College and Research Libraries GREG BYERLY The Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Ohio This article summarizes a survey conducted among academic library direc- tors in Ohio to determine the extent to which librarians in institutions of higher education in Ohio have achieved faculty status as defined by the ACRL Standards. The survey revealed: (1) very few academic librarians in Ohio have full faculty status as defined in the ACRL Standards; (2) of the nine standards mandated by the ACRL only four are met by more than half of the institutions in Ohio; and (3) the degree to which academic librarians in Ohio have the "rights and responsibilities" of faculty status varies by cer- tain demographic characteristics of the respondents. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED in June 1979 as part of a doctoral dissertation 1 to determine the faculty status of academic librarians in institutions of higher education in Ohio. The library directors of all fifty-five accred- ited colleges and universities in Ohio that offer at least a B.A. were contacted. Forty- five surveys were returned. The current in- terest and concern of academic library directors with this topic is evident by their responses to the survey. The fact that 82 percent of the library directors completed the survey, many with appended com- ments, indicates the significance of this issue in their minds. Five research questions concerning the degree to which academic librarians in Ohio have faculty status were analyzed from the data received from the survey. How many academic librarians have full faculty status as defined by the ACRL Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians and how such status is affected by size or control of the institution, the highest degree offered, the number of volumes in the library, and the number of professional librarians are issues investi- gated. Responses were analyzed by: (1) en- Greg Byerly is reference librarian and assis- tant professor of library administration , Universi- ty Libraries , Kent State University, Kent , Ohio. 422 I rollment; (2) control of the institution; (3) highest degree offered ; (4) number of volumes in the library; and (5) number of professional librarians. The questions in the survey were based on the nine standards for faculty status de- veloped and approved by the membership of the Association of College and Research Libraries. Adopted in 1971, this document lists nine standards for determining a librar- ian's academic status. In all cases the basic requirement is equality with the teaching faculty. The standards enumerated by ACRL are accepted by the library profes- sion, are well defined, and accurately com- pare with the rights and responsibilites nor- mally given members of the teaching faculty. Ohio was selected because of the wide di- versity of institutions within the state's sys- tem of higher education. The state includes a large and representative number of in- stitutions of higher education that vary greatly in size and the highest degree offered. The state system of twelve institu- tions is also supplemented by more than forty privately controlled colleges and uni- versities. Finally, the size and staffing of the libraries at the various academic institutions in Ohio vary widely. Responses to this survey were well_ dis- tributed among these diverse institutions within the state of Ohio (see table 1). Pub- lic, religious, and independent colleges and universities each accounted for 22 percent, and independent/religious institutions con- stituted the remaining 34 percent. A distinc- tion was made between those institutions with direct and strong religious ties and controls (religious) and those founded by re- ligious denominations ·but now only loosely affiliated with a church · group (independent/ religious). All sizes of libraries and library staffs were represented in the responses , and institutions of various enrollments are included in the results. Colleges and uni- versities with enrollments of 500-3,000 made up 69 percent of the responses . Many previous studies have considered the status of academic librarians, but often TABLE 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Number of In stitutions Pe rce ntage Enrollment Under 500 1 2 ~1. 000 15 33 1, 000--3,000 16 36 3, 000--6,000 3 7 6,000-10,000 1 2 10,000-15,000 4 9 15,000-20,000 4 9 20,000-25,000 0 0 Over 25,000 1 2 Tybe of control Pu lie 10 22 Religious 10 22 Independent/religious 15 33 Independent 10 22 Htghest degree offered Baccalaureate 27 60 Master's 9 20 Doctorate 9 20 Volumes in the library Under 25,000 2 4.5 25,000-50,000 1 2 50,000-100,000 13 29 100,000-250,000 13 29 250,000-500,000 7 16 500,000-750,000 2 4.5 750,000-1 ,000,000 1 2 Over 1,000,000 6 13 Professional librarians 1-2 8 18 3-5 17 38 6-10 9 20 11-15 2 4.5 16-20 4 9 21-25 2 4.5 Over 25 3 7 F acuity Status I 423 with regard to only one demographic vari- able, e. g. , publicly, privately, or religiously controlled institutions 2 or medium-sized, large , or major research libraries. 3 One state survey was conducted in 1978 by the Texas Library Association ' s College and University Libraries Division ' s ad hoc Academic Status Committee that was · based, " in part," on the ACRL Standards. 4 However, the lack of standardized definition of academic status prior to the ACRL Stan- dards has made comparisons between ear- lier studies very difficult. This study not only applies the exact criteria established by the ACRL Standards to determine the pres- ent status of academic librarians in Ohio but also considers how an institution's size, con- trol, highest degree offered, and library sta- tistics affect this status. FINDINGS Responses by library directors indicated that only slightly more than half (twenty- five out of forty-four) of the college and uni- versities in Ohio are judged to grant faculty status , as defined by the ACRL , to their librarians. However, larger institutions with correspondingly larger libraries are more likely to offer faculty status to librarians. For institutions with enrollments of more than six thousand students, 75 percent grant some faculty status. Public colleges and uni- versities are also more likely to provide faculty status , as are institutions that offer the doctorate . Only eleven of the twenty-five institu- tions credited with granting faculty status provide librarians with all of the benefits accorded the teaching faculty . The remain- der provide "most" of the benefits given to the teaching faculty. Religious colleges and universities are much less likely to grant all of these benefits ; in contrast to the 50 per- cent of other types of institutions that grant full benefits, only 20 percent of religious in- stitutions provide these benefits. Library directors were asked to judge the satisfaction of their professional staff with their current status. Most directors (75 per- cent) indicated general satisfaction among their professional librarians with their cur- rent status . Possibly because they are more likely to have at least nominal faculty status, professional staffs at public institutions that 424 I College & Research Libraries • September 1980 grant doctorates were judged satisfied by 90 percent of their directors, whereas the over- all satisfaction rate was 75 percent. · Similar- ly, librarians at larger institutions (with more than six thousand students) were con- sidered satisfied with their current status by 90 percent of the library directors. Although most questions in the survey necessitated purely factual responses, this question relating to the degree of current staff satisfaction required the expression of an opinion. In this instance, the possibility of bias or lack of knowledge may have been an obfuscating factor. This must be con- sidered. in evaluating the results. The re- sponses, however, do clearly indicate that most academic directors in Ohio believe their professional staffs are satisfied with their current status. Directors also were asked if they favored full faculty status, which includes all of the benefits and responsibilities normally given to the teaching faculty , for the members of their professional staffs. Thirty (70 percent) indicated they did and twenty-five (61 per- cent) also believed their professional staffs favored such full faculty status. However, since only twenty-five institutions even nominally grant faculty status , it appears that many directors and librarians who favor full faculty status do not have it. Libraries of religious colleges and univer- sities and institutions whose highest degree is the master's are typically administered by directors who favor full faculty status (78 percent). However , librarians at these in- stitutions are not viewed as favoring faculty status to the same extent as their directors. While 78 percent of the library directors at colleges and universities that offer MA de- grees as their highest degree favor full faculty status, only 33 percent of their staffs are judged by these directors to favor such status. Generally, however, the support of the librarians for faculty status approximates that of the directors within similar sizes and types of institutions. For example, 56 per- cent of the directors at institutions with more than ten thousand students favored full faculty status , and an equal 56 percent believed their staffs favored such status . A critical element in determining faculty status is whether librarians are given academic titles such as " professor" or "associate professor ." In Ohio such academic rank is held by librarians at only 50 percent of the institutions. Some (19 per- cent) are given equivalent rank, e. g . , "Librarian I" or "Librarian II." Titles re- flecting job descriptions, e.g., "cataloger" or "reference librarian," account for the re- maining 31 percent of the responses. Larg- er, public institutions that offer the doc- torate account for many of the colleges and universities that grant academic rank and ti- tles to librarians. Equivalent or descriptive titles are most frequently used at smaller institutions with smaller libraries. The ACRL Standards details nine points to be considered in judging the extent to which academic librarians have faculty sta- tus. The first of these is " professional re- sponsibilities and self-determination." This standard recommends the regular review of each librarian's performance and states that "a necessary element of this review must be appraisal by a committee of peers who have access to all available evidence. "s Only ten library directors indicated that the annual review of each of their librarians included an evaluation by a committee of peers. A significant number (77 percent) specified that no review by peers was undertaken. The second standard for faculty status presented by the ACRL deals with library governance and states: 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 faculties of a col- lege , or the faculty of a school or a department. 6 However, only fourteen libraries (36 per- cent) surveyed have an academic form of governance similar to that of the faculties of other academic departments. Significantly, most of the library directors (68 percent) who did not have academic governance in their libraries indicated that they did not want it. This was especially true of directors at public universities and those institutions that grant the doctorate. Another aspect of library governance is the election of department heads by the members of the professional staff. In only two libraries are department heads or coor- dinators of units within the library elected by members of the unit. The overwhelming majority of libraries (95 percent) do not have such elections. The ACRL Standards also stipulates that librarians as part of the faculty should be " .. . eligible for membership in the academic senate or equivalent body at their college or university on the same basis as other faculty. "7 While most academic librar- ians in Ohio are allowed to serve on the faculty senate or its equivalent body at their institutions, this is another criterion for faculty status that is greatly influenced by demographic factors . This right is primarily reserved for those librarians at larger, pub- lic, graduate colleges and universities. For example, only 50 percent of the religious and 70 percent of the independent institu- tions permit librarians to serve, but 90 per- cent of the public universities do make librarians eligible for membership. In a similar fashion, librarians at smaller, private institutions are less likely to serve on the faculty senate, even if they are eligi- ble. Religious colleges and universities have only a 20 percent rate of current service, as opposed to 89 percent for public institu- tions. In general , however, most libraries (66 percent) eligible for membership cur- rently have at least one member in office. Given the opportunity librarians seem to participate actively in college and university governance. The related issue of membership on facul- ty committees produced similar results. Membership on faculty committees is nearly universally available for academic librarians in Ohio. Forty library directors (91 percent) indicated that librarians on their staffs are allowed to serve on coilege and university committees. Again , eligible librarians at all institutions, regardless of size or control, actively serve on· college or university com- mittees. One of the most controversial issues in faculty status involves compensation. The ACRL Standards states, "The salary scale for librarians should be the same as that for other academic categories with equivalent education and experience. "s Salaries of Ohio academic librarians are lower than those of the teaching faculty in 54 percent of the in- stitutions surveyed. This disparity is most evident in religious colleges and universi- ties. Only one such institution provides Faculty Status I 425 librarians with salaries equal to those of the teaching faculty. Institutions granting the master's degree are also very likely to pay librarians less. Enrollment and size of the institution's library do not seem to have a direct effect on the salaries paid to librarians . The ACRL Standards also stresses the need for an academic-year contract. How- ever, only one college in Ohio currently appoints its librarians to nine-month con- tracts . Forty-one libraries (93 percent) re- quire librarians to sign twelve-month con- tracts. Two other institutions offer ten- month contracts. For those librarians whose contract is for twelve months the normal vacation given is four weeks. Librarians at most institutions (86 percent) are also re- quired to work occasionally on administra- tive holidays when classes have been can- celed without recei~i-ng any special com- pensation or consideration for this duty. Librarians should also be eligible for tenure like other faculty members and, according to the ACRL Standards , the re- quirements should be the same as those of the teaching faculty. The eligibility of academic librarians for tenure varies drama- tically among the colleges and universities within Ohio. Overall statistics show that 48 percent are eligible for tenure . However, 90 percent of the public institutions offer tenure to librarians, whereas only 30 per- cent of the religious and independent col- leges and universities do. Larger institu- tions and libraries are much more likely to provide tenure to librarians. Institutions with doctoral programs similarly make li- brarians eligible for tenure in most cases (89 percent). Also, the requirements for deter- mining tenure for librarians are the same as those for the faculty at only twelve of the twenty institutions where librarians are eligible for tenure. As -(Ilembers of the faculty, librarians should also be promoted to higher ranks on the same basis as the teaching faculty . The ACRL Standards stipulates, "The librarians' promotion ladder should have the same titles, ranks, and steps as that of other faculty. "9 Academic librarians in Ohio are much more likely to be evaluated for pro- motion by the same process and judged by the same criteria as the teaching faculty if they are employed by large, public colleges 426 I College & Research Libraries • September 1980 and universities. Such faculty promotion procedures are followed by 75 percent of the public institutions, but at less than 40 percent of the religious and independent colleges and universities. Overall, sixteen library staffs (42 percent) are evaluated for promotion by the same standards as the teaching faculty, but at twenty-two institu- tions (58 percent) this is not true. In the cases where the same promotion criteria are used , 86 percent of the library directors agree that this is fair. Library directors were also asked if their library had a written promotion policy and, if it did , whether the policy had been approved by the institution's administration . Few libraries had promotion policies , but those that did usually had had it approved by the administration. Libraries in larger, publicly controlled institutions are also somewhat more likely to have a written promotion policy. While 60 percent of the libraries in public institutions have such policies , less than 15 percent of the reli- gious or independent schools have them. Several library directors indicated that they were required to apply the general universi- ty promotion policy to members of their professional staffs . The ACRL Standards specifies that sab- baticals and other research leaves and re- search funds should be " . . . available to librarians on the same basis, and with the same requirements as they are available to other faculty." 10 This is true for academic librarians in Ohio with regard to travel funds , but not for sabbaticals or research funds. All libraries at institutions whose faculty were eligible for travel funds pro- vided such funds to professional librarians. Librarians at 81 percent of these libraries had received such funds within the past two years . Only 49 percent of the libraries whose institutions offered sabbaticals to members of the teaching faculty provided librarians with similar opportunities. Also, only 58 percent of the libraries made re- search funds available. A smaller percentage of sabbaticals and research funds was actually received by librarians at institutions where they were available. Sabbaticals had been given within the past two years to librarians at only nine (41 percent) of the twenty-two colleges and universities where they were theoretically available to librarians. Research funds were actually distributed at only ten (38 percent) of the twenty-six eligible libraries. The last standard adopted by ACRL con- cerns academic freedom. An overwhelming majority of Ohio academic library directors believed their staffs have the same degree of academic freedom as the teaching faculty. Only four (9 percent) disagreed and thought librarians at their institutions were lacking in academic freedom. Thirty-nine (91 per- cent), on the other hand, would agree that librarians on their staffs have the academic freedom traditionally given to the teaching faculty. The ACRL Standards details the specific "rights and privileges" that academic librar- ians are entitled to if they have full faculty status. However, the ACRL's "Joint State- ment on Faculty Status of College and Uni- versity Librarians" points out that faculty status for librarians carries with it not only the rights but also the same responsibilities as for members of the teaching faculty. It stipulates that librarians " ... must go through the same process of evaluation and meet the same standards as other faculty members. "u These responsibilities include professional service, research and publica- tion, and additional graduate degrees. Several questions in the survey investigated the extent to which Ohio academic librar- ians are meeting these responsibilities and the problems they must overcome to do so. A substantial number of librarians at most academic libraries in Ohio are members of both the state and national professional li- brary associations. Many are active mem- bers as demonstrated by their service on committees. Eleven out of thirty-three li- brary directors (37 percent) indicated that at least one member of their staff is currently on an ALA committee and thirteen of twen- ty-eight (46 percent) have librarians serving on Ohio Library Association committees . Scholarly research , as demonstrated through publication, is becoming an accepted requirement for many academic librarians. Almost half of the library direc- tors reported that at least one member of their staff had published either a book re- view, article, monograph, or chapter in a book in the last two years. This is especially true for librarians in large graduate institu- tions. Librarians at 72 percent of the colleges and universities in Ohio offering graduate degrees have published within the past two years. Only 26 percent of the li- braries at undergraduate institutions have librarians who have published in the same time period. However, graduate institutions typically have larger library staffs, and this may account for the higher rate of publica- tion. The lowest publication record is at in- dependent/religious (27 percent) and inde- pendent (40 percent) institutions. Most library directors (87 percent) thought that the librarians on their staffs were encouraged but not pressured (94 per- cent) to pursue an additional degree. Nevertheless, in 58 percent of the libraries surveyed, at least one librarian is currently taking courses toward a degree. It is prob- able that these librarians work at large, public graduate institutions with sizable li- brary staffs. Ironically, the institutions that are most likely to have librarians taking courses are also the most likely to require that the class time be made up. More than half of the public colleges and universities ask that this time be made up, but less than 25 percent of either religious or indepen- dent institutions demand this of librarians pursuing an additional degree. Increasingly, academic libraries in Ohio are staffed by librarians with graduate de- grees beyond the MLS. Fifteen libraries (35 percent) indicated that at least one of their professional staff had an MLS plus a doc- torate, and an additional 31 percent have staff members with an MLS and a second master's degree. Clearly, although only two library directors (6 percent) believed librar- ians are "pressured" to pursue an addition- al degree, many librarians see advantages in securing such degrees. Whether pursuing advanced degrees, attempting to conduct research and publish, or serving in professional organizations, academic librarians are typically hampered by their work schedules. Most academic librarians in Ohio are required to work either forty hours or thirty-seven and one- half hours per week (librarians at smaller, private institutions are more often allowed to work the slightly shorter week). Forty library directors (93 ·percent) indicated that Faculty Status I 427 at least some members of their professional staffs were regularly required to work nights and weekends. At thirteen of these libraries (33 percent) all librarians on the staff nor- mally work such hours. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the responses of forty-five Ohio academic library directors to a survey concerning faculty status for librarians re- vealed: (1) very few academic librarians in the state have full facultv status as defined in the ACRL Standards; (2) of the nine standards stipulated by ACRL only four are met by more than half of the i~stitutions in Ohio (see table 2); (3) librarians at large, public, graduate institutions will probably have more of the benefits associated with faculty status and are more often judged to be satisfied with their current status; (4) TABLE 2 NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN OHIO THAT COMPLY WITH THE ACRL STANDARDS Professional responsibilities and self-determination Peer review Library governance Academic form of gover- nance Election of department heads C allege and university gov- ernance Membership in faculty sen- ate Membership on faculty committees Compensation Equal salaries with faculty Academic-year appoint- ments Tenure Eligible for tenure Promotion Academic rank and title Same promotion standards Leaves Eligible for sabbaticals Research funds Eligible for research funds Eligible for travel funds Academic teedom Same aca ernie freedom as faculty Number 10 14 2 30 40 19 20 21 16 22 26 42 39 Percentage ( 100) 23 36 5 73 91 46 2 48 50 42 56 84 100 91 428 I College & Research Libraries • September 1980 librarians at small, private institutions, whether religious or independent, are less likely to receive the benefits of faculty status; and (5) many academic librarians are working diligently to be considered mem- bers of the faculty, whether by serving on university committees, publishing research, or pursuing additional degrees. Libraries at large, public institutions offering graduate degrees, especially those with doctoral programs, typically meet more of the ACRL Standards. Librarians in such libraries are more likely to: (1) have academic rank and titles; (2) be eligible for membership on faculty senates; (3) have salaries equal to those of the faculty; and (4) be eligible for tenure. !However, they also must meet faculty requirements for both promotion and tenure, and they feel the need to take courses toward additional graduate degrees, despite the fact that they typically must work a forty-hour week. Perhaps, for these reasons, many academic librarians in these types of libraries do not favor full faculty status, "which includes all of the benefits and responsibilities normally given to the teaching faculty. " 12 They are, however, judged to be satisfied with their current status in approximately 90 percent of the cases. Librarians in small, private institutions: (1) are more likely to have descriptive job titles instead of academic rank and titles; (2) are less likely to be eligible for membership in faculty organizations and similarly less likely to participate actively, even if eligi- ble; (3) have salaries lower than those of the teaching faculty; and (4) are ineligible for tenure. On the other hand, these librarians: (1) are somewhat less likely to work on administrative holidays and typically are re- quired to work slightly less than a forty- hour week; (2) are evaluated for promotion by standards and processes different from those of the teaching faculty; and (3) are less likely to publish or take courses toward an adqitional degree. In cases where librarians have an oppor- tunity to participate in collegial activities with members of the teaching faculty they appear quite eager to do so. Increasingly, academic librarians have published and have received additional degrees beyond the MLS. Significantly, while few library directors believed librarians were "pres- sured," librarians at twenty-five libraries (58 percent) are currently taking courses. Such activity occurs even when librarians are not given release time to take these courses. In summary, while more than half of the library directors declared professional librar- ians on their staffs had faculty status, table 2 indicates that this is definitely not the case when the criteria of the ACRL Standards are applied. Significant areas, such as equal salaries and academic governance, are pro- vided by a minority of institutions. This sur- vey of Ohio academic librarians in 1979 reaffirms the opinion expressed in 1970 by Smith in discussing the problems and pros- pects of faculty status: · "With only few ex- ceptions, the benefits of academic status have been superficial; substantive areas- salaries, research support, self-direction on the job, voice in academic policy and prac- tice, peer evaluation-have not really been touched. " 13 Significantly, academic year appoint- ments, mandated in the ACRL Standards, are granted to librarians at only one institu- tion in Ohio. Therefore, librarians at none of the other colleges and universities can claim full faculty status. Parker concluded in 1972 that: "The critical factor in faculty sta- tus for academic librarians appears to be whether or not they work the academic year or the twelve-month year. If they have the academic year all of the other academic per- quisites usually follow. " 14 This theory is borne out in the case of the one academic library in Ohio that has nine-month con- tracts. Ironically, the ~ibrary director at this institution is opposed to such full faculty status. Although the survey was limited to academic library directors in one state, Ohio was s.elected because of the diversity and large number of institutions within the state's system of higher education, making it in a sense a microcosm of the nation's academic libraries. I believe the results are indicative of the extent to which all academic librarians have achieved faculty status as defined by the ACRL Standards. Clearly, academic librarians in Ohio, and probably those in all other states, have a long way to go before they can claim to have full faculty status. F acuity Status I 429 REFERENCES 1. Greg W. Byerly, "A Study of the Faculty Status of Academic Librarians in Institutions of Higher Education in Ohio" (Ph.D. dis- sertation, Kent State Univ., 1979). 2. Raj Madan, Eliese Hetler, and Marilyn Strong, "The Status of Librarians in Four- Year State Colleges and Universities," Col- lege & Research Libraries 29:381-86 (Sept. 1968); M. A. Gelfand,' "College Librarians in the Academic Community," College & Re- search Libraries 10:12~ (April 1949); Vic- tor Novak, "Staff Conditions in Catholic American Libraries: A Survey," Catholic Library World 40:117-19 (Oct. 1968). 3. Cynthia C. Ryans, "Academic Status of the Professional Librarian: An Empirical Report," Ohio Library Association Bulletin 47 :6-8 (Jan. 1977); Stella Bentley , · "Collective Bar- gaining and Faculty Status," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 4:75-81 (May 1978); Mary B. Cassata, "Teach-in: The Academic Librarian's Key to Status?" College & Re- search Libraries 31:22-27 (Jan. 1970). 4. Jo Anne Hawkins and others, The Status of Status: The Status of Librarians in Texas Academic Libraries (Austin: Univ. of Texas at Austin Libraries, 1978), ED 178 042. 5. Association of College and Research Librar- ies, "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians," College & Re- search Libraries News 33:211 (Sept. 1972). 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Association of College and Research Librar- ies, "Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Librarians," College & Research Libraries News 33:210 (Sept. 1972). 12. ACRL, "Standards." 13. Eldred Smith, "Academic Status for College and University Librarians-Problems and Prospects," College & Research Libraries 13:10 (Jan. 1970). 14. J. Carlyle Parker, "Faculty Status and the Academic Work Year," California Librarian 33:143 (July 1972).