College and Research Libraries RUSS DAVIDSON, CONNIE CAPERS THORSON, AND MARGO C. TRUMPETER Faculty Status for Librarians In the Rocky Mountain Region: A Review and Analysis Responses to a q·uestionnaire from sixty-four four-year colleges and uniuersi- ties in the Rocky Mountain region reueal that sixty-two of the schools grant some of their librarians faculty status and that forty grant faculty status to all librarians. The greatest discrepancy in benefits receiued by teaching and library faculty arises in length of contract year and publishing responsibili- ties. The directors of only twelue of the forty libraries note that there is controuersy ouer faculty status for librarians, yet the comments on question- naires and the results themselues suggest otherwise. In addition , the respon- dents' uncertainty about their responsibilities and benefits indicates a lack of knowledge of what faculty status should m.ean to and for them. INTRODUCTION Since the late 1950s professional library literature has been replete with articles and studies treating the question of faculty sta- tus for librarians . 1 This literature reflects a continuing disagreement and confusion underlying the issue of faculty status for li- brarians. Although the issue has been ex- amined from a variety of perspectives and in a number of regional contexts, there have been no comprehensive studies undertaken for the colleges and universities in the Rocky Mountain region . In an attempt to examine the issue , a two-part survey was conducted. The results Russ Davidson is Ibero-American librarian , Connie Capers Thorson is acting assistant dean for collection development , and Margo C . Trumpeter is assistant to the dean for manage- ment, General Library , University of New Mex- ico, Albuquerque. The authors wish to thank Lambert Koopmans , professor of mathematics and statistics at the University of New Mexico, and several of his stu- dents for their guidance in perfonning statistical analyses . of the first part of the survey, based on a questionnaire sent to all directors of four- year college and university libraries, are discussed and analyzed below. The pur- poses of the survey were to ascertain not only how many librarians have been voted or granted faculty status in the various in- stitutions , but also whether or not the issue is a controversial one in the judgment of the chief administrator of those libraries . The study also sought to determine whether the benefits for and responsibilities and obliga- tions of library faculty are the same as those governing the teaching faculty. METHODOLOGY The seven states surveyed in the Rocky Mountain region were New Mexico, Arizo- na, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. The list of four-year academic in- stitutions was taken from the thirty-second edition of the American Library Directory ( ALD). Law and medical libraries were ex- eluded when the ALD suggested that they were branches of the main library because it was assumed that the policies governing them would be the same. Questionnaires I 203 204 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 were sent to the directors of ninety-four li- braries. Eighteen of the institutions sur- veyed were eventually excluded because they were found to be either junior colleges not identified as such by the ALD or law school libraries that were indeed part of the larger in~titution. From the final group of seventy-six, sixty-four responses were re- ceived, bringing the response rate to 84 percent. The questionnaire (see appendix A) was designed to determine whether faculty sta- tus had been granted to librarians, how their rank and status were defined, and what benefits and responsibilities they en- joyed. The standards for faculty status for college and university librarians adopted by the membership of the Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries (ACRL) in 1971 were used as the measure. 2 The questionnaire was pretested twice on library faculty at the University of New Mexico who had come from other institu- tions . They were asked to answer it from the perspective of their former experience. Suggestions made for clarifying the ques- tionnaire were incorporated into the final version. Demographic data about each of the in- stitutions were taken from the thirty-second edition of the ALD and the seventeenth edition of The College Blue Book. Informa- tion such as membership in the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and form of control of the institution was included. Re- sponses to the survey were analyzed by such variables as benefits, responsibilities, and demographic factors. FINDINGS Sixty-two, or 96 percent, of the sixty-four respondents indicated that some, if not all, of the librarians had faculty status. Since only two responding libraries had no provis- ions whatsoever for faculty status, it was not possible to compare those schools granting and those withholding faculty status. This study, therefore, addressed the sixty-two li- braries having faculty status for all or a por- tion of their librarians. In fifteen, or one-fourth, of these sixty- two libraries, it was the director only who enjoyed faculty status. In forty, or nearly two-thirds, all of the librarians had faculty status, and in slightly more than one-tenth of the institutions, some other combination obtained, for example, only those who also taught or only the library director and assis- tant director. The breakdown by states is shown in table 1. As table 1 indicates, geographical location appeared to have little bearing on the grant- ing of faculty status. Such status was en- joyed' by a high percentage of librarians throughout the region. On the other hand, the type and form of control of the institu- tion did appear to affect the granting of faculty status within libraries (see table 2). As shown in table 2, 92 percent of the university libraries granted faculty status to all librarians whereas only 50 percent of the liberal arts colleges and 43 percent of the professional schools did the same (p < .005). Table 3, which analyzes the data by the form of control of the institution, shows that "directors only" have faculty status signif- icantly more frequently in private than in public institutions (p < .05). BENEFITS .AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF FACULTY STATUS A critical point of discussion in the con- troversy over faculty status has centered on the issue of benefits and whether they are the same for librarians as for teaching facul- ty. It was intended, when the ACRL stan- dards were first adopted in 1971, that those institutions extending faculty status to li- brarians would grant them the same ben- efits and responsibilities enjoyed by the teaching faculty. The remainder of this study deals only with the forty schools granting faculty · status to all librarians. Table 4 shows that the results, in these for- ty schools, have not been entirely success- ful. As table 4 makes clear, major discrepan- cies existed between the. library faculty and the teaching faculty. The sharpest difference occurred in the length of the contract year. Ninety-five percent of the librarians in the Rocky Mountain region held twelve-month contracts in contradiction to the relevant ACRL standard, which calls for academic- year appointments. Another point of diver- gence pertained to faculty rank. Seventy- five percent of the librarians were granted Faculty Status I 205 New Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Wyoming Idaho Montana Total Having Faculty Status Director only All librarians Other combination Total TABLE 1 FACULTY STATUS BY STATE Director All Total Only Librarians '*' % '*' % '*' % 10 16.1 1 1.6 8 12.9 5 8.0 1 1.6 4 6.4 21 33.9 7 11.3 11 17.7 9 14.5 2 3.2 4 6.4 2 3.2 0 0.0 2 3.2 6 9.7 0 0.0 6 9.7 9 14.5 4 6.5 5 8.0 62 99.9 15 24.2 40 64.3 TABLE 2 FACULTY STATUS BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Liberal Teachers'• Arts Total Colleges Colleges Universities '*' % '*' % '*' % '*' % 15 24 1 50 7 32 0 0 40 65 1 50 11 50 22 92 7 11 0 0 4 18 2 8 62 100 2 100 22 · 100 24 100 Other '*' % 1 1.6 0 0.0 3 4.9 3 4.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 11.4 Professional Schools '*' % 7 50 6 43 1 7 14 100 -The small number of teachers' colleges precludes making direct reference to them ; they are, however, included in the tables. TABLE 3 FACULTY STATUS BY_POSITION LEVEL AND CONTROL OF INSTITUTION Having Faculty Status Director only All librarians Other combination Total '*' 15 40 7 62 Total Public % '*' 24 6 65 30 11 4 --- 100 40 TABLE 4 Private Church- Related % * % 15 7 41 75 8 47 10 2 12 100 17 100 BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF LIBRARY AND TEACHING FACULTY Same for Different for Library and Library and Benefits and Teaching Faculty Teaching Faculty Res~nsibilities '*' %- '*' % Nine-month contract 2 5 38 95 Institutional committee work 40 100 0 0 Professional committee work 39 98 1 2 Identical rank 30 75 10 25 Identical tenure 32 80 8 20 Promotion eligibility 33 83 6 15 Sabbatical eligibility 33 83 5 12 Research leaves 32 80 3 8 Research funds 28 70 5 12 Grievance 40 100 0 0 Publishing requirements 7 18 32 80 Academic governance 39 98 0 0 Private Independent '*' % 2 40 2 40 1 20 -- --- 5 100 No Response '*' % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 5 5 12 7 18 0 0 1 2 • 1 2 206 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 TABLE 5 IDENTICAL RANK BY STATE New Identical Rank Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Wyoming Idaho Montana Yes No Total * 7 1 8 % * 88 0 12 4 100 4 % * % 0 10 91 100 1 9 100 11 100 * % * % * % * % 2 50 2 100 4 67 5 100 2 50 0 0 2 33 0 0 4 100 2 100 6 100 5 100 TABLE 6 IDENTICAL RANK BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Teachers Liberal Arts Professional Identical Rank Colleges Colleges Universities Schools Yes No Total * 1 0 1 % * 100 8 0 3 100 11 academic rank, 10 percent academic status, 5 percent professional status, and 10 per- cent something other. This distinction also applied, though not quite as markedly, to the awarding of tenure. This, too, repre- sented a departure from the ACRL norm, which stipulated that tenure provisions should be the same for both library and teaching faculty. A third important differ- ence in responsibilities involved publishing requirements, a point not specifically addressed by the ACRL standards. Only 18 percent of the librarians were required to meet the same publishing standards as the teaching faculty. At the same time, certain benefits and re- sponsibilities were shared by a large major- ity. Most prominent in this category were participation in departmental and institu- tional committee work and access to the same grievance procedures as teaching faculty. One hundred percent of the respon- dents indicated that these benefits were equal. Assuming that grievance procedures closely approximate the protection of academic freedom called for in the ACRL standards, it would appear that each school has fulfilled this requirement. In compliance with the ACRL standards, participation in professional (state and national) committee work and in academic or university governance was shared by 98 percent of the respondents. To a lesser, but still important degree, eligibility for promo- tion and sabbatical leave was shared. % * % * % 73 16 73 5 83 27 6 27 1 17 100 22 100 6 100 Although sabbatical leaves were obtainable in 83 percent of the institutions responding, research leaves and research funds were available in only 80 percent and 70 percent respectively. It is thus apparent that obser- vance of the ACRL standards on these ben- efits is incomplete. OTHER BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Rank Analyzing benefits and responsibiliti~ in relation to location, type, and form ol dm- trol of the ins.titution disclosed significant results (tables 5-7). A statistically significant relationship (p < .01) _was found :between the granting of academic rark and g~ograph­ ic location (table 5). hi Ari:~;ona· ' t:tone of the schools granted identical rank, and in Utah only 50 percent did. These figures contrasted sharply with those for Wyoming and Montana, where 100 percent of the schools granted identical rank. Falling be- tween were Colorado, with 91 percent, and New Mexico, with 88 percent, granting identical rank. Examining rank by type of institution TABLE 7 IDENTICAL RANK BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION Identical Rank Yes No Total Public * % 23 77 7 23 30 100 Private * % 7 70 3 30 10 100 F acuity Status I 201 TABLE 8 IDENTICAL TENURE BY STATE New Identical Tenure Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Wyoming Idaho Montana Yes No No response Total • 5 2 1 8 % • 63 2 25 2 12 0 100 4 % • % • 50 10 91 3 50 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 100 11 100 4 % • % • % • % 75 2 100 5 83 5 100 25 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 100 6 100 5 100 TABLE 9 IDENTICAL TENURE BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Teachers Liberal Arts Professional Identical Colleges Colleges Universities Schools Tenure • % • Yes 1 100 8 No 0 0 2 No re!fonse 0 0 1 Tot 1 100 11 presented an interesting pattern (table 6). Within the professional schools, librarians were more likely to obtain equal rank than were librarians in either liberal arts colleges or universities. Tenure Provisions Analyzing tenure provlSlons on the basis of equality between library and teaching faculty again showed differences both re- gionally and by type and form of control of the institution. The most noticeable differ- ence, when this q~estion was examined by state (table 8), occurred between Arizona and New Mexico and the other five states. In Arizona only 50 percent and in New Mexico only 63 percent of those schools re- sponding to this question had the same ten- ure provisions. In Wyoming and Montana, on the other hand, all schools responding had the same tenure provisions. As with rank , tenure provisions were affected by the type of institution (table 9) . Although 83 percent of the librarians in pro- % • % • % 73 20 91 3 50 18 2 9 3 50 9 0 0 0 0 100 22 100 6 100 TABLE 10 IDENTICAL TENURE BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION Identical Public Private Tenure • % • % Yes 26 87 6 60 No 4 13 3 30 No reJnse 0 0 1 10 Tot 30 100 10 100 fessional schools were granted rank identical with teaching faculty, only 50 percent of them had identical tenure provisions. In contrast, 73 percent of the universities granted identical rank, but 91 percent of them granted identical tenure. Analysis of tenure provisions by the form of control of the institution displayed a wide variation between publicly supported in- stitutions and private institutions (table 10). Promotion As with tenure, promotion was affected by geographical location (table 11). In 100 TABLE 11 PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY BY STATE New Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Wyoming Idaho Montana Promotion • % • % • % • % • % • % • % Yes 7 88 3 75 7 64 3 75 2 100 6 100 5 100 No 0 0 1 25 4 36 1 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 No reTnse 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tot 8 100 4 100 11 100 4 100 2 100 6 100 5 100 208 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 TABLE 12 PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Teachers' Colleges Liberal Arts Professional Colleges Universities Schools Promotion Yes No No response Total * % 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 TABLE 13 PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION * 8 2 1 11 Public Private Promotion * % * % Yes 28 93 5 50 No 2 7 4 40 No re!jnse 0 0 1 10 Tot 30 100 10 100 percent of the schools in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, librarians were eligible for promotion. In Colorado , by comparison, only 64 percent of the institutions indicated that their librarians had such eligibility. When ana1yzing promotion by type of in- stitution, the professional schools again stood out. The most likely to grant identical rank, they were the least likely to grant identical promotion benefits (table 12). As table 13 shows , public institutions were much more likely to grant promotional ben- efits than were private schools (p < .005) . % * % * % 73 20 91 4 67 18 2 9 2 33 9 0 0 0 0 100 22 100 6 100 Sabbatical Eligibility The significant variation in this category (tables 14-16) occurred under type of in- stitution. Table 15 illustrates that university librarians were eligible for sabbaticals more often than expected statistically. In profes- sional schools and teachers' colleges librar- ians were eligible less often than expected (p < .05). Table 16 shows a statistically sig- nificant relationship between sabbatical eli- gibility and the form of control of the in- stitution (p < .05). Research Funds and Leaves Seventy percent of the respondents indi- cated that librarians had the same access to research funds as did teaching faculty (tables 17-19). In light of this average figure , it is interesting to note that 100 per- cent of Wyoming's schools and only 50 per- cent of Utah's schools provided equal access to such funds (table 17). A slightly higher percentage (80 percent) TABLE 14 Sabbatical Yes No No response Total Sabbatical Yes No No re!jnse Tot SABBATICAL ELIGIBILITY BY STATE New Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Wyoming * % * % * % * % * % 6 75.0 3 75 9 82 3 75 2 100 1 12.5 1 25 2 18 1 25 0 0 1 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 100.0 4 100 11 100 4 100 2 100 TABLE 15 SABBATICAL ELIGIBILITY BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Teachers Liberal Arts Colleges Colleges Universities * % * % * % 1 100 8 73 21 95 0 0 2 18 1 5 0 0 1 9 0 0 1 100 11 100 22 100 Idaho Montana * % * % 6 100 4 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 6 100 5 100 Professional Schools * % 3 50 2 33 1 17 6 100 TABLE 16 SABBATICAL ELIGIBILITY BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION Public Private Sabbatical * % * % Yes 27 90 6 60 No 2 7 3 30 No re!jnse 1 3 1 10 Tot 30 100 10 100 of the librarians had access to research leaves on the same basis as did teaching faculty (table 20). The greatest discrepancy between access to research leaves and funds occurred in Montana. While only 60 per- cent had access to funds, 100 percent of li- brarians had access to leaves. It is especially noteworthy that in New Mexico research funds were more likely to be accessible than research leaves! The opposite was true in every other state. On the general questions of research funds and leaves, a somewhat higher "no response" rate was noted, indicating a possi- F acuity Status I 209 ble uncertainty on the part of the directors about the actual research benefits of librar- ians. Access to research funds was more likely to be enjoyed by university librarians than by professional school and liberal arts college librarians (table 18). There was a sigp.ificant relationship (p < . 025) between access to research leave and type of institu- tion (table 21). There was discernible distinction between public and private schools in the granting of research leave and research funds (tables 19 and 22). ARL Members Seven of the libraries within the region are members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Responses to the question- naire were received from all seven. ARL membership correlated highly with the ben- efits and responsibilities stipulated in the previously cited A CRt Standards. Librar- ians in ARL libraries are universally accorded all benefits and responsibilities ex- TABLE 17 Research Funds Yes No No response Total Research Funds Yes No No response Total ACCESS TO RESEARCH FUNDS BY STATE New Mexico Arizona Colorado Utah Wyoming * % * % * % * % * % 7 88 3 75 7 64 2 50 2 100 0 0 1 25 2 18 0 0 0 0 1 12 0 0 2 18 2 50 0 0 8 100 4 100 11 100 4 100 2 100 TABLE 18 ACCESS TO RESEARCH FUNDS BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Teachers' Colleges * % 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 100 TABLE 19 Liberal Arts Colleges * % 6 55 1 9 4 36 11 100 Universities * % 18 82 2 9 2 9 22 100 Idaho Montana * % * % 4 67 3 60 0 0 2 40 2 33 0 0 6 100 5 100 Professional Schools * % 3 50 2 33 1 17 6 100 ACCESS TO RESEARCH FUNDS BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION cept equivalent rank and publication re- quirements. The publishing requirement must be met in the three libraries providing equivalent rank. Interestingly, the value for librarians of ARL membership, in relation to meeting the ACRL standards, is decided- ly greater in the Rocky Mountain region than in the country as a whole, as is evident from the 1979 survey of all ARL libraries on Research Public Private Funds * % * % Yes 22 73 6 60 No 3 10 2 20 No re!jnse 5 17 2 20 Tot 30 100 10 100 210 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 Research Leave Yes No No response Total * 6 0 2 8 New Mexico % 75 0 25 100 TABLE 20 ACCESS TO RESEARCH LEAVE BY STATE Arizona Colorado Utah * % * % * % 3 75 8 73 3 75 1 25 1 9 0 0 0 0 2 18 1 25 4 100 11 100 4 100 TABLE 21 Wyoming * % 2 100 0 0 0 0 2 100 ACCESS TO RESEARCH LEAVE BY TYPE OF INSTITUTION Idaho Montana * % * % 5 83 5 100 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 100 5 100 Teachers Liberal Arts Professional Research Colleges Colleges Universities Schools Leave * % Yes 1 100 No 0 0 No response 0 0 Total 1 100 TABLE 22 ACCESS TO RESEARCH LEAVE BY CONTROL OF INSTITUTION Research Public Leave * % * Yes 25 83 7 No 2 7 1 No re!jnse 3 10 2 Tot 30 100 10 the status of librarians. 3 * 6 2 3 11 Private % 70 10 20 100 Table 23 compares benefits and responsi- bilities of librarians in the Rocky Mountain region ARL mem hers with those of the general membership of the association. The Library Directors Speak Each respondent to the questionnaire was encouraged to add comments that might shed further light on faculty status. From the many such comments , one recurrent theme emerged: equivalence between li- brary faculty and teaching faculty is more often theoretical than real. This finding was supported by the uncer- tainty characterizing the directors' responses to specific questions . Considerable ambigui- ty existed as to whether or not librarians actually possessed ·the benefits they were supposed to have under the terms of faculty status. For example , one respondent com- mented that while librarians were eligible for research leave, none had ever been % * % * % 55 21 95 4 67.0 18 0 0 1 16.5 27 1 5 1 16.5 100 22 100 6 100.0 granted. The same director commented that only one sabbatical had been granted to a li- brarian in thirty-one years. Confusion also attended the question of promotion. One director indicated that he did not know how people · received promotion ; another re- sponded that while eligibility for promotion existed , " the possibility of promotion is almost nil. " Further typifying some direc- tors ' uncertainty were such frequent re- sponses as "don't know," "never tried," "un- clear," " ?" to questions pertaining to librar- ians' benefits . This ambiguity , it should be noted , was not specific to any single type or size of institution. Degree requirements were also uncer- tain. Although 90 percent of the schools in- dicated that a second master's degree was not formally required for tenure and promo- tion, several indicated that it was difficult to be promoted without a second master's de- gree. One director commented that while a second master' s was not required , the li- brary would " prefer" some reference li- . brarians have this degree. Among the most interesting responses were those made to the questions "Must teaching faculty publish to be granted promotion and tenure?" and "Must librar- ians publish to be granted promotion and tenure?" Forty percent of the respondents indicated that the teaching faculty must publish, while only 18 percent indicated Faculty Status I 211 TABLE 23 BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY ARL LIBRARIES ARL Libraries, Rocky ARL Libraries, National Mountain Region (7) SuJVey (91) Benefits and Yes No Yes No Responsibilities * % * % * % * % Rank 3 43 4 57 27 30 64 70 Tenure 6 86 1 14 40 44 40 44 Promotion 7 100 j) 0 40 44 34 37 Sabbatical 7 100 0 0 40 44 37 41 Research leaves 7 100 0 0 67 74 15 16 Research funds 7 100 0 0 50 55 30 33 Grievance 7 100 0 0 69 76 10 11 Publishing* 3 43 4 57 n/a n/a n/a n/a Faculty organization 6 86 1 14 n/a n/a n/a n/a Academic senate 7 100 0 0 45 49 36 40 *Further figures about p1,1blishing are available in Ronald Rayman and Frank Wm . Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements in University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 41 :43-48 Oan . 1980) that librarians faced the same obligation. At least one director commented that the teaching faculty, although not required to publish, would probably never be promoted to the rank of full professor without pub- lishing. He did not make the same com- ment about librarians. Another director in- dicated that while teaching faculty were evaluated for tenure on the basis of publica~ tions, librarians were evaluated not on this ground but, rather, on such other criteria as "job performance, campus and community service , professional activity, etc." The role of librarians in academic govern- ance may afford still another example of theoretical , rather than actual , rights and responsibilities . The survey results showed that 98 percent of library faculty members were eligible for membership in the academic senate or equivalent faculty body . Yet, eligibility may not itself guarantee the library faculty representation. In fact , one director commented that no librarian had ever been elected to the faculty governing body of his institution , although all were eligible. The possible exclusion of librarians from academic governance may stem in part from the· absence of a tradition among them of collegial decision making. As many as 40 percent of the library faculties involved in this survey have yet to organize themselves into a collegial body. Clearly, the inconsistent application of standards to library faculty on the one hand and to teaching faculty on the other has helped create and reinfor<~e a continuing controversy. In the words of one director, " Every time tenure and promotion for li- brary faculty reach the university tenure and promotion committee , someone ques- tions it! " Thus, it is surprising that the directors in only twelve libraries acknowl- edged that there was controversy about the issue. Two directors who reported that there was no controversy had , in fact, re- cently witnessed the divestiture of faculty status from some of their librarians. It may be deduced from this that some directors may have obscured the reality of the situation. CONCLUDING REMARKS It is quite apparent that, while many li- brarians in the Rocky Mountain region have been granted faculty status by their institu- tions , they are in reality not enjoying cer- tain of the benefits and responsibilities cen- tral to such status , notably , the benefit of the nine-month contract and the responsi- bility of publishing. The ACRL Standards published in 1972 envisioned that librarians " .. . be recognized as equal partners in the academic enterprise ." Since the Standards also proposed a three- to five-year implementation period for "college and university libraries which do not currently conform to any or all of these standards, " the time is right for the directors and librarians to work toward full compliance. When the standards have been implemented and accepted by the entire university community, an equal partnership will be realized . 212 I College & Research Libraries • May 1981 REFERENC[S 1. Among the more frequently cited works and anthologies are: Lewis C. Branscomb, ed., The Case for Faculty Status for Academic Li- brarians (ACRL Monograph, no.33 [Chicago: American Library Assn., 1970]); Robert B. Downs, ed., The Status of American College and University Librarians (ACRL Monograph, no.22 [Chicago: American Library Assn., 1958]); Virgil F. Massman, Faculty Status for Librarians (Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow, 1972); Perry D. Morrison, The Career of the Academic Librarian: A Study of the Social Origins, Educational Attainments, Vocational Experience, and Personality Characteristics of a Group of American Academic Librarians (ACRL Monograph, no.29 [Chicago: American Library Assn., 1969]); and Anita R. Schiller, Characteristics of Professional Personnel in College and University Libraries (Research Series , no.16 [Springfield, Ill . : Illinois State Library, 1969]). For additional citations see Nancy Huling, "Faculty Status-a Compre- hensive Bibliography," College & Research Li- braries 34:440--62 (Nov. 1973). 2. "Standards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians, " College & Research Li- braries News 8:210-12 (Sept. 1972). 3. The Status of Librarians: An Overview (ARL SPEC Kit 61 [Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies, Feb. 1980]). APPENDIX A We are interested in knowing the benefits for and expectations of academic librarians, whether or not they have faculty status. Please ~espond to the following questions and feel free to make comments on any of them. Thank you. 1. Is there controversy in your institution or library about faculty status for librarians? 0 yes 0 no 2. If the librarians at your institution do not currently have faculty status, is there any movement afoot to grant such status? 0 yes 0 no On/a 3. How many librarians are employed at your library? 4. Have any of them been granted faculty status? 0 yes 0 no 5. If yes, which? 0 director only 0 all 0 none 0 only librarians who also teach 0 director and assistant director(s) only 0 other 0 n/a Please answer the following questions about the majority of librarians in your institution whether or not they have faculty status. 6. Do librarians at your institution usually hold contracts of: 0 nine months 0 ten months 0 twelve months 7. If the librarians hold nine- or ten-month contracts, is summer work paid for at rates comparable to those of teaching faculty? 0 yes 0 no 0 n/a 8. If the librarians usually hold twelve-month contracts, are nine- or ten-month contracts possible for librarians? 0 yes D no 0 n/a 9. Is the librarian's scheduled work week : 0 30 hours 0 35 hours 0 37 hours 0 40 hours 0 other 10. Does the normal work load of librarians include time for other professional activities such as committee work? 0 yes 0 no 11. Are librarians at your institution encouraged to serve on library and/or school committees? 0 yes 0 no 12. Are librarians at your institution encouraged to serve on professional committees at the state, regional, and/or national level? 0 yes 0 no 13. Are librarians at your institution granted rank identical to that of the teaching faculty? 0 yes 0 no 14. If not identical, is librarian status: 0 academic 0 professional D other D n/a 15. Are librarians at your institution covered by tenure provisions identical to those of the teaching faculty? 0 yes 0 no 16. If #15 is · no, is there an equivalent provision made? 0 yes 0 no 0 n/a 17. Are recommendations for tenure, or its equivalent, based on a peer review system? 0 yes 0 no 18. Are librarians at your institution eligible for promotion? 0 yes 0 no 19. Are recommendations for promotion based on a peer review system? 0 yes 0 no Faculty Status I 213 20. Are librarians at your institution eligible for sabbatical leaves on the same basis as teaching faculty? 0 yes 0 no 21. Are librarians at your institution eligible for research leaves with or without pay? 0 yes 0 no 22. Do librarians at your institution have access to the same research funds accessible to faculty? 0 yes 0 no 23. Do librarians at your institution have access to 'grievance, appeal, and review procedures available to other faculty? 0 yes 0 no 24. Must teaching faculty publish to be granted promotion and tenure? 0 yes 0 no 25. Must librarians publish to be granted promotion and tenure, or its equivalent? 0 yes 0 no 26. Is the master's in library science from an ALA-accredited library school considered the beginning degree for appointment as a librarian in your institution? 0 yes 0 no 27. Is a second master's degree for librarians required for : 0 appointment 0 tenure (or its equivalent) 0 promotion 0 none of the above 28. How many librarians in your institution have Ph. D. degrees in any subject? 0 none 0 1-3 0 4--6 0 7 or more 29 . Has a library faculty been formally organized and/or constituted? 0 yes 0 no 30. Are librarians in your institution eligible for membership in the academic senate or equivalent faculty body? 0 yes 0 no 31. Are librarians in your institution unionized? 0 yes 0 no 32. If librarians are unionized , is the bargaining agent the: 0 AAUP 0 AFf 0 other 0 n/a 33. Are new librarians recommended by: 0 a college-wide search committee 0 a library search committee 0 the library director 0 other 34. Is the library director recommended by: 0 a college-wide search committee 0 a library search committee 0 election 0 other 35. Is the library director considered a: 0 department head 0 chairperson 0 dean 0 other 36. The library director is appointed for: 0 1-3 years 0 4--6 years 0 indefinitely