College and Research Libraries RONALD RAYMAN AND FRANK WM. GOUDY Research and Publication Requirements in University Libraries A questionnaire survey of the ninety-four academic libraries holding mem- bership in the Association of Research Libraries was conducted to determine the overall significance and ramifications of research and publication activ- ity among academic librarians, with a major finding indicating that 15 per- cent of the libraries surveyed require librarians to publish. THE STATUS OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS has changed considerably over the past decade. As this status has changed, college and uni- versity librarians have experienced in- creased demands upon them to document their professional performance , notably in the area ·of scholarly research and publica- tion . Arguments both for and against this heightened emphasis have been put forward in some detail, but those are not the con- cern of this investigation. Rather, using librarians in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) as a sample group, this study seeks to determine to what extent research and publication actu- ally constitute a requirement for academic librarians, the inhibiting or promotional fac- tors affecting this activity, and the ramifica- tions that this issue holds not only for ARL librarians , but also for the field of academic librarianship itself. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A great deal has been written about the status of academic librarians, less about their overall research and publication activ- ity, and almost nothing regarding the direct impact that research . and publication have upon them as librarians, particularly with Ronald Rayman and Frank Wm. Goudy are as- sistant professors, University Libraries, Western Illinois University, Macomb. The authors thank - the Western Illinois University Libraries for the financial assistance that made this research possi- ble . regard to questions of tenure and/or promo- tion. - Two studies of ARL librarians conducted during the late · 1960s revealed that, while verbal support was lent. to the concept of research and publication for librarians, con- crete assistfince in the form of funding or re- leased time was limited. Jesse and Mitchell found that support in the form of clerical as- sistance and photocopying allotments was sometimes available, but actual funding was scarce. 1 Kellam and Barker found tacit sup- port for research and publication existed so long.as library service was not compromised in any way . 2 Bot,h studies revealed that re- search and publication were viewed as a laudable "plus" but not as a requirement. Neither study broached the question of ten- ure, thereby implying that research and publication were not critical factors in ten- ure decisions. A constricted job market, combined with the increased tendency to grant faculty status and tenure to academic librarians, al- tered this situation during the 1970s. More and more, scholarship on the part of academic librarians was demanded. 3 At those institutions where librarians held fac- ulty status / research and publication re- quirements tended to bring librarians into conformity with prevailing academic expec- tations for promotion and tenure considera- tion, a circumstance hindered by the fact that academic librarians traditionally have not been research oriented. 4 ) Recent studies by Watson and by Davey I 43 44 I College & Research Libraries • January 1980 and Andrews have suggested( a possible al- ternative to this situation through the con- cept of "dual tracking" that would allow be- ginning librarians to gain badly needed on- the-job experience by delaying their entry into the normal tenure track by several years. s,s This respite would permit them to gain valuable knowledge that could later be channeled into appropriate areas of research and publication.) This concept has received little attention in the field. METHODOLOGY A questionnaire containing twelve ques- tions was mailed to the directors of the ninety-four academic libraries that hold membership in the ARL. Each question- naire was accompanied by a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope to facilitate replies and to help ensure a favorable re- turn rate. Whether due to the ease of reply- ing, a keen interest in the questionnaire topic, or both, one-half of the question- naires were returned within seven working days from the original date of mailing, and sixty-eight replies (72 percent · f the entire sample) were eventually returned. The opening four questions requested data regarding the formal status of librarians at each institution, their eligibility for ten- ure, and a determination whether research and publication was or was not mandatory. The next five questions sought to measure various types and amounts of support pro- vided by the institution or individual library to promote research and publication. The final three questions were relevant only where librarians were required to publish for tenure and/or promotion consideration, and those dealt with identifying appropriate publication mediums and established criteria to measure publication activity. FINDINGS Table 1 summarizes the findings from the survey. For the initial question pertaining to status, twenty-four libraries (35 percent) reported that librarians held faculty status; twenty-eight (41 percent) reported academic status; and sixteen (24 percent) indicated a status of "other." Academic status denotes a separate pro- fessional classification that is neither civil service nor administrative and yet does not meet the standards for faculty status inch,Id- ing corresponding rank, promotion, tenure, and compensation as detailed by the ACRL "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians" adopteq in June 1971. For the third group, "other," most in- stitutions listed the librarians' status as an administrative classification within their in- dividual schools. 7 Tenure On the question of tenure, librarians at thirty-nine institutions were eligible for tenure, while twenty-nine indicated that li- brarians were not eligible for tenure. 8 Hardly surprising was the fact that at all twenty-four institutions where libr~rians held faculty status they were eligible for tenure as well. For librarians holding academic status, one-half were eligible and one-half were not. At the opposite end of the spectrum were those libraries that had noted an "other" status. A single library out of that entire group of sixteen reported that librarians were eligible for tenure. These findings reveal a clear breakdown on the question of tenure for librarians. Faculty status is the single most important factor in determining tenure eligibility, while those librarians holding academic or "other" status experienced a descending probability of eligibility for tenure. Publishing Activity The most important question raised by the questionnaire related to publication ac- tivity. Unfortunately, previous studies on this issue of vital significance to academic librarians, particularly in the realm of man- datory research and publication, are nonexistent. This precludes comparative analysis with earlier findings, but it is hoped that the present study will provide a needed benchmark for future investigations and analyses. - Faculty status and tenure eligibility were key elements in establishing publication as a requirement for librarians. Of the entire group of responding libraries, only ten re- plied that librarians were required to pub- lish, all of which were institutions where librarians held faculty status and were eligi- ble for tenure. Librarians wer~ encouraged Research and Publication Requirements I 45 TABLE 1 PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS IN ARL LIBRARIES All Responses Category (N = 68) Number Percent Professional Classification: 68 100 Tenure Granted: Yes 39 57 No 29 43 Publication Requirements: Required 10 15 Encouraged; not required 41 60 Not encouraged 17 25 Publication Required for: Promotion only 1 10 Tenure only 0 0 Promotion and tenure 9 90 Required Publication in: Librarianship only 2 20 All disciplines 8 80 Publication Released Time: Specific released time 7 10 Apply for released time 28 41 No release time 33 49 Funding for Research: Within library 18 23 From university 40 51 Not available 20 26 Library Research Committee: Yes 20 31 No 45 69 to publish, but not required to do so, at forty-one institutions. Librarians were not required to publish, and publication received no special em- phasis at seventeen libraries, eight each at academic and "other" status libraries, and surprisingly at one library with both faculty status and tenure eligibility. These responses indicated that, for the most part, academic librarians are still not required to publish, although taken in the aggregate, fifty-one libraries either require or encourage publication. Again, the lack of comparative data is a keenly felt deficiency here. A similar study five years hence might produce significantly different results as publication becomes more commonplace for academic librarians. Several other interesting facets of the publication issue were noted. Of the ten li- braries reporting that publication was man- datory, nine stated that it was necessary for tenure and promotion, while one library noted that publication was necessary for promotion only. At least four libraries that Faculty Academic "Other" Status Status Status (N = 24) (N = 28) (N = 16) Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 24 35 28 41 16 24 24 100 14 50 1 6 0 0 14 50 15 94 10 42 0 0 0 0 13 54 20 71 8 50 1 4 8 29 8 50 1 10 0 0 9 90 2 20 8 80 4 17 3 11 0 0 13 54 9 32 6 37 7 29 16 57 10 63 11 33 2 7 5 29 20 61 16 57 4 24 2 6 10 36 8 47 16 67 2 7 2 12 8 33 23 93 14 88 encouraged but did not require publication affirmed that publication was a definite asset in securing favorable tenure and/or promo- tion decisions. Only two of the ten libraries ~ requiring publication responded that publi- cation had to be related to the field of li- brarianship; the other eight stated that pub- lication could relate to any accepted academic discipline.~ Released Time These basic questions pertained to re- search and publication as a requirement and not to basic support provided to promote that same activity. The specific question of released time drew nearly identical re- sponses as thirty-five libraries responded that some form of released time was avail- able, while thirty-three indicated that no re- leased time whatsoever was provided. For those indicating that released time was available, three noted that no record was maintained of hours worked or devoted to research, one indicated a thirty-hour workweek, two responded that four hours of ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 I College & Research Libraries • january 1980 a forty-hour workweek could be devoted to research, and one library reported that four weeks of research time were granted annu- ally to librarians. Allotments of specific released time were thinly distributed over the three status designations (four faculty status, three academic status, and none for "other"). Much more prevalent was released time that one applied for on an individual basis, normally to the library director. 10 Twenty- eight libraries (41 percent of the entire re- sponding group) indicated that librarians could apply for and receive varying amounts of released time to pursue research activi- ties. This category was more evenly distrib- uted over the three status designations than were the majority of the findings of this study. Thirteen libraries with faculty status fell into this group, as did nine from the academic group and six from the other group. Unfortunately for the field of academic li- brarianship, thirty-three libraries reported that no released time was provided under any circumstances, either set aside time or on an application basis. It hardly came as a surprise then that where librarians were only encouraged to publish only four allot- ted specific released time, sixteen allowed applied-for released time, and twenty-one permitted no released time. It was a revelation to discover, however, that of those ten libraries at which librarians were required to publish, only three allowed specific released time, six made provision for it on an application basis, and one library made no provision for released time to pursue research and publication ac- tivities. Funding Closely allied to the released time ques- tion was one dealing with the availability of funding to support research and publication efforts. More than one response was permit- ted if funding was available from both the institution and the library, so the total number of responses (seventy-eight) ex- ceeded the total number of questionnaires returned. Funding within the individual li- braries was available in eighteen instances, and from the institution in forty instances; twenty libraries reported that no type of funding was available from either source. Librarians at the twenty-four institutions with faculty status revealed far better oppor- tunities of securing funding than those with either academic or "other" status. In only two cases was no source of funding avail- able, compared to ten of the total academic status group, and eight of the total "other" status group. It should also be pointed out that for those ten institutions that required librar- ians to publish all reported that some type of funding was available: in three-fourths of the group, librarians could seek financial support· from both the library and the par- ent institution. For those encouraged but not required to publish, funding sources were more limited, but still significant (seven within the library, twenty-eight from the institution, and ten reporting no funding available). Only one-half of the "other" group received any funding. Research Committees Beyond the fundamental issues of re- leased time and funding, a question was asked to determine to what extent the li- braries surveyed organized and maintained specific library committees to promote and facilitate research and publication. 11 In re- sponse to this question, only twenty librar- ies noted the existence of such a committee. Almost two-thirds of the respondents stated that no such committee existed at their li- brary, and three libraries did not respond to the question. Those libraries with faculty status were the most likely to have a re- search committee, with sixteen reporting such a committee. Those groups in the academic and "other" status groups lagged far behind in this cate- gory as less than 10 percent of this com- bined group supported a research commit- tee. Two-thirds of those required to publish had a committee (six out of the nine re- spondents), while only twelve out of forty- one libraries in the group encouraged to publish and a mere two libraries in the group not encouraged to publish supported a research committee. Acceptable Publications Finally, libraries that required librarians to publish were asked to identify acceptable Research and Publication Requirements I 4 7 publications. All ten libraries in this cate- gory indicated that books, journal articles, and chapters in a book or festschriften were legitimate publication outlets. The other major forms of publication indicated were conference papers (nine), book reviews (six), and in-house publications (three). In this same vein, the libraries were asked if quan- tified standards had been established to measure publication activity, and all ten gave a negative response. CONCLUSIONS This study shows that, regardless of status, 15 percent of all librarians in the As- sociation of Research Libraries are required to publish. All in this required group have faculty status and are eligible for tenure. Since the cited studies of Jesse and Mitchell and also Kellam and Barker from the late 1960s made no mention that research and publication were mandatory at any of the li- braries surveyed or were crucial factors in tenure decisions, by implication, then, the impetus for required research and publica- tion is a phenomenon of the past decade. This shift is clearly on the increase. Sev- eral questionnaire respondents provided additional comments that indicated that re- search and publication had recently be- come, or shortly would become, mandatory at their institutions, thus marking an even more distinct break from past practice whereby academic librarians were under no compulsion to engage in scholarly research and publication activities. Unfortunately, research and publication by academic librarians are not well sup- ported, even where mandatory. Structured workweeks, combined with relatively strin- gent opportunities for released time, foster a climate when~ the pursuit of scholarly re- search and publication is extremely difficult, a circumstance compounded to a lesser, but still significant, degree by inadequate fund- ing. Librarians at institutions with either academic or "other" status have not yet been required to perform scholarly research and publish, and this is not likely to change. Those librarians holding faculty status and those who may acquire faculty status at some future date are unquestionably the group most likely to be affected by in- creased standards and requirements. For all academic librarians required to perform scholarly research and publication, or those not required but with the creative and scholarly urge to do so, the task will con- tinue to be a difficult one. REFERENCES 1. William Jesse and A. E. Mitchell, "Profes- sional Staff Opportunities for Study and Re- search," College & Research Libraries 29:87-100 (March 1968). 2. W. Porter Kellam and Dale L. Barker, "Ac- tivities and Opportunities of University Li- brarians for Full Participation in the Educa- tional Enterprise," College & Research Li- .braries 29:197-99 (May 1968). 3. Rao Aluri and Jeffrey W. St. Clair, "Academic Reference Librarians: An En- dangered Species?" journal of Academic Li- brarianship 4:83 (May 1978); Beatrice Hight, ed., Criteria far Promotion and Tenure of Librarians in Zimmerman, Parish, and Fine Arts Libraries of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico (New Mexico University: Zimmerman Library, 1973), ERIC ED 080 124; and Daniel O'Connor and Phyllis Van Orden, "Getting into Print," College & Research J.-ibraries 39:389 (Sept. 1978). 4. Susan L. Miller and others, "To Be or Not to Be: An Academic Library Research Commit- tee," journal of Academic Librarianship 2:23 (March 1976). 5. Paula De Simone Watson, "Publication Activ- ity among Academic Librarians," College & Research Libraries ~-83 (Sept. 1977). • 6. Nancy Davey and Theodora Andrews, "Im- plications of Faculty Status for University Li- brarians, with Special Attention to Tenure," journal of Academic Librarianship 4:73-74 (May 1978). 7. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and Uhiversity Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 33:21~12 (Sept. 1972). See also Anis Kurshid and Glenora Edwards Rus- sell, "Academic Status of Librarians," in En- cyclopedia of Library and Information Sci- ence 1:39-45 (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1968). 8. By C(imparison, a study completed in 1977 showed that for non-ARL, four-year institu- tions with graduate programs, 60 percent of all librarians surveyed were eligible for ten- , 48 I College & Research Libraries • January 1980 ure. See Anne Marie Allison, Factors Affect- ing Administration in United States Academic Libraries during the Period 1971-1975, Uni- versity of Illinois Graduate School of Library Science Occasional Papers, no.138 (Urbana: Graduate School of Library Science, Univer- sity of Illinois, 1979), p.22. 9. By contrast, Jesse and Mitchell reported a 50-50 split (for sixteen responses) on this same question. Jesse arid Mitchell, "Profes- sional Staff Opportunities," p.90. 10. This finding was corroborated by that of a study which reported that the granting of re- leased time normally fell "directly within the province of the director of libraries." Virgil F. Massman, Faculty Status for Librarians (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1972), p.178. Jesse and Mitchell ("Professional Staff Oppor- tunities," p; 100) also emphasized the direc- tor's role. See also Miller, "To Be or Not to. Be," p.20r24 . 11. Miller, "To Be or Not to Be," p.20-24.