图书馆安全:准备的感知

A. Adams, Karen Kiorpes
{"title":"图书馆安全:准备的感知","authors":"A. Adams, Karen Kiorpes","doi":"10.5860/LLM.V35I2.7474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article details the results of two parallel surveys sent to the heads of campus security and the libraries at 54 schools within the SUNY system. We undertook this study to determine the extent of collaboration between these groups and to learn where library and security staff perceptions of safety and preparedness differ. The findings indicated that most campuses have emergency response plans in place for the possibility of a high-impact violent event or a human-caused emergency. \n \nHowever, libraries are less likely to have dedicated emergency plans and report an inconsistent mix of physical security measures and staff safety trainings. Overall, both campus security respondents and library staff members feel safe at work and reasonably prepared for a human-caused emergency. Additionally, campus security consistently rated the libraries as safer and more prepared than the librarians rated themselves, and a gap exists in perceptions of the frequency and usefulness of collaborations between the two. Security consistently answered that they are closely involved with library trainings and safety measures, while the librarians’ responses ranged from no contact with security to praise for existing collaborations and a desire for more.","PeriodicalId":404822,"journal":{"name":"Library Leadership & Management","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Library Security: Perceptions of Preparedness\",\"authors\":\"A. Adams, Karen Kiorpes\",\"doi\":\"10.5860/LLM.V35I2.7474\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article details the results of two parallel surveys sent to the heads of campus security and the libraries at 54 schools within the SUNY system. We undertook this study to determine the extent of collaboration between these groups and to learn where library and security staff perceptions of safety and preparedness differ. The findings indicated that most campuses have emergency response plans in place for the possibility of a high-impact violent event or a human-caused emergency. \\n \\nHowever, libraries are less likely to have dedicated emergency plans and report an inconsistent mix of physical security measures and staff safety trainings. Overall, both campus security respondents and library staff members feel safe at work and reasonably prepared for a human-caused emergency. Additionally, campus security consistently rated the libraries as safer and more prepared than the librarians rated themselves, and a gap exists in perceptions of the frequency and usefulness of collaborations between the two. Security consistently answered that they are closely involved with library trainings and safety measures, while the librarians’ responses ranged from no contact with security to praise for existing collaborations and a desire for more.\",\"PeriodicalId\":404822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Library Leadership & Management\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Library Leadership & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5860/LLM.V35I2.7474\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Library Leadership & Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5860/LLM.V35I2.7474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文详细介绍了两项平行调查的结果,这些调查被发送给纽约州立大学系统内54所学校的校园安全负责人和图书馆负责人。我们进行这项研究是为了确定这些团体之间的合作程度,并了解图书馆和保安人员对安全和准备的看法有何不同。调查结果表明,大多数校园都有应急响应计划,以应对可能发生的高影响暴力事件或人为紧急情况。然而,图书馆不太可能有专门的应急计划,并且报告了物理安全措施和员工安全培训的不一致组合。总体而言,校园安全受访者和图书馆工作人员在工作中都感到安全,并为人为紧急情况做好了合理的准备。此外,校园保安一直认为图书馆比图书管理员对自己的评价更安全、更有准备,而且在对两者合作的频率和有用性的认识上存在差距。保安人员一直回答说,他们密切参与图书馆的培训和安全措施,而图书管理员的回答则从没有与保安人员联系到对现有合作的赞扬和对更多合作的渴望不等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Library Security: Perceptions of Preparedness
This article details the results of two parallel surveys sent to the heads of campus security and the libraries at 54 schools within the SUNY system. We undertook this study to determine the extent of collaboration between these groups and to learn where library and security staff perceptions of safety and preparedness differ. The findings indicated that most campuses have emergency response plans in place for the possibility of a high-impact violent event or a human-caused emergency. However, libraries are less likely to have dedicated emergency plans and report an inconsistent mix of physical security measures and staff safety trainings. Overall, both campus security respondents and library staff members feel safe at work and reasonably prepared for a human-caused emergency. Additionally, campus security consistently rated the libraries as safer and more prepared than the librarians rated themselves, and a gap exists in perceptions of the frequency and usefulness of collaborations between the two. Security consistently answered that they are closely involved with library trainings and safety measures, while the librarians’ responses ranged from no contact with security to praise for existing collaborations and a desire for more.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信