Perceptions of students working as library reference assistants at a University Library

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to develop a better understanding of student worker perceptions of academic libraries in an effort to improve student worker training, position structure and, ultimately, their perceptions of the library. The value of student reference assistants extends well beyond the completion of assigned library tasks. Specifically, student reference assistants can be important community voices and advocates for academic libraries, spreading, by word-of-mouth, the kinds of library services available to students and their relevance to the academic community. Consequently, it is essential to gain an understanding of how student workers perceive the academic library as a result of their employment. Design/methodology/approach – This paper uses an informal, anonymous online survey of student reference assistants to gather information on student worker perceptions of the library. Questions focus on student workers’ understanding of library services and resources as well as on the library’s mission and purpose. An analysis of student responses is provided in light of four “ideal” perceptions which the librarians hold for all students. Findings – Overall, student worker responses to the survey generally aligned with the ideal perceptions. However, misalignments suggest the need for training that focuses on the development of a broader understanding of the library’s role in the academic community. Practical implications – The paper can help academic librarians gain insight on how student workers understand the role of the library within the larger academic community and how positive student worker perceptions can be leveraged for outreach purposes. Originality/value – This paper examines an important aspect of student worker perception that has generally been overlooked in the literature.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.