The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Academic Librarianship

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jacalib

Prepare to be unprepared? LIS curriculum and academic

liaison preparation☆
Kawanna M. Bright a, *, Mónica Colón-Aguirre b
a
Library Science Program, Department of Interdisciplinary Professions, East Carolina University, Mail Stop 172, 1000 E. 5th St., Greenville, NC 27858-4353, United
States
b
School of Information Science, University of South Carolina, Davis College 103, Columbia, SC 29208, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research explored the ways in which current liaison librarians feel their LIS programs prepared them for
Liaison librarians their role, focusing on two research questions: To what extent do librarians working as liaisons in academic
LIS curriculum institutions in the US and Canada feel their LIS programs prepared them for their liaison role? How much of the
LIS career preparation
preparation of librarians to be liaisons can be attributed to their programs' curriculum, especially in terms of
where in the curriculum the liaison role is addressed? Results of a survey of 366 liaisons demonstrate that across
a variety of contexts, most respondents feel their programs prepared them to be liaisons, but those who
completed the academic library track more often than expected indicated feeling prepared. A majority of par­
ticipants indicated non-curriculum experiences, such as assistantships, paid employment, and internships in
academic libraries, as useful in their preparation, with one exception: those who completed online programs less
often than expected indicated non-curricular experiences as useful in preparation for their current liaison role.
Overall, the most useful courses cited included specialized courses, reference, instruction, and collection man­
agement, suggesting some preparation from core courses, but additional preparation coming from elective
courses not always taken by or available to everyone.

Introduction
The Library and Information Science (LIS) curricula in US and Ca­
nadian American Library Association (ALA) accredited programs vary in
terms of goals and outcomes, though the general idea that most are in
the business of preparing the next generation of librarians is almost a
given. Currently, a degree from an ALA-accredited program is still seen
as necessary to obtain a position within LIS in the US and Canada (Eden,
2018), though the structure of ALA-accredited programs varies greatly.
Many programs offer concentrations or career pathways to allow stu­
dents to prepare to work in specific areas of LIS, though these areas tend
to be broad in nature (i.e. school librarianship, public librarianship,
academic librarianship). Preparation for more specific roles and posi­
tions in libraries can also be found in the majority of programs, with
specific training and courses offered for areas like law librarianship,
health sciences librarianship, reference and user services, archives, and
organization of information (cataloging and metadata).
It can be argued that the intent of LIS programs is to help prepare
students to take on these specific roles and positions, though it is not
possible for a program to offer training for every possible role or position
a graduate could pursue within LIS. However, the presence of speciali­
zations, career tracks, and/or concentrations geared towards these
specific roles would suggest that these are the most prevalent in the field
or the ones most in need of trained LIS professionals. A review of the
concentrations and career pathways offered by US and Canadian LIS
programs as noted in the “Directory of Institutions Offering ALA-
Accredited Master's Programs in Library and Information Studies”
(ALA, 2022) reveals an absence of specialization for one role that
dominates the academic library landscape: that of the academic liaison
librarian. As an academic library specific role, it could be presumed that
the liaison role is covered within an academic librarianship concentra­
tion or track – one specialization that is currently found in 50 out of 65
ALA accredited programs (ALA, 2022). But there is no explicit indication
that the liaison role is addressed. In essence, there is no dedicated liaison

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
☆

* Corresponding author at: Library Science Program, Department of Interdisciplinary Professions, East Carolina University, Mail Stop 172, 1000 E. 5th St.,
Greenville, NC 27858-4353, United States.
E-mail addresses: brightka19@ecu.edu (K.M. Bright), colonagm@mailbox.sc.edu (M. Colón-Aguirre).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102602
Received 14 July 2022; Received in revised form 1 September 2022; Accepted 2 September 2022
Available online 19 September 2022
0099-1333/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre
librarian track.
While the academic liaison librarian role may not be viewed by ALA
Accredited LIS programs as a common LIS specialization, one could
argue that the liaison role is one of the most common found in US and
Canadian academic libraries, both as a specific position and as a re­
sponsibility taken on by academic librarians working in a variety of
positions, and that LIS programs should prepare graduates focused on
academic librarianship to take on this common role. While the nature of
the liaison role makes it difficult to fully quantify how many librarians
serve as liaisons in US and Canadian academic libraries, a variety of
sources offer support for the prevalence of the role. The “ARL Annual
Salary Survey 2020” reports a total of 2259 subject specialists/liaison
librarians across all Association of Research Libraries (ARL) main,
medical and law libraries, representing 21.26 % of all positions (Mian,
2022). Beyond these numbers, a third SPEC Kit produced by ARL over a
period of eight years about library liaisons provides additional support
for the importance of the liaison role as “a critical component in ARL
member libraries' ability to meet the broad challenges to today's
research libraries…” (Miller & Pressley, 2015, p. 11). Nero and Langley
(2017) offer a more substantial number, identifying 4396 subject liai­
sons through a review of websites for ARL, Oberlin Group, and Morrill
Act land-grant institution libraries. And using a similar method, Bright
(2018) expanded on this number, identifying 10,501 liaisons across
1122 of the 4125 institutions listed in the Carnegie Classifications.
Given these numbers, there appears to be a disparity between LIS
programs explicitly addressing the liaison librarian role in their curric­
ulum and the prevalence of the role in current academic library posi­
tions. This potential disparity leads to two questions that the current
research aims to address: 1) To what extent do librarians working as
liaisons in academic institutions in the US and Canada feel their LIS
programs prepared them for their liaison role?; and 2) How much of the
preparation of librarians to be liaisons can be attributed to their pro­
grams' curriculum, especially in terms of where in the curriculum the
liaison role is addressed?
Literature review
The LIS literature on academic liaison librarians is extensive. For this
literature review, the focus is on defining and understanding the liaison
role, career preparatory aspects of the LIS curriculum, and liaison
preparation, as well as training opportunities.
The liaison role
According to Church-Duran (2017), liaison librarians are those who
are “...assigned to a specific client base (a school, department, college,
research center, or co-curricular unit) in a personalized, relationship-
centered system of service delivery” (p. 258). The role of the liaison
librarian is a complicated, multi-faceted one which includes a wide
range of activities and services. These services have traditionally
included outreach, collection development, instruction, scholarly
communication support, and reference; but new services, such as
providing scholarly impact and metrics information, promoting the
institutional repository, and research data management, have become
more common (Miller & Pressley, 2015). While the literature does not
agree on all the activities and services that liaisons engage in, it does
agree that liaisons are expected to know a wide range of information and
to be able to provide a wide variety of services to users.
While provision of services is one aspect of liaison work, the process
of providing those services, or the core skills or competencies needed to
perform as a liaison are a different aspect of liaison work. The literature
suggests that the most common competencies or skills required for
liaison librarians include effective communication with various stake­
holder groups, marketing, and promotion skills, along with more
traditional LIS skills such as collection development and instruction
(Attebury & Finnell, 2009). Filgo and Towers (2021) emphasized the
2
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602
importance of being adaptable, having emotional intelligence, applying
soft skills, being empathetic, listening, building relationships, and
communication as skills important for successful liaison work. It should
be noted that the majority of these skills are not necessarily LIS skills, but
rather, personal skills or traits similar to those that Saunders (2015)
identified as “soft skills”; those skills expected to be held by new
librarian hires, including communication and interpersonal skills. These
are contrasted with “hard skills” such as technology competencies
(Saunders, 2015). Teaching these personal skills in LIS curriculum pre­
sents a challenge, but one worth exploring if the goal is preparing stu­
dents to perform in their future careers as liaison librarians.
Liaison preparation in the LIS curriculum
Most of the literature that discusses the impact of the LIS curriculum
on librarians' career preparation focuses broadly on academic librarian
preparation and not specifically liaison librarian preparation. One of the
few studies that specifically focused on the LIS curriculum and liaison
work was undertaken by Attebury and Finnell (2009), whose findings
highlighted the importance of classes that guide future academic li­
brarians towards the liaison role. As pointed out in their work, this is due
to most jobs advertised for academic librarian being focused on the role
of liaisons and the work that they perform in an academic institution.
But despite the prevalence of the role in job descriptions, only 20.6 % of
those surveyed had heard about the liaison role in one of their required
courses, and only 23.9 % heard about it in an elective course. The
findings of Attebury and Finnell's study are limited by the fact that they
surveyed current LIS students rather than practitioners working as liai­
sons. Considering these students might have never worked as liaisons,
their ability to identify the skills from their curriculum that would be
most beneficial would be limited by lack of application, though their
ability to identify their awareness of the liaison role and their perception
of their preparation for that role is valuable for understanding whether
the liaison role was being discussed in the LIS curriculum.
While other studies do not focus specifically on liaisons, they do
address the provision or preparation of librarians in areas that often fall
under liaison responsibilities. One of these areas is that of instruction. A
study by Bewick and Corrall (2010) suggested that instruction and
teacher training might best be done as continuing education or on-the-
job training, with the authors using the liaison role as an example of
one where instruction was highly important. The findings of this study
show the need for additional training or preparation after the degree is
earned, suggesting that librarians may not be receiving the preparation
they need from the curriculum. In a survey of new librarians, Goodsett
and Koziura (2016) reported that respondents felt their programs were
inadequate in terms of offering them the needed knowledge on topics
such as instruction and research methods, and very few noted “reference
and liaison work” as an important element of their LIS education.
Experience with library work seems to be central to feeling prepared
for work in libraries. While Bewick and Corrall (2010) focused specif­
ically on instruction, their study hinted at the importance of hands-on-
training for librarians as a way to prepare for their professional roles.
Other studies have suggested the same. Respondents in Goodsett and
Koziura's (2016) study felt their programs could have been more effec­
tive had they provided them with the opportunity to gain more expe­
rience. In a study of past practicum students and site supervisors in
academic libraries, Ferrer-Vinent and Sobel (2011) found that the ma­
jority of those surveyed in a very limited sample (N = 19) thought the
practicum was a major factor in successfully securing a job and that the
practicum gave them the confidence and knowledge to perform their
jobs. These findings lead to the question of whether preparation for the
liaison role is best supported by practicums, internships, or other hands-
on experience opportunities, instead of or in addition to the rest of the
LIS curriculum.
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602

Problem statement as part of their positions. Following approval from the Institutional
Review Board, participants for the survey were recruited through posts
Recent resources (Bright, 2018; Mian, 2022; Nero & Langley, 2017) to LIS listservs (collib-1, ili-l, infolit, lirt-l, lita-l, nmrt-l, uls-l, and acrl-
offer credence for the prevalence of the academic liaison librarian role at rig) and posts to the researchers' Facebook and Twitter accounts. This
US institutions of higher education, whether as a part of a librarian's approach to recruitment was logical, economical, and had the potential
position or their primary role. Despite its perceived prevalence, little is to reach a fairly large number of participants. The initial sample was
known about how liaisons are prepared to take on the liaison role, purposive in that participants had to identify as currently or in the past
including what impact the LIS curriculum has on that preparation. Given working in a position in an academic library with liaison re­
research that indicates many librarians feel unprepared for their jobs in sponsibilities. A total of 412 surveys were received, of which 366 were
general (Goodsett & Koziura, 2016; Thomas & Urban, 2018), it can be valid for data analysis.
hypothesized that this lack of preparation applies to liaison re­
sponsibilities as well. This proposed hypothesis leads to multiple ques­ Data analysis
tions, primarily: 1) To what extent do librarians working as liaisons in
academic institutions in the US and Canada feel their LIS programs Descriptive statistics
prepared them for their liaison role?; and 2) How much of the prepa­
ration of librarians to be liaisons can be attributed to their programs' Before the survey data were analyzed, the data were cleaned to
curriculum, especially in terms of where in the curriculum the liaison identify and remove any non-valid submissions. Of the 412 surveys
role is addressed? submitted, 36 had a completion percentage of 57 % or less and were
removed from the data set. An additional two submissions with higher
Methodology completion rates were also removed as they were missing data necessary
for analysis. Finally, eight submissions were removed from the data set
This research study utilized a sequential explanatory mixed-methods as they indicated they never worked as a liaison in an academic library
design to investigate librarians' perceptions of their preparation to take (3), did not have an MLS degree and were not currently enrolled in an
on the liaison role, specifically whether and how their LIS program MLS degree program (2), or did not graduate from an ALA accredited
curriculum prepared them for their liaison role. In a sequential program (3). This left a total of 366 submissions for data analysis.
explanatory design, both quantitative and qualitative data are collected
in separate but connected strands, with the qualitative strand following Demographics
and used to explain the results of quantitative strand (Doyle et al., 2019). In alignment with recent ALA demographic statistics (Table 1) (Rosa
The quantitative strand of this study relied on a survey for data collec­ & Henke, 2017), the majority of respondents indicated a gender identity
tion; the qualitative strand relied on semi-structured interviews with of female (n = 302, 83.0 %), though there was a smaller percentage who
participants who had completed the survey and indicated interest in identified as male at 11.3 % (n = 41). Not asked or recorded by ALA but
further participation. The results shared here are from the quantitative reported here, there were 3.6 % (n = 13) who preferred not to identify,
strand of the study and focused on the responses received from the and 2.2 % (n = 8) who indicated a different gender identity. In terms of
survey. As some qualitative data were collected within the survey, race, 18.2 % (n = 66) identified as Black, Indigenous, People of Color
content analysis was applied to that data and the findings are presented (BIPOC), a percentage double that reported in recent ALA statistics, a
here as well. slightly smaller percentage at 76.0 % (n = 276) identifying as White, and
5.8 % (n = 21) indicating a different race or preferring not to identify. In
Survey development terms of LGBTQIA+ status, 17.0 % (n = 62) indicated yes, 76.6 % (n =
279) no, and 6.3 % (n = 23) preferred not to identify.
The survey instrument was designed in three phases. An initial sur­
vey instrument was created with 21 questions (three demographic, 18 Liaison background
liaison perception). In order to test the validity of the survey, the re­ The majority of respondents indicated serving as liaisons to de­
searchers conducted six cognitive interviews (Collins, 2015) with aca­ partments (n = 271, 74.0 %) and/or academic colleges (n = 216, 59.0
demic librarians who fit the characteristics of interest for the study %), with fewer supporting programs/units (n = 120, 32.8 %), non-
(current or former academic librarians with liaison responsibilities). academic programs (n = 55, 15.0 %), or other areas (n = 19, 5.2 %).
These cognitive interviews were conducted via WebEx and lasted be­ Most had served as liaisons between 1–5 years (n = 136, 37.2 %) and
tween 25 and 60 min. Based on the interviews, the researchers updated 6–10 years (n = 102, 27.9 %), with the remaining respondents having
the first draft of the survey and then completed a small pilot, recruiting anywhere from 11 to more than 30 years of experience. Only 20
12 participants to complete an updated version of the survey. This pilot
allowed the researchers to determine if the responses to questions Table 1
aligned with the intent of the questions and to also test the navigation of Demographics of survey respondents.
the survey within Qualtrics, as aspects of the survey were customized for
Survey respondents 2017 ALA
participants based on their responses to certain questions. statistics
The final version of the survey included a total of 23 questions
Count Percentage Percentage
related to respondents' Master's program experiences and liaison role
experiences, and three demographic questions. One final question Gender identity (N = 364)
Female 302 83.0 % 81.0 %
invited interested participants to supply their name and e-mail for
Male 41 11.3 % 19.0 %
consideration of follow up interviews. The survey was administered Another identity 8 2.2 % –
through Qualtrics and remained open for a period of 5 weeks. Listserv Prefer not to Identify 13 3.6 % –
invitations to participate in the survey were posted twice during this 5- Race (N = 363)
BIPOC 66 18.2 % 9.4 %
week period, once at the beginning and again at the 4-week mark.
White 276 76.0 % 86.7 %
Other identity/prefer not to 21 5.8 % 4.0 %
Sampling and participants identify
LGBTQIA+ status (N = 364)
Participants in this study consisted of US and Canadian academic Yes 62 17.0 % –
No 279 76.6 %
librarians who either currently or in the past had liaison responsibilities
–

3
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre
respondents (5.5 %) indicated having less than one year of experience as
a liaison (Fig. 1). In terms of liaison activities, 355 (97.0 %) provided
instruction services, 340 (92.9 %) provided research support, 321 (87.7
%) did collection development, 284 (77.6 %) engaged in outreach ser­
vices, and 153 (41.8 %) supported scholarly communication services.
Education
Fifty-four of the current 63 accredited programs were represented in
the sample, along with three now defunct programs. The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign had the most respondents at 21 and 20 respectively. Nine
other programs had double digit respondents, with the remaining in­
stitutions represented by anywhere from one to eight respondents. As
the representation across programs was not balanced and the intent of
the study not to investigate individual program's curriculum support of
liaison librarianship, no analysis based on program was performed.
The timing of when respondents earned their degrees (Fig. 2) was
fairly well distributed with over half of the respondents earning their
degrees between 2010 and 2014 (n = 98, 26.8 %) or 2015 and 2020 (n =
26.8 %). Sixty-five (17.8 %) earned their degrees between 2005 and
2009, followed by 15.3 % (n = 56) who earned their degrees before 2000
and 13.4 % (n = 49) who earned their degree between 2000 and 2004.
Most programs were completed in-person (n = 205, 56.0 %), followed by
hybrid (n = 99, 27.0 %), and fully online (n = 62, 16.9 %). Nearly half (n
= 169, 46.2 %) of respondents held at least one additional advanced
degree, with 118 (71.1 %) noting that their first additional degree was
related to their liaison role, and 24 (64.9 %) with a second additional
advanced degree indicating the degree was related to their liaison role.
Most (n = 147, 40.2 %) indicated that their programs offered an aca­
demic library track (Fig. 3), with 63.9 % (n = 94) completing that track.
Over a quarter of respondents (n = 97, 26.5 %) were unsure if their
program offered an academic library track when they completed the
program.
Liaison perception of curriculum
When asked if their LIS program courses were useful in preparing
them for their liaison responsibilities, 44.8 % (n = 164) responded “Yes,”
30.6 % (n = 112) “Maybe,” and 24.6 % (n = 90) “No.” When asked if
there were courses offered that would have been useful but that they did
not take, most were unsure (n = 196, 53.6 %), but nearly 1/3 (n = 105,
28.7 %) said yes and 65 (17.8 %) said no. Nearly half of the respondents
(n = 175, 47.8 %) felt that non-curriculum experiences were useful in
Time as a Liaison (N = 366)
More than 30 years 1.9%
26 30 years 2.2%
21 25 years 2.7%
16 20 years
11 15 years
6 10 years
1 5 years
Less than 1 year 5.5%
0.0% 5.0%
Fig. 1. Survey respondents time as a liaison.
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602
preparing them for liaison work. Finally, when asked their level of
agreement for if their LIS program's curriculum prepared them to be a
liaison, most were neutral, with 128 (35.1 %) indicating neither agree
nor disagree. There was nearly an equal percentage of respondents who
agreed that the curriculum prepared them to be a liaison (n = 94, 25.8
%) as the percentage who disagreed (n = 102, 27.9 %). Only 15 (4.1 %)
strongly agreed that their curriculum prepared them to be a liaison, and
26 (7.1 %) strongly disagreed. Table 2 details the breakdown of re­
sponses for the curriculum perception questions.
Recommended courses. Participants who indicated that they had
found courses to be useful in preparing them to work as liaisons were
asked to identify those courses. Nearly 400 courses were listed, with
specialized courses (those with topics that were non-standardized across
programs, such as music or health librarianship) most represented at
114. Reference (69), Instruction (51), Collection Management (35) and
Academic Libraries (35) rounded out the top five courses. Fig. 4 shows
the remaining course types mentioned by respondents as most useful for
preparing them for their liaison role.
Non-curriculum experiences. The most helpful non-curriculum
experiences mentioned by participants in open comments on the sur­
vey revolved around hands-on experience with library work. Out of 175
submitted comments, over a third (n = 67, 38.3 %) of participants
mentioned having completed student assistantships, co-ops, or fellow­
ships during their time as graduate students in their LIS programs. With
one participant mentioning in the comments section “I was a graduate
teaching assistant my last semester, and working in the library taught
me way more about the work than any of my courses did.” And another
participant explaining that “By far the MOST valuable experience for me
was serving as a graduate assistant in the [university library depart­
ment]. I learned far more there than in any of my LIS coursework”.
Related to graduate assistantships, many also mentioned completing
a practicum, or internships in libraries and found it to be useful in their
careers as liaison librarians. A very common experience also mentioned
was employment in libraries. Other experiences mentioned included
joining and actively participating in student organizations and attending
conferences, colloquia, or workshops during their time as a student.
Table 3 shows the categories of non-curriculum experiences identified
through content analysis of the open comments, a description of what
each category includes, and the number of mentions that each received.
7.9%
14.8%
27.9%
37.2%
10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%
4
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602

When Degrees Earned (N = 366)

120
98 98
100

80
65
60
56
49
40

20

0
Before 2000 2000 to 2004 2005 to 2009 2010 to 2014 2015 to 2020

Fig. 2. When survey respondents earned their MLS degrees.

Program Offered Academic Library Track

(N = 366)
160 147
140
122
120
97
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes No Not sure/Don't remember

Fig. 3. LIS program offered academic library track.

Chi-square analysis
Table 2
Liaisons' responses to perception of curriculum survey questions.
Additional statistical analysis was conducted on the data to deter­
Questions Count Percentage mine if there were any associations between demographic variables and
Based on your experiences as a liaison, do you feel that any three outcome variables: respondents' perception of whether any of their
of the courses from your LIS program were useful in LIS program courses were useful in preparing them to be a liaison,
preparing you for your liaison responsibilities? (N = 366)
whether they had non-curriculum experiences in their LIS program that
Yes 164 44.8 %
Maybe 112 30.6 %
were useful in preparing them to be a liaison, and liaisons' perceptions of
No 90 24.6 % whether their LIS program's curriculum was useful in preparing them for
Were there any courses offered by your LIS program that you their liaison responsibilities. For the purpose of analysis, levels of
did not take, but feel would have been useful to you as a agreement to the statement “My LIS program's curriculum prepared me
liaison? (N = 366)
to be a liaison” were collapsed from the original five categories (Strongly
Yes 105 28.7 %
No 65 17.8 % Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree)
Don't know/Not sure 196 53.6 % into three categories that combined the two agree and the two disagree
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following categories into one Agree and one Disagree category. Collapsing of
statement: My LIS program's curriculum prepared me to be
categories is an acceptable practice with Likert-type scale responses and
a liaison librarian? (N = 365)
Strongly agree 26 7.1 %
has not been found to negatively impact the reliability or validity of the
Agree 94 25.8 % items (Matell & Jacoby, 1971).
Neutral 128 35.1 % Nine demographic variables were tested for associations: 1) length of
Disagree 102 27.9 % time as a liaison, 2) when they earned their master's degree, 3) program
Strongly disagree 15 4.1 %
delivery format, 4) whether they held additional advanced degrees, 5)
whether their program offered an academic library track, 6) whether
they completed the academic library track, 7) gender identity, 8)

5
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre
120 114
100
80 69
60
40
20
Fig. 4. Most useful courses for preparing for liaison role, provided by participants.
Table 3
Non-standardized curriculum experiences: categories and mentions.
Categories created
Library assistantships, co-ops, and fellowships:
These were understood to be paid opportunities which allowed
participants to work in libraries while concurrently obtaining their
degree, and were obtained through or as part of their participation
in the program
Work in libraries or higher ed. (both previous experience and
concurrent with degree):
This was understood to mean paid employment that was obtained
independent of the program and the curriculum
Practicum, independent studies, and internships:
These were understood to be unpaid, for-credit or required work
in libraries which are part of the curriculum but not standardized
courses
Conferences, colloquia, guest speakers, workshops:
This was understood to mean activities organized by their
program or facilitated through it but that are not part of the
standardized curriculum
Professional organizations:
This was understood to mean both student and professional
organizations and includes those mentioned in terms of
attendance, membership, or active participation such as
presentations
LGBTQIA+ status, and 9) racial identity. Due to the number of com­
parisons made and to protect against increased Type-I errors, a Bon­
ferroni adjusted alpha of 0.005 was used to determine statistical
significance. Cramer's V was used to determine effect size and stan­
dardized residuals were used for post-hoc analysis of significant asso­
ciations. The analysis found three statistically significant associations,
only one of which had a moderate or large effect size; there were no
significant associations related to length of time as a liaison, whether
they held additional advanced degrees, whether the program offered an
academic library track, gender identity, LGBTQIA+ status, or racial
identity.
Non-curriculum experiences
There was a moderate association between when participants' mas­
ter's degrees were earned and whether they indicated having non-
curriculum experiences that were useful in preparing them to be
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602
Useful Courses
51
35 35
23 22 22 18
liaisons, χ2 (8, N = 366) = 33.05, p < .001, Cramer's V = 0.21. Review of
the standardized residuals indicates that those who graduated between
2000 and 2004 more often than expected indicated being unsure
Number of whether they had non-curriculum experiences that were useful in pre­
mentions
paring them to be liaisons. This response could be due to the amount of
67 time elapsed since participants had completed their programs.
(5 mentions of Co-
In addition, there was a weak association between program delivery
ops)
type and whether they indicated having non-curriculum experiences
that were useful in preparing them to be liaisons, χ2 (4, N = 366) =
41 33.05, p < .001, Cramer's V = 0.20. Review of standardized residuals
indicated that respondents who completed their programs fully online
more often than expected indicated that they did not feel they had non-
36 curriculum experiences that were useful in preparing them to be liai­
sons, and less often than expected indicated that they did feel they had
non-curriculum experiences that were useful in preparing them to be
liaisons. This suggests that online programs may be struggling to provide
9
their students with meaningful non-curriculum experiences.
Program preparation
8 There was a weak association between whether respondents
completed the academic library track in their program and whether they
felt their LIS program prepared them to be liaisons, χ2 (2, N = 147) =
11.33, p = .003, Cramer's V = 0.28. A review of the standardized re­
siduals indicated that respondents who did not complete the academic
library track of their program less often than expected agreed that their
program prepared them to be a liaison. This suggests that academic
librarianship tracks, concentrations, or specializations may be signifi­
cant in providing support for liaison preparation.
Discussion
The results of this research indicate that most academic librarians
working as liaisons perceived that their program prepared them for their
role; however, this preparation was contingent on several factors. One
important aspect to consider when interpreting this finding is the role of
the academic library track in some LIS programs. Analysis employing
inferential statistics indicates that there is a positive association between
completion of the academic library track and a positive perception
regarding the degree to which their program prepared them for this role.
It is important to highlight that only 40.2 % of those surveyed here
6
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre
indicated awareness of their program offering an academic library track,
with a clear majority of these respondents completing this track (63.9
%).
This lack of awareness might point to various aspects such as stu­
dents not going into their programs with a clear plan or intention of
becoming a liaison librarian or even an academic librarian. As indicated
by one participant in the comments section of the survey, “Whilst doing
my MLIS, I never had the intention to work in an academic library, but
rather in a corporate or special library setting…” Programs need to
consider this situation and help students stay better informed regarding
their career prospects. One way to accomplish this is through advising or
through class discussions of the nature of the different types of work that
can be performed in LIS, as well as the various curricular options the
program offers. This is especially relevant since statistical analysis of the
data indicated that those who did not complete the specialized academic
librarianship track in their programs more often than expected indicated
that their program did not prepare them to be liaison librarians in an
academic setting.
Another finding surfaced by inferential statistical analysis of the data
is the association between the timing of the degree completion and the
perception of non-curriculum experiences being useful in their prepa­
ration as liaison librarians. In this study, those with more distance be­
tween when they obtained their degree and participation in the survey,
especially those between the years 2000–2004, were less likely to
indicate that non-curriculum experiences were useful to them in their
preparation as liaison librarians. Although this is possibly due to the
time elapsed between degree completion and data gathering for this
research, which makes specific experiences possibly harder to
remember, there are two other potential possibilities for this trend: the
liaison role being less prevalent and more nascent during this time
period (Miller & Pressley, 2015); or due to LIS programs making non-
curriculum experiences more common and highlighting their impor­
tance, especially regarding diversity (Adkins et al., 2021) and commu­
nity engagement (Caspe & Lopez, 2018).
Despite this finding for a subset of participants, overall, 47.8 % of
participants indicated that non-curriculum experiences were useful in
their preparation as liaison librarians. Among these experiences the
most mentioned were assistantships, co-ops, and fellowships. These are
understood here as being paid opportunities which allowed participants
to work in libraries while concurrently obtaining their degree and were
obtained through or as part of their participation in the program. In
addition to this type of non-curriculum experiences, participants also
highlighted the positive role paid employment in libraries as well as
practicums, independent studies, and internships had in their prepara­
tion as liaison librarians. Research in LIS education supports the
importance of the internship as a way to provide students with mean­
ingful mentorship experience which help students place themselves
psychologically within the field and bolsters their confidence (Lacy &
Copeland, 2013). The popularity of these non-curricular experiences
and the positive perceptions held by most participants in this project
identify this as an area of further exploration in any future study of LIS
curriculum.
It is also important to highlight that inferential statistical analysis
uncovered an association between instruction delivery type and par­
ticipants' perception of non-curricular experience. Here, those who
completed their program online indicated that they did not feel like
these experiences were useful to their preparation as liaisons. The root of
this relationship could be less availability of non-curricular experiences
for students who complete their programs online in a distance modality,
especially those who are out of state or in different cities than where
their programs are located. Given the otherwise clear connection par­
ticipants made between their non-curricular experiences and their
preparation as liaison librarians, this issue merits further consideration
by LIS programs and future LIS students. This disconnect is especially
relevant when considering the growing tendency in LIS programs to
have fully or partially online offerings. Per the latest Association for
7
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602
Library and Information Science Education (ALISE, 2021) Statistical
Report, out of 57 programs which contributed information to the report,
all except for one offered at least some classes online. If programs that
were already fully online are struggling to provide useful non-
curriculum experiences to their students, then programs making the
shift to move more of their programs to this delivery type should take
care to consider the impact on students' access to non-curriculum ex­
periences, especially given the perceived value practicing liaison li­
brarians in this sample assigned to such experiences.
In terms of LIS courses, participants in this study were asked to
provide specific courses taken in their programs which they saw as
useful in their preparation as liaison librarians. Of the courses listed, the
majority were specialized courses which were identified as those which
are not standardized and vary from one program to another. These
included courses such as health librarianship, music librarianship, and
the like. These courses also tend not to be part of the core LIS education,
which tends to focus on aspects such as organization of information,
reference and collection development, and management (Hall, 2009);
with most of these specialized courses functioning as electives. Other
commonly mentioned courses included reference, instruction, and
collection management. This list of courses is congruent with most de­
scriptions of the academic liaison role which highlight functions such as
collection development, instruction, and reference as central to the role
(Attebury & Finnell, 2009; Miller & Pressley, 2015).
Conclusion
This study set out to uncover whether librarians working as liaisons
in academic institutions in the US and Canada felt that their LIS pro­
grams had prepared them for their liaison role and how much of their
preparation could be attributed to their programs' curriculum. Study
findings indicate that those who completed an academic library track in
their program generally agreed more with the statement that their
program prepared them for their liaison role; therefore, it can be
inferred that it is through this track that programs in the US and Canada
are offering the best preparation for the academic liaison role, even if the
presence of liaison-based preparation within those tracks is not explic­
itly advertised. This study also found that liaisons felt learning how to be
a liaison took place more often through hands-on non-curricular expe­
riences within their programs, including assistantships in academic li­
braries, paid employment in libraries, and practicums/internships. In
addition, when suggesting which courses were the most useful, those
that aligned with the primary functions of a liaison (i.e., instruction,
reference, collection development, and specialized courses) were the
most often listed.
The focus on on-the-job learning raises the importance of better
understanding what these jobs are conveying and how well they align
with liaison preparation. It is presumed that many students either
worked in libraries before deciding to pursue their master's or obtain
positions in libraries while in school. These positions no doubt offer on-
the-job experiences to these students, but it is unknown whether those
experiences align with the curriculum or whether they are offering the
skills needed for the liaison role. The unknown aspects of these experi­
ences indicate a need to provide students with ample hands-on experi­
ences within the curriculum, along with opportunities to engage with
and work alongside librarians in the field. This makes mentorship an
important component in terms of how liaison librarians are learning to
do their jobs. Filgo and Towers (2021) recommend providing new liai­
sons with a variety of mentors, whether as part of a formal mentoring
program or more informally. Future research should consider how new
liaison librarians are on-boarded into their positions, and the potential
positive impact that mentoring could play in that process.
This study's findings carry multiple implications, especially for those
seeking an LIS degree and the programs offering them. In academic li­
braries, the role of liaison librarian is common and many academic li­
brarians are asked to take on liaison responsibilities even when not
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre
considered part of their original job responsibilities (Miller & Pressley,
2015). This work presents evidence which demonstrates a complicated
relationship between the completion of a specific academic library track
as a defining factor for librarians' perceptions regarding how well their
curriculum prepared them to be liaison librarians, while the number of
those who are aware of whether their program offered this track rep­
resented a modest 40.2 %. For LIS programs, these findings indicate that
more effort may be needed with initiatives focused on integrating at
least basic information about the liaison role into foundational courses,
preferably core courses which are taken by all students. This will elim­
inate the possibility of students learning about the liaison role only if
they choose to specialize in academic librarianship or take a specialized
class that emphasizes the role.
Another area of consideration for LIS programs is to recommend
students take or require them to take internships, practicums, and other
on-the-job experiences that offer opportunities to gain work experience.
While internships are fairly standard across LIS programs, not all pro­
grams require them and many students choose not to complete the
internship (Bird et al., 2015). It is possible that some students are
already employed in library settings during their program tenure, so an
optional internship may not hold much appeal. This study did not collect
data on whether survey participants worked in library settings while
completing their degrees, so additional research that investigates this
aspect of students' experiences, especially the setting and nature of the
position, is likely warranted.
For those considering or already enrolled in LIS programs, these
findings suggest that it is essential to learn about the liaison role early in
their program. Then, in combination with their core course work, stu­
dents will need to be proactive about their interest in liaison work and
search for ways to gain hands on experience, even seeking opportunities
on their own in case their program does not offer them. Good ways to
accomplish this include searching for paid employment in libraries
while completing their degree, reading the trade publications in the field
and, whenever their program allows it, taking courses such as intern­
ships and practicums in academic libraries.
Academic libraries are also looking for ways to improve liaison
librarian preparation. A recently funded IMLS grant to support The
Collaborative Analysis Liaison Librarians master's level instructional
project may provide a future avenue for standardized preparation of
liaisons within the LIS curriculum (University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
n.d.). The purpose of the project is to support and train a cohort of
leaders focused on science liaison librarianship and to create a model
curriculum that could be applied to other programs. It should be noted
that the program includes a required intensive practicum and mentor­
ship, two elements of preparation suggested by the findings in this study
as well. As the first cohort has just completed the program, the impact of
the project is yet unknown, but the potential of the project and the
lessons learned could prove beneficial to all of LIS.
Finally, implications for academic libraries that utilize liaisons
include a potential need to create on-boarding programs specifically to
help librarians adjust to the liaison role, and on-going professional
development for liaisons throughout their careers. Continuous profes­
sional development may be especially important, as some aspects of
being a liaison may not be easily taught by a course or within the cur­
riculum and the liaison role has shown itself to be an evolving one,
requiring new, unanticipated skills (Filgo & Towers, 2021; Johnson,
2018; Miller & Pressley, 2015). Encouraging continuous professional
development and making it highly accessible could go a long way to­
wards providing liaisons with the support they need to be successful in
their work, even if they enter their positions feeling a bit unprepared by
their LIS program experiences.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kawanna M. Bright: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
8
The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602
review & editing, Visualization. Mónica Colón-Aguirre: Conceptuali­
zation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
References
Adkins, D., Buchanan, S. A., Bossaller, J. S., Brendler, B. M., Alston, J. K., & Sandy, H. M.
(2021). Assessing experiential learning to promote students' diversity engagement.
Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 62(2), 201–219. https://doi.
org/10.3138/jelis.2019-0061
American Library Association. (2022, August 24). Directory of institutions offering ALA-
Accredited master's programs in library and information studies. http://www.ala.or
g/CFApps/lisdir/directory_pdf.cfm.
Association for Library and Information Science Education. (2021). In S. Bajjaly, &
M. R. Drulia (Eds.), ALISE statistical report 2021: Trends and key indicators in library
and information science. Medford, MA.
Attebury, R. I., & Finnell, J. (2009). What do LIS students in the United States know
about liaison duties? New Library World, 110(7–8), 325–340.
Bewick, L., & Corrall, S. (2010). Developing librarians as teachers: A study of their
pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 42(2),
97–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000610361419
Bird, N. J., Chu, C. M., & Oguz, F. (2015). Internship in LIS education: An international
perspective on experiential learning. IFLA Journal, 41(4), 298–307. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0340035215596352
Bright, K. M. (2018). Examining the role of liaison librarians as research collaboration
partners: A mixed-methods multiple-case study (Order No. 10931652). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2162594693) https://www.proquest.
com/dissertations-theses/examining-role-liaison-librarians-as-research/docview/
2162594693/se-2.
Caspe, M., & Lopez, M. E. (2018). Preparing the next generation of librarians for family
and community engagement. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science,
59(4), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.3138/jelis.59.4.2018-0021
Church-Duran, J. (2017). Distinctive roles: Engagement, innovation, and the liaison
model. portal:Libraries and the Academy, 17(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1353/
pla.2017.0015
Collins, D. (2015). Cognitive interviewing practice. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781473910102
Doyle, L., Brady, A.-M., & Byrne, G. (2019). An overview of mixed methods research –
Revisited. In SAGE mixed methods research. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781526498137.
Eden, B. L. (2018). The relevance of ALA accreditation: An insider's view of the ALA
Committee on Accreditation. In J. Percel, L. C. Sarin, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot
(Eds.), Re-envisioning the MLS: Perspectives on the future of library and information
science education (pp. 45–56). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0065-
28302018000044A004.
Ferrer-Vinent, I. J., & Sobel, K. (2011). A study of Master of Library Science candidates
and librarians at a practicum site library. New Library World, 112(7–8), 365–376.
Filgo, E. H., & Towers, S. (2021). Liaison engagement success: A practical guide for
librarians. Rowman & Littlefield.
Goodsett, M., & Koziura, A. (2016). Are library science programs preparing new
librarians? Creating a sustainable and vibrant librarian community. Journal of
Library Administration, 56(6), 697–721.
Hall, R. A. (2009). Exploring the core: An examination of required courses in ALA-
accredited. Education for Information, 27(1), 57–67.
Johnson, A. M. (2018). Connections, conversations, and visibility: How the work of
academic reference and liaison librarians is evolving. Reference & User Services
Quarterly, 58(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.5860/rusq.58.2.6929
Lacy, M., & Copeland, A. J. (2013). The role of mentorship programs in LIS education
and in professional development. Journal of Education for Library and Information
Science, 54(2), 135–146.
Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert
scale items? Study I: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 31, 657–674.
Mian, A. (2022). ARL annual salary survey 2020. Washington, DC: Association of Research
Libraries. https://doi.org/10.29242/salary.2020
Miller, R. K., & Pressley, L. (2015, November). Evolution of library liaisons. SPEC Kit 349.
Association of College & Research Libraries.
Nero, N., & Langley, A. (2017). Subject liaisons in academic libraries: An open access
data set from 2015. Portal. Libraries and the Academy, 17(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/
10.1353/pla.2017.0001
Rosa, K., & Henke, K. (2017). 2017 ALA demographic study. ALA Office for Research and
Statistics. http://www.ala.org/tools/sites/ala.org.tools/files/content/Draft%20of%
20Member%20Demographics%20Survey%2001-11-2017.pdf.
K.M. Bright and M. Colón-Aguirre The Journal of Academic Librarianship 48 (2022) 102602

Saunders, L. (2015). Professional perspectives on library and information science University of Tennessee, Knoxville. About the IMLS grant. Retrieved May 21, 2022, from
education. The Library Quarterly, 85(4), 427–453. https://call.infosci.utk.edu/.
Thomas, C. V., & Urban, R. J. (2018). What do data librarians think of the MLIS?
Professionals' perceptions of knowledge transfer, trends, and challenges. College &
Research Libraries, 79(3), 401–423.