Suppr超能文献

用词很重要:“para”在准专业人员中的解释和含义。

Words matter: interpretations and implications of "para" in paraprofessional.

出版信息

J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jan 1;109(1):13-22. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.933.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

尽管 20 世纪 90 年代早期的研究表明,从事非图书馆员角色的图书馆工作人员将“准专业人员”一词解释为对其角色具有贬低意味,但最近没有对此主题进行研究。本研究旨在调查卫生科学图书馆工作人员是否仍然对该术语具有类似的负面联想,并确定是否更喜欢另一个术语。

方法

作者进行了文献回顾,以确定用于对非图书馆员角色的图书馆工作人员进行分类的术语。使用这些术语,我们创建了一个在线 Qualtrics 调查,要求参与者根据偏好对术语进行排名。我们通过 36 个专业电子邮件讨论列表分发了该调查,包括 MEDLIB-L、33 个 MLA 分会和核心小组电子邮件讨论列表、DOCLINE-L 和 ACRL-HSIG-L。调查参与者包括任何非图书馆员职位的全职和兼职卫生科学图书馆工作人员。不接受图书馆员的回复。

结果

根据 178 份完成的调查,有 49%的参与者选择了“图书馆工作人员”,超过了“其他”(19%)、“准专业人员”(13%)、“图书馆支持人员”(11%)、“准图书馆员”(7%)和“非专业人员”(1%)。尽管“图书馆工作人员”是所有年龄段参与者的首选,但年龄在 45-75 岁的年长参与者比年龄在 18-44 岁的年轻参与者更倾向于选择“图书馆支持人员”和“准专业人员”,而年轻参与者更倾向于选择“其他”。在 36 位特别提到“准专业人员”或“准图书馆员”术语的参与者中,有 32 位(89%)的评论是负面的,表明“准”在“准专业人员”和“准图书馆员”中是侮辱性的、不适用的或不熟悉的。

结论

我们的结果表明,尽管“准专业人员”一词可能并非有意用于贬低图书馆工作人员,但许多图书馆工作人员将该术语解释为对其角色具有贬低意味。相反,“图书馆工作人员”是一个更具包容性和少分裂性的术语,受到调查参与者的青睐。根据我们的结果,我们认为“准专业人员”一词不应再在图书馆和信息学术文献或专业话语中使用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4b67/7772989/1582471402c3/jmla-109-1-13-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验