professional employees or between paraprofessionals and librarians. Others were 



31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

Role of Paraprofessionals 237 

confused because the term has not been officially sanctioned at their institutions or 
because it is interpreted differently within their local context. Clearly, the lack of a less 
ambiguous shared definition of the term paraprofessional is a factor that can limit 
research.The definition used in the survey is as follows. "Paraprofessionals: The term 
paraprofessional designates library positions with entrance-level requirements that are 
distinctly different from those of librarians. Paraprofessionals are assigned high level 
support responsibilities in positions whose tasks are specific to libraries. They com-
monly perform their duties with some supervision by a librarian. The term is often 
applied to personnel classified as library assistants, associates, technicians, and tech-
nical assistants. Examples of paraprofessional position titles include: head of circula-
tion, interlibrary loan assistant, acquisitions coordinator, catalog assistant, periodicals 
supervisor, reference assistant, etc. 

Do not include as paraprofessionals: secretaries, typists, bookkeepers, and others 
whose positions require primarily office-related skills; student library assistants, pho-
tographers, photocopy room and mailroom employees, audiovisual technicians, etc.; 
or professionals who may not hold a master's degree in librarianship, for example: 
systems analysts, library business officers, library personnel officers, etc." 
It is useful to note that the questionnaire was designed to be answered by library 
directors or their designees, not by paraprofessionals. Until a comprehensive directory 
exists, national surveys of paraprofessionals will be difficult, if not impossible, to 
conduct. In the meanwhile, surveys of the perceptions of paraprofessionals will con-
tinue to be limited to individual institutions, groups of like institutions, and states or 
regions. Although the lack of a national list can limit research possibilities, it was not 
a hinderance in this case because the questions were designed to elicit factual, not 
attitudinal, responses. For the same reason, it is unlikely that the questionnaires 
completed by designees rather than the director introduced bias into the responses. 
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, A Classification of Institutions 
of Higher Education, 1987 ed. (Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-
ment of Teaching, 1987). . 
The Carnegie Classification of institutions of higher education groups U.S. colleges 
and universities by mission and function. Two categories of doctorate-granting insti-
tutions are used by Carnegie: research universities and doctorate-granting colleges and 
universities. Institutions that do not grant degrees through the doctoral level are 
categorized as comprehensive universities and colleges; liberal arts colleges; and 
two-year community, junior, and technical colleges. (Other categories of specialized 
institutions and professional schools exist, but were not included in this study.) All of 
the categories used in our survey except the two-year colleges are further subdivided 
by levels I and II. Although the Carnegie Foundation makes it clear that institutions 
are grouped by shared characteristics and that its aim is not to establish a hierarchy, 
the division by levels nonetheless separates the stronger institutions from the others. 
Full data from the survey are held by Larry R. Oberg, director of libraries, Stockwell-
Mudd Libraries, Albion College, Albion, Mich. 49224-1879. 
The figures from this survey (see table 6) are higher than those reported by Murfin in 
her review of earlier surveys. The authors found a 72% utilization rate for the liberal 
arts colleges and an 88% rate for the ARL libraries; Murfin cites three earlier surveys 
that report utilization rates ranging from 60 to 75%. See Marjorie Murfin, "Trends in 
Use of Support Staff and Students at the Reference Desk in Academic Libraries," Library 
Personnel News 2:10 (Winter 1988). 
Patricia A. Kreitz and Annegret Ogden, "Job Responsibilities and Job Satisfaction at 
the University of California Libraries," College & Research Libraries 51:302-3 (July 1990). 
See, for example, Larry Hardesty, "Life in the Minor Leagues; or, Crash Davis Find~ 
Happiness" [guest editorial] College & Research Libraries 51:397-98 (Sept. 1990). 
Gorman notes that librarianship, "rooted as it is in the self-sacrificing 'Angel in the 
House' ethos characteristic of the majority-female professions, has in many ways betrayed 
itself by making a virtue of doing more with less, of 'pitching in' and 'scraping by.111 When 
we institutiorialize such behavior, he states that it "may actually engender depreciation rather 
than respect." Gorman also suggests that "the search for professionalism" will be "one of 



238 College & Research Libraries May1992 

the dominant themes of the future," closely linked with the rise of feminism. See 
Michael Gorman, "The Academic Library in the Year 2001: Dream or Nightmare or 
Something in Between?" Journal of Academic Librarians/zip 17:5, 8 (Mar. 1991); for a 
discussion of sex-segregated work and sexual stratification within librarianship, see 
Suzanne Hildenbrand, "The Crisis in Cataloging: A Feminist Hypothesis," in Sheila S. 
Intner and Janet Swan Hill, Recruiting, Educating, and Training Catalog Librarians: Solving 
the Problems (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1989). 

39. Janice J. Kirkland notes that the startling disparity within librarianship between level 
of compensation and position requirements is "more often met with acceptance than 
with analysis leading to action." Librarians, she suggests, use two cognitive techniques 
that "eliminate the need to protest." First, they reevaluate their rewards in a manner 
that allows them to include such nonmonetary compensation as environment, contacts 
with colleagues, and the ability to serve others; secondly, they circumscribe their 
analyses by comparing their pay to that of other majority-female professions, not to 
equivalent majority-male ones. See Janice J. Kirkland, "Equity and Entitlement: Inter-
nal Barriers to Improving the Pay of Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries 
52:375-76 (July 1991). 

40. Veaner notes that within a generation librarians "virtually ceased to be production 
workers" as they acquired greater responsibility for the programmatic aspects of their 
libraries. These new programmatic responsibilities, he points out, are abstract and 
intellectual and contrast sharply with production work measured in terms of output 
units. See Veaner, "Librarians: The Next Generation," Library ]ournal109:623-25 (Apr. 
1, 1984). 

. : 
. . . :. 

THE EVOLVING 
EDUCATIONAL 
MISSION OF 
THE LIBRARY 

$29.95 
($19.95 for 
ACRL members) 
202 pp. 1992 
ISBN 0-8389-7 584-4 

Order Department 
ALA Publishing Services 
50 East Huron Street 
Chicago, IL 60611 
Or call toll-free 
1-800-545-2433 
Fax: 312-944-2641 

The Evolving 
Educational Mission 
of the Library 
Betsy Baker and 
Mary Ellen Litzinger, Editors 

The Evolving Educational Mission of the 
Library provides a series of essays articulating 
ideas on information literacy in library user 
education, the information explosion impact 
on information organization and access in the 
curriculum, user demography creating new 
educational constituencies, and impact on 
changes in academic libraries on information 
science curricula. 

Though not a direct result of the 
Bibliographic Instruction Section's Think Tank 
of June 22-23, 1989, these essays represent an 
articulation of ideas that had their genesis in 
those deliberations. 

Academic librarians, library school 
educators, and higher education faculty and 
administrators will want this book.