College and Research Libraries RUTH HYMAN and GAIL SCHLACHTER Acadeinic Status: Who Wants It? A survey conducted among academic librarians to determine their re- action to the concept of faculty status as expressed by the ACRL Stan- dards showed a general endorsement of these standards by those li- brarians with advanced educational training, with ALAI AC RL mem- bership, and with experience in public or administrative service. ACADEMIC STATUS FOR COLLEGE AND UNI- VERSITY LmRARIANS has been and contin- ues to be an issue of great concern. This concern was expressed recently by the membership of the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries ( ACRL) at the 1971 annual convention of the American Library Association. At that meeting the set of Standards for F acul- ty Status for College and University Li- brarians, which had been proposed in 1969 by the Committee on Academic Status of ACRL, was modified and ap- proved by the membership of the na- tional association. 1 To implement these Standards, ACRL has pledged to Investigate all violations of these stan- dards which are reported by members of the Association of College and Re- search Libraries [and to] invoke the following sanctions against institutions of higher education which are found, after such investigation, to be in viola- tion of any or all of these standards: a. Publicize the violation and the institution concerned in CRL News and other appropriate pub- 1 lications. b. Refuse to accept advertisements Ms. Hyman is a health sciences librarian, SUNY, Buffalo. Dr. Schlachter is assistant professor at the Library School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 472 I in any ALA publication for posi- tions at that institution. c. Discourage its members from ac- cepting employment at that insti- tution, through notices in its pub- lication and other means.2 Since ACRL is proposing to represent academic librarians, it should be deter- mined whether academic librarians not only support the concept . of faculty status but agree on the rights, privileges, and responsibilities which should accom- pany such status. Prior to the June con- vention, the Proposed Standards for Faculty Status, as drawn up by the ad hoc Committee on Academic Status, were published in College and Research Libraries News and opinions were so- licited from the membership. 3 Although arguments pro and con were received and published in subsequent issues of the journal, most represented the views of library or department heads.4 Sim- ilarly, E. J. Josey's study of New York academic librarians' reactions to the Proposed Standards was restricted to ad- ministrators of public contact depart- ments.5 It cannot be assumed that li- brary heads are speaking for their staff I members in urging extension of aca:- demic status. Rank-and-file as well as ad- ministrative librarians in all depart~ ments of the library would be affected by changes in university policies result.:. ing from implementation of the Stan- dards, their attitudes should also be known and considered. In order to determine the reaction of all types of academic librarians to the specinc provisions of the adopted Stan- dards, a questionnaire was sent in March 1972 to a sample of full-time professional librarians working in pri- vate and public institutions of higher learning in southern California. For the purposes of the study "academic'' and "faculty" status were used as synony- mous terms and both were deflned in terms of the Standards adopted by the ACRL. PoPULATION AND SAMPLE The population for the study consist- ed of the full-time professional mem- bers of the library staffs of all private and public junior colleges, colleges, and universities in the ten counties of south- ern California, as listed in the 1969-70 edition of the Accredited Institutions of Higher Education. 6 All types of pro- fessional positions and all ranks of the library hierarchy were represented. Pro- fessional librarians were denned as: . . . employees doing work that re- quires training and skill in the theo- retical or scientific aspects of library work, as distinct from its mechanical aspect.7 From this population a stratilled ran- dom sample of professional librarians employed in various types of academic institutions was selected. All 100 librar- ies were stratilled according to the highest degree granted by their institu- tion (A.A., B.A., M.A., and Ph.D.) and a random sample of 30 academic insti- tutions was chosen. The names of all full-time professional librarians were then requested from the directors of th·eir respective libraries. Twenty-eight academic libraries responded and 216 full-time professional librarians in these libraries were sent a survey question- naire. A follow-up letter and another Academic Status I 473 copy of the questionnaire were mailed two weeks later to those individuals who did not respond to the initial letter. Approximately 81 percent ( 174 li- brarians) returned usable questionnaires. QUESTIONNAIRE The nrst part of the questionnaire measured the librarians' attitudes to- ward academic status. Respondents were asked to indicate on a nve-point rating scale (ranging from "strongly agree" to ''strongly disagree") their reactions to twelve statements taken from the adopt- ed Standards for Faculty Status for Col- lege and University Librarians (nos. 1- 12) and to four statements (nos. 13-16 ) designed to identify the librarians' opinions on academic status in general (see Table 2). The second part of the questionnaire identilled personal, educational, occupa- tional, and associational characteristics of the sample librarians to be used in analyzing their attitudinal responses (see Table 1). FINDINGS Demographic data. It was found that, in general, the respondents were female ( 57 percent), nearing middle age (the median was just over forty years), mar- ried (57 percent), and had earned as their highest degree the fust profession- al degree in librarianship (56 percent). Most were currently employed in pub- lic service positions (50 percent), had some formal administrative rank (near- ly 70 percent), and had worked in that position less than nve years (58 per- cent). Although over half of the south- ern California librarians belonged to their state professional association, only one-third were members of ACRL or ALA. Interest in academic status. Overall, a high level of support was found both for the concept of academic status for librarians and for the specinc rights, privileges, and responsibilities spelled 474 I College & Research Libraries • November 1973 TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOGRAPIDC DATA FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA pARTICIPANTS N = 174 So. Calif. Demographic data librarians PERSONAL Sex M~ ~ Female 57 Age Under 25 4 25-34 32 35-44 ~ 45-54 21 55 or older 18 Marital status Single (widowed/ divorced/ separated) 43 Married 57 EDUCATIONAL Highest degree received Less than a master's 7 Subject master's only 8 Bachelor's or Master's in L.S. 56 Subject master's +Master's or Bachelor's in L.S. 21 Specialist/6th year Master's/Ph.D. 8 OCCUPATIONAL Type of library work Public services 38 Technical services 27 Administrative 35 Rank in library hierarchy Chief librarian or director 12 Associate/assistant librarian 24 Department or division head ( including head of college, school, or departmental library) 34 Other professional assistant 30 Years in present fob Less than 5 58 5-10 24 11-20 11 21 or more 7 ASSOCIATIONAL Professional association membership 0 State professional society 57 American Library Association/ Association of College and Research Libraries 32 American Association of University Professors 11 None of these 33 0 Does not total 100 percent because respondents could belong to more than one professional association. out in the Standards. The range of agreement for the sixteen statements representing these ideas was from 62 to 97 percent, as shown in Table 2. Great- est agreement was expressed for in- creased responsibilities (no. 1), salaries proportionate to education and experi- ence (no. 5), and protection of academ- ic freedom (no. 12). Interestingly, the three statem·ents which showed the least amount of agreement are the ones that generally stand at the heart of any faculty status program. Only 60 percent of the partici- pants agreed that their work could be considered teaching (no. 16), that they should have the same titles, ranks, and steps as other faculty (no. 9), or that the prestige of professional librarians would be ·enhanced if academic l~brar­ ians were accepted as co-equals with fac- ulty members (no. 14) . Thus, although the majority of the surveyed librarians supported the Standards in general, there was greater agreement with state- ments defining specific rights and priv- ileges than with those dealing with the concept of faculty status. Overall, the findings in this section re- vealed a less ·enthusiastic endorsement of faculty status than Josey reported in his study of New York academic librar- ians. Josey, however, studied only those librarians who worked as administra- tors in public contact departments-li- brarians who would probably be more receptive to faculty status than academ- ic librarians in general. In the present study librarians working in administra- tive capacities and in public contact work were found to be more supportive of faculty status than technical services librarians. Relationship of personal, education- al, occupational, and associational fac- tors with interest in faculty status. Al- though the academic librarians respond- ed favorably as a group to both the con- cept of academic status and the Stan- dards governing such status, some librar- ians dissented. To identify those fac- tors (the variates) related to the librari- ans' reaction to faculty status (criterion Academic Status I 4 75 TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF AcADEMIC LmRARIANs' ATTITUDE TowARD AcADEMic STATus N= 174 Statement# Agree Undecided 1. Each librarian should be assigned general responsibilities H7 1 within his particular area of competence. He should have maximum possible latitude in fulfilling these responsibilities. 5. The salary scale for librarians should be the same as that 97 1 for other academic categories with equivalent education and experience. 11. Librarians should have access to funding for research projects 95 2 on the same basis as other faculty. 12. Librarians in colleges and universities must have the 94 4 protection of academic freedom. Library resources and the professional judgment of librarians must not be subject to censorship. 10. Sabbatical and other research leaves should be available 93 4 to librarians on the same basis, and with the same requirements as they are available to other faculty. 7. Librarians should be covered by tenure provisions the same 92 4 as those of other faculty. In the pretenure period, librarians should be covered by written contracts or agreements the same as those of other faculty. 4. Librarians should be eligible for membership in the academic 91 5 senate or equivalent body at their college or university on the same basis as other faculty. 8. Librarians should be promoted through ranks and steps on 87 8 the basis of their academic proficiency and professional effectiveness, by means of a peer review system similar to that used by other faculty. 6. Librarians should normally be appointed for the academic 86 6 year. If a librarian is expected to work through the summer session, his salary scale should be adjusted similarly to the summer session of other faculty at this college or university. 13. Complete equality with faculty is a desirable goal for all 84 8 professional librarians working in college and university libraries. 15. There are significant disadvantages to librarians who work 83 11 in universities or colleges that do not grant faculty status to their professional librarians. 3. College and university libraries should adopt an academic form of governance. The librarians should form as a library faculty whose role and authority is similar to that of the 73 16 faculties of a college, or of a school or department. 2. The de~ee to which he has fulfilled his re&onsibilities 70 13 should e regularly and rigorously reviewe by appraisal by a committee of peers who have access to all available evidence. 16. A major portion of your work time and energy is devoted 66 10 to activities that should be considered as teaching through either direct or indirect contact with students. 14. The prestige of professional librarians would not be 20 15 especially enhanced if college and university librarians were accepted in all respects as co-equal with faculty members. 9. The librarian's promotion ladder should have the same 63 18 title, ranks, and steps as that of other faculty. Disagree 2 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 8 8 6 11 17 24 65 19 476 I College & Research Libraries • November 1973 variable), a step-wise multiple regres- sion analysis was run on the four state- ments (nos. 9, 14, 16, 2) which showed the least agreement (see Table 3). At the .05 level two factors, age and professional association membership, entered as significant variates in the re- gression equation for equal titles and ranks for faculty and librarians (no. 9). Younger respondents were more likely to reject the concept of equal titles for librarians and faculty than were older participants. Also, respondents who did not belong to the ALA/ ACRL were less likely to agree that "the librarian's pro- motion ladder should have the same ti- tles, ranks, and steps as that of other faculty" than were members of the or- ganizations. Several variates (age, educational lev- el, and type of library job held) cor- related significantly with the librarians' reaction to the idea that c'the prestige of professional librarians would not be especially enhanced if . . . librarians were accepted in all respects as coequals with faculty members (no. 14)." Young- er librarians were more likely than older respondents to agree with the above statement. In addition, the less educated the respondents, the less likely they were to feel that faculty status could en- hance the prestige of academic librari- ans. The same view was shared by tech- nical services librarians, who were more likely than public services or adminis- trative librarians to feel that faculty status would not result in a better image of academic librarians. The type of job the surveyed librari- ans held and the number of years they had worked in that position significant- ly related to their view of the way aca- demic librarians function. When all other factors were held constant, tech- nical services librarians were less likely TABLE 3 STEPWISE REGRESSION EQUATIONS FoR LmRARIANs' ATTITUDE TowARD FACULTY AND STATUS AND SIGNIFICANT V ARIATES 0 N = 174 "'d l:l Variates 0 2 :a C) ..!!t l:l Cl) ~ Cl) ~ :~ I:: 0 ~ ] :J.~ C)~ :3 l:l"' ~ ~ cu..Q CI)CI) s= -a·c:> aS ~ ·~] 2~ :E~ a 0 Cl) ::I ,... .... _a,.. H ~ ::lo 0 'bll Cl) "'d ~& cn.B ::Su u < en ~ Statement #2° 0 .362 .956 Regression coefficient .088 .540 .158 Standard error .043 .178 .107 F-value 4.201 9.184 2.195 Statement # 16 .330 .992 Regression coefficient .401 .003 Standard error .200 .000 F-value 4.425 6.054 Statement # 14 .314 1.038 Regression coefficient .125 .331 .417 Standard error .044 .104 .210 F-value 8.045 10.198 3.925 Statement #9 .288 1.754 Regression coefficient -.075 Standard error .044 F-value 2.864 0 Significant at the a = .05 level or better. oo See Table 2 for specific wording of statements. g~ ~~ <..8 <+-<8 ecu ~::s .916 .328 7.971 to support the view that academic li- brarians function as teachers (no. 16) than were public services or administra- tive library employees. In addition, the less time librarians had held their pres- ent jobs, the less they supported the idea that librarians operate as teachers. Age, sex, and educational level proved to be significant predictors of those li- brarians who opposed the use of peer groups to appraise librarians' perform- ance (no. 2). Females were more likely to oppose peer appraisal than were younger librarians. Those librarians who did not support peer evaluation of work performance could also be identi- :fled by educational level. The more ad- vanced the degree earned, the more like- ly the librarian was to oppose evaluation by a peer group. SUMMARY Southern California academic librar- ians generally support both the concept of academic status and the Standards which have been adopted by the ACRL to achieve such status. Statements deal- ing with specific rights and privileges, however, were more enthusiastically ap- proved than those presenting the philos- ophy and concepts of academic status. Even the controversial proposal of peer evaluation received greater support from the surveyed librarians than the view that librarians operate as teachers. Certain factors related significantly to the librarians' views on selected aspects of academic status. Age: While older librarians were more likely than their younger colleagues to advocate faculty titles for librarians and to claim that faculty status would enhance their prestige, they were more likely to oppose the idea of peer ap- praisal of their work performance. Sex: Females were more likely to op- pose the idea of peer evaluation than were male librarians. Educationa~ level: The more ad- Academic Status I 477 vanced the librarians' educational back- ground, the more likely they were to support the importance of acceptance as equals with faculty members and the less likely they wen; to agree to the idea of peer appraisal. Library position: Public services and administrative librarians were more like- ly than technical services librarians to feel that faculty status would enhance the librarians' prestige and to agree that librarians function as teachers. Years in position: The longer librari- ans had held their present jobs, the more likely they were to support the view of librarians as teachers. Professional association membership: Members of ALA/ ACRL were more likely than nonmembers to agree that librarians should have the same rank and titles as faculty. Thus, sampled librarians who were older, had advanced educational train- ing, worked for an extended period of time in public service or administrative capacities and belonged to ALA/ ACRL were more likely to support faculty stat- us than those who did not share these characteristics. Interestingly, however, many of these same librarians did not support one practice of the Standards: peer evaluation of work performance. In particular, older female librarians with advanced educational training were less likely to support this practice than librarians who did not share these characteristics. In general, however, the support the ACRL would need to continue its push for faculty status is definitely present among southern California librarians. Since these librarians are demographic- ally similar to librarians located in other areas, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the findings in this study would hold true not only for southern California librarians, but for academic librarians in other geographical loca- tions throughout the country.s 478 I College & Research Libraries • November 1973 REFERENCES 1. " Standards for Faculty Status Approved," CRL News 32:2.17 (Sept. 1971). 2. " Standards for Faculty Status for College and Research Librarians," C RL News 32: 172 (June 1971). 3. "ACRL Academic Status Committee Pro- poses Standards for Librarians," CRL News 31:270 (Oct. 1970). 4. Robert M. Pierson, "The Proposed Standards for Faculty Status: A Dissenting Opinion," CRL News 32:121-25, 127 (May 1971); "Academic Status," CRL News 32:173-74 (June 1971). 5. E. J. Josey, "Full Faculty Status This Cen- tury," Library Journal 97:984-89 ( 15 March 1972). 6. Accredited Institutions of Higher Educa- tion, 1969-1970. (Washington, D.C.: Fed- eration of Regional Accrediting Commission of Higher Education, 1969), p.7-17. 7. Anita Schiller, Characteristics of Profession- al Personnel in College and University Li- braries (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969, Research Series No. 16), p.5. 8. See data taken from Gail Ann Schlachter, "Professional Librarians' Attitudes toward Professional and Employee Associations as Revealed by Academic Librarians in Seven Midwestern States" (Ph.D. dissertation, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1971, p.255-82), which reveals similar distribution of these characteristics for selected midwest- ern librarians.