Elizabeth Lovsin

LIS 701 02
Core Value Article Summary
Applegate, Rachel. Clarifying Jurisdiction in the Library Workforce: Tasks,
Support Staff, and Professional Librarians. Library Trends 59.1-2
(2010): 288-314. Project Muse. Web. 16 Jan. 2013.

Rachel Applegates article, Clarifying Jurisdiction in the Library

Workforce: Tasks, Support Staff, and Professional Librarians, examines what
it means to be a professional librarian. The author states that the purpose
of her article is to examine library workers own perceptions of roles and
status levels (Applegate 295). It is Applegates position that there needs to
be a clear delineation between library professionals and nonprofessional
support staff in order to protect and encourage the value of professionalism
in librarianship (305).
In the introduction of her paper, Applegate identifies the masters
degree in Library Science (MLS) as the traditional means of dividing
professional from nonprofessional workers in the library field (288-289). She
also defines jurisdiction, by citing the work of Andrew Abbott, as who is
allowed to do what; the work that each profession performs and controls
(288). Applegate states that the MLS degree does not create a clear
jurisdiction that divides library professionals, referred to throughout her
paper as MLS, from the nonprofessional library support staff, referred to as
LSS (289).

Elizabeth Lovsin

The question that Applegate attempts to answer with her research is

how professionalism in librarianship is defined in terms of jurisdiction (293).
The data Applegate uses to answer this question comes from a major
national opt-in survey of librarians, library directors, and support staff (293).
Applegate did not create this survey. The American Library Association Allied
Professional Association (ALA-APA) created and distributed the survey as a
part of a project to establish a certification system for support staff (293294). Applegate explains that although the survey was not created for
research, the data provides suggestive indicators of respondents opinions
about task jurisdiction (296). While the survey had over 3,500 respondents,
Applegate only analyzes the data from the 2,228 who identify themselves as
either MLS or LSS and who also work in either public or academic libraries
(293-297).
The survey identifies twelve areas of library work. Within each area,
respondents were given nine to twenty statements about specific skills or
types of knowledge (293-294). Respondents had to rate the importance of
each item to library support staff, using a scale of not important (1),
important (2), and very important (3), (295). The basis of Applegates
analysis is that respondents indicators of what is important to support staff
will clarify the view of support staff roles, and therefore indicate by absence
or contrast the roles of MLS librarians (296). Applegate provides an
extensive analysis of the data collected, including an appendix, which breaks

Elizabeth Lovsin

down each of the twelve areas and includes some specific statement
examples (297-314).
Applegate next compares her data analysis with two statements of
professional competences accepted by the ALA in 2009 (293). The ALA-APA,
the same group who created the survey, developed a list of required and
optional competences for support staff. The ALA Committee on Education
developed a set of competences for MLS librarians (301). Applegate
concludes from this comparison that there is general agreement that
professional librarians are those who manage: libraries as institutions,
information as resources, and human and technological systems for access
and learning, (303). Professional librarians, she adds, know about and
engage in application of theories, research, and evaluation. In contrast, LSS
perform a wide array of library tasks including most instances of engaging
with library patrons (303-304).
Applegate concludes her article by stating the importance of a
professional standard for librarians. She points out that there is a great deal
of confusion over jurisdiction in most libraries, including amongst patrons,
and she applauds the ALAs efforts in developing LSS certification. Applegate
ends with two suggestions for professional library educators. First, she
advises working with the ALA in defining the appropriate roles of support
staff and professionals in libraries. Second, she advises working with library
staff to be sure that the jurisdictions taught in MLS programs accord with the
needs of real libraries (304-306).

Elizabeth Lovsin

Applegate makes great efforts to establish her authority and credibility

in this article. To start with, her article is written in a traditional research
paper format, divided into titled sections such as Research Question and
Methodology, and complete with a list of references and an appendix
providing more information about the survey used in the study (293, 306314). Applegate works to validate the data she uses by explaining her
reasoning in using the survey and competences documents, providing an
exhaustive description of those resources, and even offering the names of
some of the professionals involved in their creation (293-303).
In the section of her paper titled, Literature Review, Applegate
examines the nature of librarianship using established sociological
approaches to profession analysis, simultaneously referring to the body of
scholarly work on librarianship as a profession (289-293). This examination
allows Applegate to pose many questions and identify various issues that
relate to her study, and to provide an authoritative context for her research.
It also serves to link her article to the previously established research in the
field. All of this, combined with the fact that the article was published in a
respected scholarly journal, gives Applegate a high level of authority.
The position that Applegate takes in this article accords with the ideals
expressed in the ALAs Core Values of Librarianship. The ALAs document
states that library services should be provided by professionally qualified
personnel who have been educated in graduate programs, and that the
standard of education is of vital importance (ALA). This statement implies

Elizabeth Lovsin

that professionalism is a product of graduate-level education. Applegate

attempts to expand upon this definition of professionalism to include the
actual work, or jurisdiction, of librarians. Her goal in doing so is to create
clarity where there is confusion. As she says: It is important for librarians,
support staff, and library users to have as clear an understanding of these
jurisdictional areas as possible, for the future viability of the professional
level of librarianship (305).
Applegates article complements the articles used in this course to
explore the value of professionalism. She owes a scholarly debt to Abbott,
from whom she adopts the concept of jurisdiction that is central to her
research (Applegate 291; Abbott 435). Another connection arises in Abbotts
description, in his vision of the future librarianship, of a divide between a
professional elite and a larger but peripheral group that provides actual
client access (Abbott 440). This description mirrors Applegates analysis of
the current situation between MLS librarians and support staff (303-304).
There are also connections between Applegates work and the article
by Rory Litwin. Applegates stated goal of protecting the professional level of
librarianship is a sentiment echoed in Litwins article, which explores the
same blurring of professional and nonprofessional library workers
(Applegate 305; Litwin 44). Like Applegate, Litwin also argues for the
protection of a professional standard, linking professionalism with the publicminded values upon which libraries are founded (55-59).

Elizabeth Lovsin

The discussions of the importance of professionalism in both

Applegates and Litwins articles highlight an area of potential conflict for
current and future librarians. In both articles library professionals and
support staff are dichotomized. Litwins article portrays this conflict as a
serious competition, with library administrators exploiting class tensions and
the ambitions of nonprofessional employees to limit the autonomy and job
opportunities for professional librarians (44-48). Applegates approach is less
dramatic, but she still speaks in terms of opposites: who a librarian is, is in
part defined by who non-librarians are (289).
One major concern of Applegates regarding clarity of jurisdiction has
to do with library patrons. Applegate states that a professional librarian
should always be involved when a patron encounter is complex, involving
instruction, advanced content knowledge, or a specially designed service
(304-305). The ability for library support staff to recognize when a patron
encounter becomes complex, however, is not discussed. Applegate does
question whether patrons distinguish between levels of professionalism, and
if they recognize the value of professionalism in librarians (304). This raises
the possibility that if a nonprofessional library employee offers assistance in
a complex situation, and the patron is under the assumption that the
person is a professional librarian, the patron might rely on the perceived
authority of this person in error.
Applegate identifies another issue related to patron perceptions. If
patrons see professional librarians as managers, while nonprofessional staff

Elizabeth Lovsin

provides the bulk of patron services, will it change the concept of what a
librarian is? As Applegate says, if librarians are managers, are they only
managers? (305). Such a characterization would certainly challenge the
status of librarianship as a distinct profession, and would likely not be
welcomed by many members of that profession.
In conclusion, Applegate has added an authoritative article to the body
of literature examining the library profession. Applegates analysis identifies
issues relevant to future professional librarians, and aids in an understanding
of the value of professionalism in librarianship.

Works Cited

Elizabeth Lovsin

Abbott, Andrew. Professionalism and the Future of Librarianship. Library

Trends 46.3 (Winter 1998): 430-443. Web. 16 Jan. 2013.
American Library Association (ALA). Core Values of Librarianship. Ala.org.
ALA Council, 29 June 2004. Web. 14 Jan. 2013.
Applegate, Rachel. Clarifying Jurisdiction in the Library Workforce: Tasks,
Support Staff, and Professional Librarians. Library Trends 59.1-2
(2010): 288-314. Project Muse. Web. 16 Jan. 2013.
Litwin, Rory. The Library Paraprofessional Movement and the
Deprofessionalization of Librarianship. Progressive Librarian, 33
(Summer 2009): 43-60. Web. 16 Jan. 2013.

Elizabeth Lovsin