ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 602 / C&RL News F a c u lty m em b ers a n d a c a d e m ic lib ra ria n s: D istin c tiv e d iffe r e n c e s By R eb ecca K ellogg Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences University o f Arizona H ow librarians appear to administrators and teaching faculty. My administrative views of academic librarians are biased by the fact th at I am a librarian. I am also a b u reau crat, an adm inistrator, otherwise known as one of “them .” I am not a faculty m em ­ ber as such is defined by faculty members. And per­ haps because of experience w ithin these roles, I found this speech difficult to write. These days, as I talk w ith academic librarians, I w ant very much to discuss w hat librarians can do to assist their institu­ tions in im proving un dergraduate education. I don’t w ant to talk about faculty status or about the lack of money. I w ant to talk about why librarians should take responsibility for teaching undergrad­ uates the methodology th at underlies the critical thinking which is a p art of any and all learning processes. I don’t w ant to talk about why faculty don’t consider librarians “peers.” I w ant to talk about librarians participating as members of the academic community in a larger role th an faculty mem bers could ever attain. I don’t w ant to talk about the fact th at I now rou­ tinely skip all articles about how faculty status of lib rarian s is viewed by som eone som ew here. I would like to talk about how politically to get w hat you w ant from the administration. But if faculty status has to come first, then I am out in the cold. I would much prefer to be able to suggest specific, practical services which could make academic li­ brarians more im portant to the institution. If ser­ vice is not as im portant as titles to academic librari­ ans, then I can’t talk w ith you. I w ant to talk about quality—not about rank. However—after various drafts on topics con­ cerning undergraduate education, institutional missions, and the role of librarians w ithin the aca­ demic community, I find myself draw n back to the problem of status. So, in order to be able to go on later to these other topics and probably to clear out my system, I will share w ith you my views on how faculty members and academic librarians are per­ ceived differently by adm inistrators. My words will not resolve this debate, but perhaps I can pro­ vide a perspective not frequently found: th at of an academic adm inistrator who is also a librarian. Faculty members: The discipline To be a member of the faculty is to have been ad­ m itted into a closed, select circle where, even for those w ithin it, not everyone or every discipline is equal. And it is crucial to any discussion of faculty members to understand th at w ithin most academic institutions the w ord “faculty” is inexorably linked w ith the w ord “discipline.” A quote from Ernest Boyer’s College: The Un­ dergraduate Experience in America: “Whereas 26 percent of faculty feel their ‘college’ is ‘very im por­ ta n t’ to them , 76 percent rate their ‘academic disci­ Novem ber 1987 / 603 pline’ as ‘very im p o rta n t.’”1 Those faculty m em bers w ho hold most strongly to the concept of “the discipline” are those possess­ ing the P h.D . The m ajority of them w ere lower- division undergraduates w hen they h ad their last required exposure to a body of w ork outside their disciplines. O nce into upper-division courses and definitely by the end of graduate school, they had become im m ersed in the study of an increasingly narrow area of disciplinary specialization. As grad ­ uate students, they labored under faculty m em bers w ithin the same or an even sm aller area of discipli­ nary study. Should one’s m ajor advisor move to a n ­ other institution, the student moved also—as in ­ deed she w ould be expected to do. Such faculty have been through the w ar, and surviving a doctoral program is akin to having en­ gaged in boot cam p, trench w arfare, and hand-to- h an d com bat. O ne false move and your advisor m ay well shoot you dead; some don’t survive. Now arm ed, however, w ith the P h .D , the p ro ­ spective faculty m em ber m ust find a position. It m ust be a ten u re track one, since living on a non­ tenure track for m ore th an one or tw o years assures you of almost never being hired into a ten u re–track position: instant and perm anent second-class sta­ tus. Unless your specialization is in great dem and or you are considered a “targ et of o p p ortunity” (which means you are to fill a m inority or female designated position), you m ust somehow convince prospective colleagues th a t you are (a) brilliant in your field b u t (b) not brilliant enough to be a th rea t to them . After having been hired, you m ay teach the basic d ep artm en tal courses in addition to per­ haps one in your own disciplinary area. You will also have to carry out research of such significance th a t the w riting you do will be published. And as a new faculty m em ber, you will have to serve on v ar­ ious com m ittees on w hich no tenured faculty m em ­ ber w ould w an t to spend the tim e. W hile you m ay have a teaching load of 12 hours a week, you will spend alm ost tw ice th a t in class p rep aratio n , “the m ark in g an d evaluation of assignm ents, record keeping, and, of course, tim e devoted to private consultation w ith students.”2 O f a 40-hour week, you have now filled up 36 and there is still research to w ork on, w rite up, revise and get published. Once tenure is gained, m any a faculty m em ber be­ gins to spend significant am ounts of tim e doing w hatever she wishes. O utside of teaching sched­ ules, one’s tim e is m ore one’s own. And most of th a t tim e is spent on research and publication directly related to the discipline, especially one’s now fairly well-established niche w ithin it. Faculty members: Research C arrying out research w ithin most disciplines 1E r n e s t Boyer, College: The Undergraduate E x­ perience in Am erica (New York: H arp er and Row, 1987), 236. 2Ib id ., 121. m eans advancing know ledge. D epending upon one’s discipline, research m ay be a solitary en ­ deavor or require the establishm ent and continu­ ance of both a research team and an appropriate la b o ra to ry fa cility . D e p e n d in g upon a fa c u lty m em ber’s research reputation, she m ay or m ay not be the recipient of sabbaticals, leaves, grant m on­ ies, re d u c e d te a c h in g lo a d s, m in im a l or n o n ­ existent com m ittee assignments, prom otion, and honors and aw ards from peers w ithin and outside the institution. Research is carried on at any and at all hours; as a fundam ental thinking process it is not confined to an 8 to 5 M onday through Friday schedule. The fruits of a faculty m em ber’s research m ay never be seen by others outside the research group as experim ents fail and theories are dis­ proved. O r the w ork m ay m atu re in totally u n an ­ ticipated w ays—resulting in disciplinary advance­ m en ts h a ile d by p eers. O r th e fru its m ay be appreciated only by the faculty m em ber, who u n ­ derstands now m ore clearly th a n ever before the es­ sential n atu re of her or his work. F or m any o u t­ s ta n d in g f a c u lty m e m b e rs , re s e a rc h a n d its publishable results also m ean the adm inistration will leave you alone—so you can pursue the exotic headiness of w ork w ithin the discipline and the a d ­ vancem ent of knowledge w hich comes from it. No one knows w h a t you know to the degree th a t you know it, and no one can convey it as you can. They do not literally live it as you do; they do not ow n it as you do. And woe be to the person w ho treads on w h at you know to be yours. As a sum m ary of these com m ents on faculty re­ search, a quote from W illiam Dickinson, head of the Geosciences D ep artm en t at the University of Arizona: “In my h ea rt, I think th a t the discovery inherent in research and the transm ission inherent in teach ­ ing are truly tw o sides of the same coin. Teacher and student are both engaged in the same kind of inquiry, and the habits of hypothesis and analysis em bodied in w h at we call research are essential to the process... In my m ind research is a key source of vitality and a prim e touchstone w ith reality. W e all need it in some m easure to em brace the future, w hich is always unpredictable and different from w h at we know n o w .”3 Faculty members: Teaching However, the faculty m em bers most appreci­ ated by adm inistrators are those who both carry out research and teach courses. Here “teaching” is defined as th e form al, stru c tu re d im p a rtin g of knowledge gained from study w ithin or related to one’s discipline, and conveyed to students through academ ic course content. M uch has been m ade about the relationship of teaching and research. O utstanding faculty m em bers, such as Bill Dickin- 3“T he Spirit of In q u iry ,” an insert to Lo Que Pasa, the University of Arizona faculty/staff news­ letter, M arch 23, 1987, p.4. 604 / C&RL News son, do indeed come full circle by conducting re­ search in order to advance their field, and by tak­ ing w hat has been gained from that research “back into the classroom.” However, teaching is carried out through the systematic presentation of the knowledge pertinent to the subject of the course. The presentation is conveyed over a fixed period of time. And the content is comprised of those ele- A doctoral program is akin to boot camp or trench warfare. ments which the instructor has determined are es­ sential for a student’s mastery of the course topic. To develop the course, the relationship of this one to others within the departm ent or program is de­ termined. The m aterial which must be presented is identified through review of the literature and of the research both directly and tangentially related to the topic. The arrangem ent of the course ele­ ments is established so that cumulative learning can be achieved. The syllabus, each assignment, each examination question, and the grading proce­ dure are created. The course description is re­ viewed by the departm ental curriculum commit­ tee, discussed by the full departm ental faculty, and (if approved) submitted to the other college and in­ stitutional curricular committees. Assuming no challenges are lodged against it by other depart­ ments or colleges, the course is added to the institu­ tion’s curriculum and teaching is authorized. This process from the idea to the first term of teaching the course routinely takes one to two semesters. Administrators protect faculty members, espe­ cially those who are outstanding both in their re­ search and their teaching. By so doing, such faculty are kept happy, which usually means they stay at the institution. For the reputation of the institution is built upon the reputations of eminent faculty members and the departments, programs, and lab­ oratories with which they are associated. It is to study under them th at outstanding students come; it is because of their w ork th a t agencies fund grants; it is because of the resulting reputation of the institution that chairs are endowed, and gov­ erning bodies support increases in academic budg­ ets. It may seem crass to say so, but such faculty members are the geese who lay the golden eggs. Administrators Consider now the academic administrator. In almost all cases, th at person is simply a faculty member who has taken on bureaucratic responsi­ bilities. This administrator with responsibility for other people, units, and services may have received no training outside of the discipline, the classroom, and the research facility. As a new administrator you would find th at of greater difficultly than the learning of new work habits would be the realization that you are no longer considered “faculty” by most of the mem­ bers of that closed, select circle. To be referred to as a “former colleague” by people who literally yes­ terday considered you their peer is a recurring bad memory. Even though you as an academic adm in­ istrator will invariably identify yourself as “Susan Smith, professor of X” before saying “and dean (or vice president or whatever) of Y,” it is clear that you have strayed from the Yellow Brick Road— perhaps even crossing over the River of No Return. You, however, continue to see yourself as a faculty m em ber—holding on to your “faculty–ness.” Librarians Now into this mixture let us add librarians. First of all, academic administrators and most faculty members generally do not think about librarians; they think about libraries. A quote from an article entitled, “Faculty Perceptions of Librarians at the University of M anitoba:” “It was remarkable that many [faculty] participants [in the study] seem to consider the library simply as an institution, with little regard for the people who are instrumental in its functioning.”4 Given w hat I have just said about faculty members, this should not have been at all surprising. For even more than thinking of a place called “the library,” faculty members and adminis­ trators think about library collections. Academic adm inistrators think about those collections in terms of (1) their own disciplines and (2) the needs of students—their own and those of students in general. If a librarian is “thought about,” it will usually be the head of the library, for that is the in­ dividual with whom the administrator will have the most contact. An adm inistrator’s contact with other librarians is restricted to those who infre­ quently serve on appointed or elected non-library related committees. W hen asked about librarians, adm inistrators tend to draw upon their graduate years or faculty experience for descriptive answers. Scientists will have had few interactions with librarians due to the laboratory nature of their work. Humanists will have had a much greater num ber of interac­ tions, since the library essentially is their labora­ tory. In the case of administrators who have had some type of regular, prior contact with librarians, th at contact would have been greatest w ith refer­ ence librarians and perhaps least with catalogers. 4G ab y D iv ay , Ada M. D ucas, an d N icole Michaud–Oystryk, “Faculty Perceptions of L ibrar­ ians at the University of M anitoba,” College & Re­ search Libraries 48 (January 1987) :33. Novem ber 1987 / 605 A dm inistrators do not know enough about our discipline to realize th a t there are theoretical and applied differences w ithin the field of librarian- sh ip . A d m in is tr a to rs d e s c rib e l i b r a r i a n s as professionals—m eaning people w ho are highly skilled in p u ttin g the knowledge of their field into practice. But the very “practice” of librarianship makes it the application of knowledge and not the advancem ent of knowledge. Pauline W ilson has w ritten th a t “it is not th a t teachers and professors w ill not recognize lib rari­ ans as teachers. R ather, it is th a t they cannot. There is nothing visible w ith w hich a connection can be m ade to perm it or produce recognition.”5 Although I think her statem ent is a bit extreme, it is absolutely tru e th a t at most institutions, teaching students across the reference desk or in a one- or two-shot BI session will never serve to open the doors of m em bership into the professorate. It will never be understood as “teaching” by adm inistra­ tors for w hom th a t activity is a form al, structured process in w hich knowledge is conveyed through the academ ic content of a course. Most adm inistrators believe th a t the w ork of the lib rarian is to determ ine w h at m aterials are needed in order to support the educational and intellectual w ork of faculty members and students, and to ac­ quire and m ake th a t m aterial available. As P rince­ to n ’s President Bowen has said: “To bring students, fa c u lty an d books to g e th e r in w ays t h a t . . . e n ­ courage learning, intensive scholarship, and casual brow sing.”6 Adm inistrators do not see librarianship, nor li­ brary practice, as “an interdisciplinary field con­ cerned w ith all phases of the inform ation transfer process”—a description provided by C harles Davis and James R ush? Nor do they understand it to en­ tail “an in-depth understanding of the graphic rec­ ord as a structure, an en tity .” And if you asked them about the relationship betw een librarianship an d o th e r social an d b e h a v io ra l sciences, they w ould not necessarily understand th a t librarian- ship is an extension of the same basic theories w hich underlie those p articu lar sciences. Adm inistrators believe th a t, as I noted before, academ ic librarians are professionals; th a t they are essential mem bers of the academ ic com m unity; th a t, w ithout the skills and support of librarians, a significant am ount of teaching and research would never occur. M any adm inistrators also believe th a t although academ ic librarians do not do the same 5Pauline W ilson, “L ibrarians as Teachers: The S tudy of an O rg a n iz a tio n a l F ic tio n ,” L ib ra ry Quarterly 57 (April 1979): 154. 6“T he P rinceton L ib ra ry ,” Princeton A lu m n i W eekly, April 23, 1986, p.8. 7Charles H. Davis and James E. Rush, “L ibrary and Inform ation Science R esearch,” in ALA W orld E ncyclopedia o f L ibrary and In fo rm a tio n Ser­ vices, 2d ed. (Chicago: Am erican L ibrary Associa­ tion, 1986), 460-62. 8W ilson, “L ibrarians as Teachers,” 155. teaching and research w ork as th a t of faculty m em ­ bers, it is essential th a t librarians receive m any of the same benefits and supports as those provided to faculty members. Should academ ic librarians undertake to work actively on institutionally defined problem s, ad ­ m inistrators could come to believe th a t it is the re­ sponsibility of the academ ic lib rarian to continu- Critical th in kin g is a natural p ro d u ct o f graduate w o rk in librarianship. ously m onitor the curriculum in order to assure th a t the lib rary ’s collection does indeed respond to the various changes w hich regularly sweep over th a t curriculum . Also, th a t it is the responsibility of academ ic librarians to know in some depth both the teaching expectations and the research activi­ ties of the outstanding faculty on their campuses. A dm inistrators could be fairly easily convinced th a t librarianship is a discipline in w hich one is be­ ing trained extensively in methodology, w hich is a “body of methods, procedures, w orking concepts, rules and postulates employed by a science, a rt or discipline.”9 There is no reason w hy adm inistrators should not understand th a t learning to catalog is learning not only a system of rules and the arrange­ ments of those rules, b u t the appropriate applica­ tion of them to a specific entry or descriptive end. O r th a t reference work is the choice and applica­ tion of an identified m ethodology w hich results in a series of “yes/no” statem ents w hich delim it a field of sources or pieces of inform ation dow n to a single result. O r th a t critical thinking is the n atu ra l by­ product of graduate w ork in librarianship, just as it is of graduate w ork in any field: by this I m ean th a t skillful judgm ent as to the tru th or merits of a cho­ sen m ethodology is the basic tool used for the suc­ cessful resolution of a problem at hand. But are these the ways and the words chosen by most aca­ demic librarians w hen defining w h at they do? This is m y fin al p itch : a d m in istra to rs could know all these things about librarianship and thus a b o u t th e v alu e of acad em ic lib ra ria n s to th e greater good of the institution. However, they do not know and, for any adm inistrator to change her view, librarians m ust see their w ork and their sta­ tus through these types of words, descriptions and concom itant actions. I t is the activities of the aca­ demic lib rarian w hich will confirm or alter the ‘W ebster’s Third N ew International D ictionary, s.v. “m ethodology.” 606 / C&RL News view of the administrator; the setting aside of the question of status in order to take on the larger, more fundamental, and infinitely more important question of how the unique knowledge of academic librarians should be identified and used by the in­ stitution in support of institutional missions, con­ cerns, and needs. O nly w hen shifts in adm inistrative—and faculty—perceptions have occurred will academic librarians be accorded the high status they will be seen to truly deserve. E ditor’s Note: This article is based on a speech given before the Wisconsin Association of A ca­ demic Librarians at the W A A L Spring Confer­ ence, A pril 24, 1987, and published here as a follow –up to the author’s “Beliefs and Realities,” C&RL News, September 1986, pp. 492-96. ■ ■ A ca d em ic lib ra ry fu n d in g a n d p r o fe ssio n a l eth ics By J. R ichard Madaus Dean of Library and Learning Resources Northeastern State University 6% library funding as an em ploym ent consideration. T o u g h economic times and/or budget problems in academic libraries are common experiences in our profession. An academic library represents considerable fiscal com m itm ent (even poorly funded) for any higher education institution. The ACRL “Standards for College Libraries” clearly state, “the library’s appropriation shall be six per­ cent of the total institutional budget for educa­ tional and general purposes.” Should we, as profes­ sionals, treat this six percent level as a goal or a minimum for basic quality services? How do we (or do we at all?) consider the basic budget construct of a library as part of our para­ digm of acceptable working conditions? Ethics, by definition, deal with principles for conduct. Logi­ cally, there should be a place in the interpretation of our professional ethics for a review of our institu­ tion as it provides us with the basic resources to carry out our profession. Funding is, of course, the key to these resources. Professional ethics should, in my opinion, extend o the basic level of the acceptance or rejection of he conditions and circumstances under which we as professionals will allow ourselves to work. Just how do we really act about our working conditions during good economic times (or bad imes), and does it affect our funding? I am firmly convinced that it does. I am also firmly convinced that in our efforts to keep service going in tough times we may dilute our efforts simply too much. I believe this has, and will continue to keep aca­ demic libraries underfunded unless we make sig­ nificant change. This is not to say we don’t do very good jobs with w hat resources we have. I think we do. Perhaps we have done so well, with so little, for so long th at now it has become expected of us. Scraping by (at 4 % -6 % of E&G—education and general—funding levels) has become definitially part of our job. We will keep the library open at all costs, even if t t t