ارتباط سیستم های مدیریت منابع الکترونیکی با شیوه های استخدام برای پرسنل منابع الکترونیکی

Requirements for electronic resource positions in libraries advertised between the years 2000 and 2008 are reviewed and analyzed according to how they relate to developments in electronic resource management tools and standards taking place during the associated time periods. The research reveals that the job requirements for electronic resource personnel have not changed significantly over these years, despite overwhelming changes in quantity of material and quality of system resources and despite the recommendations of the Digital Library Federation's Electronic Resource Management Initiative documentation, which is used as a focal point for this study.

Electronic resources, specifically online databases and e-journals, currently represent a large portion of library resources and are bound to expand and generate an even greater influence on information science in the future. Therefore, the methods and means used to acquire and manage them, their licenses, their access, etc., are of significant concern and importance to libraries and information centers. These tools and the practical application thereof, particularly and including the personnel issues involved in that application, are a principal focal point of this phenomenon and thereby deserve ongoing analysis, reevaluation, and reformulation. - Background Since the first AtoZ list for electronic resource management was introduced by Serials Solutions in the year 2000, electronic resource management (ERM) has been growing and evolving in the attempt to keep up with the exponential growth of electronic resources and the greater demand to furnish a system to organize and track libraries' subscriptions and access to such titles. ERM systems have evolved greatly over the past 8 years, adding openURL linking, federated searching, collection management, as well as license and registration management tools, to the original AtoZ services. There are also many vendors of such systems, some attached to an integrated library system, such as Innovative's ERM; others as stand-alone options, such as Serials Solutions. Therefore, libraries are faced with many options when considering ERM systems. They are also, consequently, faced with many options regarding workflow and staff responsibility distribution for electronic resource acquisition and management. There were originally no standards in place to assist in determining staff and workflow issues involved in e-resource management. That changed in 2004 with the publication of the Digital Library Federation's (DLF's) Electronic Resource Management Initiative (ERMI), which, among other things, put forth suggested workflow operations for e-resource management in libraries. Concurrent with the birth of electronic resources was the conception of a specialized library position, often times known as the Electronic Resources Librarian and also as Electronic Resources Manager, and other variations of the two titles. Additionally, some libraries responded by creating combination position titles, such as Electronic Resources/Systems Librarian, so as to expand somewhat comparable skill sets of existing professionals. Specialized e-resources positions were being invented in an attempt to gain control over this new phenomenon; however, much of the tasks in such job descriptions still reflected traditional library responsibilities. At first, with e-resources in their infancy, it may not have been extraordinary to expect this kind of multitasking. However, particularly in the past few years, the overall numbers of available e-resources increased steadily and eventually began to outweigh print resources in new acquisitions as well as superimpositions. - Conceptual assumptions In light of these changes, it seems reasonable that institutions continuing to rely on a specialized e-resource staff member should be eliminating as many requirements superfluous to ERM as possible in order to allow for greater attention to the expanding demands of the morphing world of electronic resources. Therefore, one might be inclined to question whether advertisements for e-resource personnel continue to include categories of responsibility nonspecific to e-resources. The ERMI does not propone the existence of a specified Electronic Resources Librarian or variation thereof. Rather, by this researcher's estimation, it exemplifies the incorporation of e-resource management into existing personnel systems. Assuming that developing ERM systems were to adhere to the criteria that this report set forth for such development, as it is supposed that they have, the implementation of the workflow outlined therein could be presumed feasible. It is now 4 years hence, and a reasonable time to speculate over the prevalence of the ERMI guidelines in the e-resource workflow management of libraries. Do we see more or fewer advertisements for specialized e-resource personnel since then? If we do see comparable numbers of advertisements in recent times, is there any indication that these libraries are indeed employing ERM systems? - Research questions Based on the above speculation, the research questions implicated here are as follows: 1) Do recent advertisements for e-resource personnel continue to include categories of responsibility nonspecific to e-resources? 2) Do we see more or fewer advertisements for specialized e-resource personnel since the release of the DLF's ERMI? If we do see comparable numbers of advertisements in recent times, is there any indication that these libraries are indeed employing ERM systems? - Importance of the study The findings of the research will, of course, be of concern to those considering specialization in electronic resources management. Additionally, it should be of some interest to all library and information studies students, based on the likelihood that they will need to have at least some exposure to and contact with electronic resource management. It could also serve as incentive for further dialogue regarding ERM and associated workflow issues among library directors and decision makers.

The primary purpose of this research was to examine the requirements for electronic resource professionals during a period of time over which electronic resource management was rapidly evolving, electronic resource management systems were both created and expanded to incorporate greater functionality, and standards and recommendations for electronic resource management and workflow were developed. The goal of this study was to determine the relevance of those functional and systematic developments to the hiring practices for electronic resource personnel. - Data analysis summary and deductions The analysis of job postings revealed that many similar job responsibilities for such personnel remained throughout the years. This fact seems to contradict the recommendations of the DLF's ERMI, as outlined in the literature review, which was published at the approximate midpoint of the time span concerned. If the DLF's suggestions were utilized to their full extent, it can be supposed that the sheer number of advertisements for personnel specializing in e-resources would have declined post-publication. However, this did not prove to be the case. The majority of job titles for electronic resources personnel positions reflected the desire of the employers to hire those who are able to perform traditional librarian duties, such as reference and instructional service, in addition to e-resource specific tasks. Since the bulk of e-resource management appears to be the responsibility of one sole professional in these institutions, the fact that the job descriptions contain this extent and variety of tasks is also a practice that is seemingly opposed to recommendations in this area. Despite Yu and Breivold's [12] assertion that a single librarian would be ill equipped to administer the entire process of electronic resources management and their acknowledgement that the recommendations of the DLF support this idea, this apparently continues to be the situation at hand. Therefore, perhaps Medeiros' [8] admonition that incorporating an ERMS into the existing work of the technical staff presents a challenge greater than that presented by the creation of a new structure that delineates a set of dedicated e-resource staff might just be a valid deduction. Additionally, Boss and Schmidt's [2] description of the ER Librarian as a “cross between a reference librarian, a collection development officer, acquisitions manager, a cataloger, and an information technology specialist” (p. 129) seems accurate in light of this study. Although the researcher did find a few advertisements that validated the idea that if ER management is broken down among departments then the ER professional just plays the role of facilitator or liaison between those units that carry out the work, the majority of announcements upheld Boss and Schmidt's allusion to the wearing of many hats. Although there has been a continuation in the multitude and variety of tasks included in ER personnel job descriptions, there do appear a few general trends that may follow some logical path. For example, the percentage of advertisements that made mention of the existence of an ERAM or ERMS increased almost steadily through the years. The one drop in this measurement occurred in 2006, the year in which, interestingly, the percentage of advertisements requiring the candidate to assist in the development and implementation of an ERMS spiked. This would be, in fact, a logical correlation. However, the increase in the existence of ERAM and ERMS did not appear to have noticeable impact on the quantity or content of position announcements. Additionally, no definite conclusion as to the existence of such systems at these libraries can truly be drawn since it is quite possible many of them simply did not include such information in their advertisements. Some responsibilities that were considered extraneous to e-resource specific tasks, such as reference service and cataloging, did show an overall declining trend when comparing the first 4 years in this study to the last 4. Website maintenance and development also showed a general decline, aside from an increase for which the author can decipher no specific explanation, between 2004 and 2005. On the other side of the same coin, certain tasks showed a general incline, such as e-resource statistics and licensing. The increase in the job requirement to track statistics began in 2003, with a slight drop in 2004, and rose relatively steadily thereafter. The fact that COUNTER standards for statistics were introduced in 2003 may have some correlation here but, generally speaking, it is expected that this need would grow along with the sheer numbers of electronic resources available anyway. Other than these few noticeable trends in the data, the researcher found no other significant correlation between the timeline of ERM developments and standards and the job responsibilities included in the advertisements reviewed. - Answers to research questions So, to summarize, the answers to the research questions posed in this study are as follows: 1. Recent advertisements for e-resource personnel do continue to include categories of responsibility nonspecific to e-resource. 2. Although relatively steady in number, if anything, there is a slight increase in numbers of advertisements for specialized e-resource personnel since the release of the DLF's ERMI. 3. There is an indication that at least some of these libraries are indeed employing ERM systems, but no true conclusion can be drawn, as many institutions may not have included this information in their job announcements. In addition to answering these questions, the results of this study may be of interest to those considering specialization in electronic resources management, as well as to all library and information studies students, since it is likely that most will be at least somewhat affected by electronic resource management. It could also serve as incentive for further dialogue regarding ERM and associated workflow issues among library directors and decision makers. - Limitations and recommendations As mentioned, one important limitation of this study consists of the inability to accurately measure the employment, or lack thereof, of ERM system resources at the hiring institutions. It is also difficult to determine the amount of time one must allow between the birth of a new resource or standard and the ability of libraries to incorporate it, so the determination of trends related to such occurrences is difficult at best. As this study focused on open positions, the author is unable to include any possible changes within existing ER personnel job descriptions. The data collection for the purpose of this study was conducted via the Internet. Although this method proved to be a succinct and successful way of gathering a multitude of job announcements, similar studies may benefit from obtaining advertisements from other sources. In addition, future research into this subject could be conducted using a different method. A survey of libraries regarding their current e-resource personnel job descriptions, as well as ER workflow, and utilization of an ERMS, could prove a valuable avenue of exploration.