Cargando…

Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional

OBJECTIVE: While studies from the early 1990s show that library staff in nonlibrarian roles interpret the term “paraprofessional” as being demeaning to their roles, no recent research has been conducted on this topic. This study aims to investigate if health sciences library staff continue to have s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schilperoort, Hannah, Quezada, Alvaro, Lezcano, Frances
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7772989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33424460
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.933
_version_ 1783629976211292160
author Schilperoort, Hannah
Quezada, Alvaro
Lezcano, Frances
author_facet Schilperoort, Hannah
Quezada, Alvaro
Lezcano, Frances
author_sort Schilperoort, Hannah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: While studies from the early 1990s show that library staff in nonlibrarian roles interpret the term “paraprofessional” as being demeaning to their roles, no recent research has been conducted on this topic. This study aims to investigate if health sciences library staff continue to have similar negative associations with the term “paraprofessional” and to determine if another term is preferred. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature review to identify terms used to categorize library staff in nonlibrarian roles. Using these terms, we created an online Qualtrics survey asking participants to rank terms by preference. We distributed the survey via thirty-six professional email discussion lists, including MEDLIB-L, thirty-three MLA chapter and caucus email discussion lists, DOCLINE-L, and ACRL-HSIG-L. Survey participants included full-time and part-time health sciences library staff in any nonlibrarian position. Responses from librarians were not accepted. RESULTS: Based on 178 completed surveys, “library staff” was the top choice of 49% of participants, over “other” (19%), “paraprofessional” (13%), “library support staff” (11%), “paralibrarian” (7%), and “nonprofessional” (1%). Although “library staff” was the top choice of participants across all ages, older participants (aged 45–75) preferred “library support staff” and “paraprofessional” to a greater degree than younger participants (aged 18–44), while younger participants preferred “other” to a greater degree. Out of 36 participants who specifically mentioned the terms “paraprofessional” or “paralibrarian,” 32 (89%) of those comments were negative, indicating that the “para” in “paraprofessional” and “paralibrarian” is either insulting, inapplicable, or unfamiliar. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that although the term “paraprofessional” may not intentionally be used to demean library staff, many library staff interpret the term to be demeaning to their roles. Instead, “library staff,” a more inclusive and less divisive term, was preferred by survey participants. In accordance with our results, we believe the term “paraprofessional” should no longer be used in library and information scholarly literature or professional discourse.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7772989
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77729892021-01-08 Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional Schilperoort, Hannah Quezada, Alvaro Lezcano, Frances J Med Libr Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: While studies from the early 1990s show that library staff in nonlibrarian roles interpret the term “paraprofessional” as being demeaning to their roles, no recent research has been conducted on this topic. This study aims to investigate if health sciences library staff continue to have similar negative associations with the term “paraprofessional” and to determine if another term is preferred. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature review to identify terms used to categorize library staff in nonlibrarian roles. Using these terms, we created an online Qualtrics survey asking participants to rank terms by preference. We distributed the survey via thirty-six professional email discussion lists, including MEDLIB-L, thirty-three MLA chapter and caucus email discussion lists, DOCLINE-L, and ACRL-HSIG-L. Survey participants included full-time and part-time health sciences library staff in any nonlibrarian position. Responses from librarians were not accepted. RESULTS: Based on 178 completed surveys, “library staff” was the top choice of 49% of participants, over “other” (19%), “paraprofessional” (13%), “library support staff” (11%), “paralibrarian” (7%), and “nonprofessional” (1%). Although “library staff” was the top choice of participants across all ages, older participants (aged 45–75) preferred “library support staff” and “paraprofessional” to a greater degree than younger participants (aged 18–44), while younger participants preferred “other” to a greater degree. Out of 36 participants who specifically mentioned the terms “paraprofessional” or “paralibrarian,” 32 (89%) of those comments were negative, indicating that the “para” in “paraprofessional” and “paralibrarian” is either insulting, inapplicable, or unfamiliar. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that although the term “paraprofessional” may not intentionally be used to demean library staff, many library staff interpret the term to be demeaning to their roles. Instead, “library staff,” a more inclusive and less divisive term, was preferred by survey participants. In accordance with our results, we believe the term “paraprofessional” should no longer be used in library and information scholarly literature or professional discourse. University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2021-01-01 2021-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7772989/ /pubmed/33424460 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.933 Text en Copyright © 2021 Hannah Schilperoort, Alvaro Quezada, Frances Lezcano This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Schilperoort, Hannah
Quezada, Alvaro
Lezcano, Frances
Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
title Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
title_full Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
title_fullStr Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
title_full_unstemmed Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
title_short Words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
title_sort words matter: interpretations and implications of “para” in paraprofessional
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7772989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33424460
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.933
work_keys_str_mv AT schilperoorthannah wordsmatterinterpretationsandimplicationsofparainparaprofessional
AT quezadaalvaro wordsmatterinterpretationsandimplicationsofparainparaprofessional
AT lezcanofrances wordsmatterinterpretationsandimplicationsofparainparaprofessional