Official abstract (English)
Hybrid work has become a durable organizational condition in academic libraries, yet the academic-library literature still lacks designs that can show how formal hybrid arrangements are translated into everyday role expectations, job control, symbolic visibility, and workload inequity. This conceptual-methodological article develops a framework and one illustrative comparative qualitative design for studying hybrid role reform in academic libraries; it does not report empirical findings. Using Role Theory and the job demands-resources tradition as the analytic backbone, treating telepressure, technostress, symbolic visibility, and invisible labor as sensitizing mechanisms, and using intersectionality as a comparative lens, the article argues that one useful next empirical step is a multi-site comparative qualitative study. It clarifies four key constructs, advances three analytical propositions, specifies three non-exhaustive focal research questions, and outlines one illustrative single-country design that combines semi-structured interviews, policy and workload documents, abductive thematic analysis, and matrix-based cross-case comparison. An illustrative worked example shows how apparently similar hybrid policies can imply very different degrees of control, legitimacy, and workload equity. The article offers a bounded and implementable basis for future empirical inquiry into role strain, burnout risk, accommodation, retention, and service sustainability across public, technical, digital, and managerial academic-library work.