Examining library structures to scale research support services: Insights from an OCLC RLP leadership roundtable  

The following post is part of a series that documents findings from the RLP leadership roundtable discussions.

Research libraries are experiencing increasing demand for research support services, such as open research and data management, research analytics, and systematic reviews, often in collaboration with other campus partners. This presents significant challenges for effectively resourcing and scaling these services.

RLG logo

The OCLC Research Library Partnership (RLP) convened the Research Support Leadership Roundtable in October 2024 to discuss how libraries are making both incremental and large-scale changes to scale and resource their research support services.

The roundtable included 45 participants from 37 institutions in four countries, who engaged in four separate discussions focused on the evolving landscape of research support:

Binghamton UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionUniversity of Nevada, Reno
British LibraryStony Brook UniversityUniversity of Pittsburgh
Carnegie Mellon UniversitySyracuse UniversityUniversity of Southern California
Clemson UniversityTemple UniversityUniversity of Sydney
Colorado State UniversityTufts UniversityUniversity of Tennessee, Knoxville
George Washington UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Texas at Austin
Getty Research InstituteUniversity of California, RiversideUniversity of Toronto
Hofstra UniversityUniversity of California, San DiegoUniversity of Utah
Institute for Advanced StudyUniversity of DelawareUniversity of Warwick
Monash UniversityUniversity of GlasgowVanderbilt University
Montana State UniversityUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignVirginia Tech
Ohio State UniversityUniversity of Leeds
Rutgers UniversityUniversity of Minnesota

Our conversations focused on library organization and staffing, and participants were asked to consider these framing questions:

  1. Briefly describe how research support services are currently staffed and provisioned in your library. (For example, is support provided by subject liaisons? Librarians in functional roles? A combination of the two? Other?)
  2. If there are challenges with the configuration, describe these. Where do you most need to grow?
  3. If you are examining changing operational structures, please describe. Are there models you are considering emulating? Why?

This post offers a synthesis of our discussions. RLP leadership roundtables observe the Chatham House Rule; no specific comments are attributed to any individual or institution.

RLP libraries are innovating with library structures to scale research support

Resourcing research support services at an adequate level is a universal pain point among RLP libraries. What differs is how libraries have organized their staffing and services to meet these needs, and we heard from RLP libraries that are structured across a spectrum of organizational configurations.

At one end of that spectrum are libraries that rely primarily upon a decentralized cadre of subject liaisons to deliver research support. Liaisons provide a direct contact for users, roughly in parallel with the academic organization of the university. While most RLP institutions participating in the discussion rely on liaison librarians for some degree of research support, only a couple of institutions reported relying primarily upon liaisons to provide research support. And these libraries anticipate reconfiguration toward a mixed model as vacancies occur.

At the other end of the continuum are libraries that deploy a centralized functional model. Here, service-oriented teams manage library tasks—such as research data curation, copyright consulting, or collection development—across all disciplines, rather than assigning multiple responsibilities to individuals within a single subject area. Duane Wilson notes in a recent historical literature review that since 2011, more libraries have moved to this model, with librarians focusing on specialized functions, such as collection development, scholarly communication, and research impact.[1] Indeed, 6 of 36 university libraries in the US, UK, and Australia participating in the roundtable have shifted to a functional model.

Most libraries participating in the discussion, however, fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, with approximately two-thirds of institutions deploying a combination of these strategies. Library scholar Sheila Corrall has called this a “mixed structure,” with a combination of functional librarians supporting services like scholarly communications and data curation, and liaison libraries supporting one or more disciplinary areas.[2] The growth of specialized research support services—such as scholarly communication, data management, and research impact—has further driven this shift, creating increasingly mixed or matrixed approaches to service delivery.

Graph showing a range of structures from decentralized subject liaisons to mixed structure to functional teams.
Research libraries organize research support across a spectrum of organizational configurations

Roundtable discussions revealed that many RLP libraries are experimenting with organizational structures to increase capacity for research support. While a few institutions have eliminated legacy liaison roles altogether, most are being “reorganised around the edges instead of completely discarding their old structure and beginning anew.”[3]

Many RLP libraries are experimenting with organizational structures to increase capacity for research support

Most libraries use a mixed structure of liaison and functional roles

Overall, roundtable participants expressed differing opinions about their continued use of a mixed organizational structure heavily reliant upon distributed subject liaisons. Many value how the liaison model supports collections-focused research and personalized support to faculty and students. But others expressed frustration with “historical positions” offering bespoke services that are neither scalable nor strategic.

One public US university library described its research support services as having developed in an ad hoc manner, resulting in a mixed structure. While this decentralized environment has encouraged innovation and experimentation, the participant noted it was “neither coordinated nor strategic.” Recognizing the unsustainability of this arrangement, the library is reorganizing, with the intention of better addressing under-supported areas like research services.

To scale within the existing liaison framework, several libraries are experimenting with team-based approaches. A private US institution, for example, organized its subject liaisons into functional teams like research impact and data services, but with mixed results. While each librarian has deepened their expertise by focusing on a specific functional service area, librarians struggled to do “double duty,” balancing functional responsibilities with subject expertise and networks—a challenge worsened by shrinking professional development budgets. Another public US institution tried a similar staffing configuration but found it unsuccessful, ultimately reorganizing liaison librarians into fully functional roles. Two other institutions are currently testing similar strategies.

Several participants expressed disappointment with their library’s inability to scale research support services using the mixed model but see near term change as unlikely, due to a “lack of political will.” But another participant sees this matrixed structure “mostly working” to scale research support, as subject liaisons support a “middle zone” of service in an area like research data management, reserving the most specialized work for the dedicated RDM librarians.

Benefits and challenges of a mixed organizational structure

Peppered throughout our roundtable discussions were many comments about the benefits and challenges of the mixed organizational structure. Often, things that many perceived as benefits simultaneously present challenges.

Benefits

  1. Highly personalized services. Liaison librarians provide customized support, cultivating strong relationships with faculty and students.
  2. Library visibility in academic units. Subject liaisons work closely with colleges and departments and are well-informed about faculty activities.  
  3. Experimentation and innovation. A decentralized environment, where librarians enjoy high autonomy, can foster innovative services and approaches.
  4. Familiarity with the service model. Distributed teams of subject liaisons have been the status quo at academic libraries for over fifty years, and both librarians and users have a high degree of comfort with this model.
  5. Organizational resilience. Distribution of knowledge across a broad team can mitigate disruptions when vacancies occur.

Challenges

  1. Lack of scalability. High touch, bespoke services cannot scale effectively and may result in duplicative efforts.  
  2. Uneven service quality. Many participants expressed frustration that service provision depends heavily upon individual librarians, leading to inconsistent experiences for patrons, an issue also frequently mentioned in the library literature.[4]
  3. Lower visibility by campus administrative units. While high visibility in colleges/faculties is a benefit of deploying liaison librarians, the distributed model can obscure library activities at the institutional level, reducing visibility with campus leaders and units.
  4. Un-strategic deployment of resources. At least a dozen individuals described their structures as an obstacle to strategic alignment with institutional priorities, hampering responses to institutional changes.
  5. An entrenched legacy model that is difficult to change. This is the flip side of patron and librarian comfort with the service model. There are high switching costs to move to another model.
  6. Matrixed work can be difficult to coordinate. Functional specialists are meant to be centralized and work across disciplines, and liaisons are in direct contrast because they are subject experts; coordinating their activities is inherently complex. Poor communication across internal teams can create coordination gaps, leading to fragmented engagements and undermining the library’s organizational brand. To address this, one institution introduced cross-training to improve referrals, awareness, and workflows.
  7. “Double-duty” pressure. When subject librarians assume functional leadership roles, they may struggle to remain engaged, skilled, and networked in both subject and functional domains. While imperfect, this approach does offer a way to deepen research support expertise without radically restructuring the library.

A few libraries are shifting to a functional or service-oriented model

While most RLP libraries participating in this roundtable rely on a mixed structure, a few have transitioned to a functional or service-oriented model. These shifts, driven primarily by the need for greater scalability and strategic alignment with institutional priorities, can feel radical for both librarians and users.

One UK institution adopted a functional model several years ago, driven by the need to create capacity for open access support. The change has been successful, providing better support to users, and with the additional benefit of helping library staff and services “feel more embedded in the university.” The library plays a larger role on campus and is now a part of institutional strategy and planning conversations.

In the US, a public university also shifted to a functional model, reorganizing subject liaisons into two teams: student success (serving undergraduates) and research support and open scholarship (targeting faculty, researchers, and graduate students). The previous subject liaison model was seen as unsustainable.

After a long period of consultation, another university library is transitioning from a liaison model which delivered quality one-on-one service to researchers but lacked scalability and agility. Seeking greater research support capacity, the library redistributed education, engagement, and research responsibilities across three functional teams. The research services team will be further subdivided into research impact and publishing support.

Lego blocks
Photo by Sen on Unsplash

One participant described research libraries as being at a significant moment of change, as traditional liaison models—centered on collection development, information literacy, and reference support—are less effective as research support demands increase. Collection development work is also increasingly centralized. [5]  To scale services for one large research university with more than 80,000 students and nearly 20,000 faculty and staff, the move to a functional model should support more agile, scalable service delivery, in response to institutional needs. The institution is implementing a tiered approach: ideally, 80% of support will be delivered via self-service access by users, followed by small-group workshops and, lastly, specialized high-touch support deployed strategically—not as the default.

Most institutions that shifted to a functional model from a mixed structure described a fairly rapid transition, following extensive study and consultation. However, one public US institution made a gradual, decade-long transition from the liaison model, primarily by reallocating vacant liaison roles to more strategic functional roles in areas like research data management, scholarly communications, and teaching and learning.

Impacts on librarians

Library reorganizations have significant impacts on workers, and roundtable participants described a gamut of responses from librarians during their reorganizations. While some librarians thrive, developing new skills and expertise, others struggle, grieving the loss of professional identities and fulfilling responsibilities. Re-skilling is also a challenge, as increased needs for professional development, training, and conference attendance often collide with institutional austerity measures.

Relationships and organizational intelligence

A significant challenge reported by one public US institution was the loss of faculty relationships. Subject liaisons often attended departmental meetings and built deep connections. Structural changes can disrupt these relationships. Faculty members accustomed to contacting a familiar subject liaison may balk when asked to seek assistance through a general email address, and both users and librarians may quietly revert to using the former model.

Benefits and challenges of the functional model

Like the mixed organizational structure, the functional model has both benefits and challenges:

Benefits

  1. Scalability of service. Many participants see the functional, service-based approach as the only solution to the thorny problem of scaling support for large student and researcher populations. In general, these participants believe libraries must shift capacity away from time intensive personalized support.  
  2. Deepened research support. It’s not just about scaling services, but it’s also often providing a deeper level of expertise to library users. Deployment of functional specialists in areas like copyright, open research, and data management can offer greater expertise to campus communities.
  3. Alignment with institutional priorities. Functional teams allow libraries to strategically allocate staff and resources, aligning more effectively with institutional goals. The decentralized provision by subject liaisons was frequently described by participants as “un-strategic” or “uncoordinated.”
  4. Equitable distribution of work. Work for functional teams is triaged more centrally, with the benefit of assigning work more evenly and equitably, reducing reliance on individual initiative. These workflows can also support analysis and reporting of library activities.
  5. Visibility and engagement with campus units. Organizing activities into functional units enhances the library’s visibility to institutional leaders and campus partners, whereas a distributed service model may seem complex and opaque. This approach can support cross-campus social interoperability and strengthens the library’s strategic role.
  6. Strategic campus partnerships. Closely related, functional teams can offer stronger frameworks for partnerships with other campus units. For example, one institution described how their functional research services team will focus on engagement and partnership through “central portfolios” with other campus units like the research office and graduate college. This partnership approach can help the library maintain alignment with institutional goals while educating stakeholders on the library’s evolving value proposition.  

Challenges

  1. Weakened relationships with faculty and units. Faculty appreciate the personal relationships and high touch offered by the liaison model, and they are often reluctant to change. A less distributed model can also diminish library knowledge of college/faculty activities.
  2. Human impact. The transition can be difficult for some workers who may feel a loss of professional identity and purpose, and some will struggle to thrive.  
  3. Retraining needs. Many librarians must gain expertise in new areas, but professional development and training can be hampered by budget constraints.
  4. Reduced resilience. One participant described the functional model as creating “a single point of failure,” when expertise resides in one employee.
  5. New workflows. Previous ways of working may not adequately manage and distribute tasks. One institution has implemented an internal tracking/ticketing system for managing requests coming to a central email address.
  6. Hiring challenges. Some participants said they found recruitment for functional roles challenging, as candidates with technical and functional skills are also in high demand across other industries offering more generous compensation.  

Final thoughts

Reflecting on these roundtable discussions, I see an urgent need for libraries to evolve in a complex, rapidly changing environment. Research libraries, particularly those affiliated with prestigious research universities, must develop services that align with the institution’s research and teaching missions. Institutional complexity often slows change, especially when stakeholders are invested in established structures, relationships, and workflows.

Many libraries continue to leverage legacy service models developed in an earlier era—when collection development, information literacy, and reference support were primary needs. These models predate online catalogs, WorldCat, the internet, digitized resources, linked data, e-books, and AI. In our leadership roundtable discussions, participants expressed a desire to explore new organizational structures. Yet, many acknowledged that near-term changes remain unlikely due to steep switching costs—the costs of shifting from one approach to another, such as new organizational structures, workflows, technologies, and relationships. Transitioning to new models demands effort, planning, political capital, change management, and patience.

However, as my colleague Brian Lavoie has written about elsewhere, there are also status quo costs to consider. These arise from avoiding change and continuing existing practices. Roundtable participants delineated many switching costs in our discussion—things like limited capacity for research support, reduced visibility among stakeholders, uneven service provision, and difficulty strategically deploying resources to support institutional priorities. Switching costs may be high, but status quo costs may be higher, with potential risks of diminishing the library’s value, autonomy, and access to resources.  

Switching costs may be high, but status quo costs may be higher.

There’s no silver bullet. No universal solution will work for every library. Tradeoffs are inevitable, and each library must consider its strategic priorities, resources, work climate, and overall business needs. My hope is that our roundtable discussions—and this synthesis—provide support to research libraries as they navigate change.


[1] Wilson, Duane. “Constant Change or Constantly the Same? A Historical Literature Review of the Subject Librarian Position.” College & Research Libraries 85, no. 7 (November 1, 2024): 1035. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.7.1035.

[2] Corrall, Sheila. 2014. “Designing Libraries for Research Collaboration in the Network World: An Exploratory Study”. LIBER Quarterly: The Journal of the Association of European Research Libraries 24 (1): 17-48. https://doi.org/10.18352/lq.9525.

[3] Stueart, Robert D., and Barbara B. Moran. Library and Information Center Management. 7th ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2007, 188.

[4] Wilson, 11.

[5] Wilson, 2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting this comment, you confirm that you have read, understand, and agree to the Code of Conduct and Terms of Use. All personal data you transfer will be handled by OCLC in accordance with its Privacy Statement.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.