Question: August 8, 2003

Joyce Chapman (NC)

If people with ALA accredited MLS are working in non-Librarian positions, are they counted as 250 or 252? I can’t tell from the WebPLUS v1.7.

Thanks!

See also:  http://plsc.pbworks.com/w/page/7422663/Total%20Librarians%20vs%20Total%20MLS (June 30, 2008 and March 6, 2009)

SDC Comments:

Susan Mark (WY)

252 is my understanding.

Michael Golrick (LA)

At the danger of sounding old <gasp>, we had this discussion before you joined this group. For this data element, the degree is tied to the requirements of the position, not to the person occupying it. Therefore, if the *position* requires the ALA-MLS the individual is counted in 250, if not they are counted in 252.

[I went and searched the PLSC wiki, and found this discussion some of which even pre-dates *my* arrival as an SDC….

Look here: http://plsc.pbworks.com/w/page/7422663/Total%20Librarians%20vs%20Total%20MLS

I think it must have also been discussed (again) at the 2009 meeting which would have been my first. But I can use my “mad reference skillz” to find this stuff!]

Good luck.

Joyce Chapman (NC)

Thanks for your answers. The wording of the questions/definitions for Paid Staff seems awfully misleading as is. Shouldn’t we modify it to clarify that we’re counting positions and classifications, not actual people? The questions currently state that we want counts of “librarians” and “persons” and “employees”. It would never cross my mind to report based on position classifications instead of staff’s actual credentials if I were filling the survey out with these definitions.

Colleen Hamer (MT)

I agree that the data element definitions by themselves could be misleading. As I am a new SDC, I’ve reviewed closely the definitions and the blog histories, and I’ve found that often the leading paragraphs for each category contain vital information… so much so, I’ve incorporated it in each definition for my own use.  E.g. below the category paragraph clarifies the idea of positions, the idea that filled or vacant positions are reportable, and the idea of FTE (NOT a count of positions), etc

Frank Nelson (ID)

The origin of this thread is lost in time.  Not chiseled in stone mind you, but it was mostly first put down in Linear B.

Joyce Chapman (NC)

Yes, that’s a good point but I think if we’re asking people to count positions then we need to say so everywhere instead of telling them to count “positions” in the category description and then telling them to count “persons/librarians/employees” in the question definition. We’re begging to be handed incorrect information, as it is. And causing extra confusion for the libraries, which is the last thing we want to do.

If the questions require data on positions and their classifications instead of data on actual staff members, why haven’t we reworded all four question definitions in the Paid Staff section so that they indicate what libraries are actually supposed to be counting? Can we do this?