College and Research Libraries Preparation for Academic Librarianship: A Survey Gemma DeVinney and Patricia Tegler Library school, the library as hiring institution, and the librarian, all contribute, in varying degrees, toward the education of the entry-level academic librarian. The relative contribution of each group is frequently disputed and worthy of empirical analysis. Past efforts have presented views on how the librarian should be educated. The authors characterize perceptions of entry- level State University of New York librarians regarding the primary means by which they be- lieve they should be educated for specific professional activities. t is commonly agreed that the responsibility for educating entry-level academic librarians is shared by three groups: li- brary schools, hiring institutions, and the librarians themselves. Despite general consensus that each of these groups share responsibility for the educational process, the specific nature of their respective roles is vigorously debated. The library education debate in both the literature and at professional meetings has focused on the following questions : Should the curricula of library schools em- phasize theory or practice, or, should both be given equal attention? Should library schools focus on preparing students for employment in specialized positions and environments, such as academic libraries, or might a general core program provide the basic preparation for library work? The roles of the hiring institution and the beginning librarian are similarly open to question. Should the employing library be expected to provide extensive on-the- job training, or simply orientation to its particular policies and procedures? And, how far does the responsibility of the be- ginning librarian extend? Should a begin- ning librarian identify the gaps in personal professional knowledge and assume the responsibility for filling those gaps through informal self-instruction or for- mal continuing education programs? Discussion of these questions has gener- ally focused on how librarians should be educated, rather than how they are edu- cated, and has rarely reflected the percep- tions of entry-level librarians who have re- cently begun to use their education. Accordingly, we decided to ask a number of beginning academic librarians about their actual job responsibilities, and the manner in which they learned to perform their duties. Finally, we sought to elicit their opinions about how their job respon- sibilities should have been taught. Librari- ans employed by the State University of New York were selected for our study. METHODOLOGY In the fall of 1980 we sent introductory letters to the library directors of the four SUNY (State University of New York) uni- versity centers and the twelve SUNY four- year colleges of arts and science ( exclud- ing Empire State College which has no campus per se). The letters asked for the di- rector's cooperation in distributing the questionnaires to librarians on their staffs who had received graduate degrees in 1976 or later. Three university center li- brary directors and ten four-year college li- brary directors cooperated. Question- naires were distributed to sixty-seven academic librarians who met our criterion. The questionnaire was divided into four Gemma DeVinney is former senior assistant librarian, University Libraries, State University of New York at Buffalo, and current doctoral candidate, School of Information and Library Studies, State University of New York, Buffalo. Patricia Tegler is assistant reference lib~arian, University of Illinois at Chicago. 223 224 College & Research Libraries parts. Part I solicited background data such as position title, year of library de- gree, rank, other graduate degrees, and whether the librarian was considered pri- marily a public service or technical service librarian . Part II presented a checklist of twenty- seven professional activities typical of aca- demic librarians. The checklist was devel- oped by studying advertisements for entry-level academic library positions, and by consulting both public and techni- cal service colleagues. Space was pro- vided at the end of the checklist for noting additional major professional activities. The librarians were asked in Part III to indicate which of four methods, library school education, on-the-job training, self-instruction, or continuing education, was the most important preparation for their job responsibilities.* The first three methods of preparation directly corre- spond to the three groups with the re- sponsibility for educating library profes- sionals as discussed above. The fourth, continuing education, requires the partici- pation of the individual as well as that of some institution. The institution can be a library school, library, professional orga- nization, or some other group willing to plan and develop a continuing education program. In Part IV the respondents were given an opportunity to indicate which of the four categories, in their opinion, should assume primary importance for job prepa- ration. It was not possible in either Part III or Part IV to indicate that two methods were, or should be, equally involved in professional preparation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fifty-seven questionnaires were com- May 1983 pleted and returned to us, a response rate of 85 percent. Of these, fifty-four were an- alyzed. t Forty-five of the respondents were classified as assistant librarians, eight as senior assistant librarians, and one was a technical assistant.+ The group was fairly evenly divided according to the date of receipt of the MLS degree. Ten re- ceived their MLS degrees in 1976, thirteen in 1977, twelve in 1978, twelve in 1979, and seven in 1980. Thirty-three of there- spondents considered themselves primar- ily public service librarians. E~ghteen indi- cated that they were technical service librarians. Two were involved in both ar- eas, and one individual did not respond to the question. Activity Analysis Table 1lists in descending order of fre- quency the types of activities that begin- ning librarians in the SUNY system per- form. The jobs of these librarians appear to be extremely diverse. On the average, each librarian performed 15 different ac- tivities either regularly or occasionally. The duties of public service and technical service librarians appear to be equally var- ied. Public service librarians averaged 16 activities, while technical service librari- ans were involved in 14.5 . The lowest number of duties was 5, indicated by one respondent, and the highest was 23, also noted by one respondent. Fifteen librari- ans listed duties other than the 27 pro- vided on the questionnaire. Additional duties included the following : (1) process- ing of special materials (five respondents); (2) preparing exhibits (three respon- dents); (3) card catalog maintenance (four respondents); and (4) work with audiovi- sual equipment and materials (two re- spondents). *These methods were defined as follows: 1) library school education (e.g., coursework, practica for credit); 2) formal on-the-job training initiated by the employer (e.g., in-service group training sessions, individual training session with a supervisor); 3) self-instruction (e.g., informally consulting with col- leagues, reading, "learning by doing"); 4) continuing education sponsored by groups other than the employing library (e.g ., seminars, conferences, courses). +Three questionnaires were not completely filled out and could not be analyzed. :f:Librarians in the SUNY system typically hold one of four ranks: assistant librarian, senior assistant librarian, associate librarian, and librarian. Occasionally individuals with MLS degrees are classified as technical assistants . Technical Assistants do not hold faculty rank. Preparation for Academic Librarianship 225 Activity TABLE 1 LIBRARIAN ACTIVITIES Answering reference 9.uestions Discussing library policies & procedures with patrons Supervising personnel Preparing reports and memoranda Selectin~ library materials (print & nonprint) Library mstruction lectures Verifying bibliographic data Participating in library committee work Training personnel Formulatmg J?Olicies/procedures Participating m faculty liaison activities Evaluating personnel Developing user guides in print format Hirin~ personnel Participating in university committee work Deciding on the acceptability of gift materials Participating in national/state/regional committee work Writing for publication Copy Catalogin~ · Onginal catalogmg of other formats Preparing & monitoring budgets Original cataloging of monographs Selecting & working with vendors Online oibliographic searching Teaching credit-bearing library instruction courses Original cataloging of serials Developing user guides in nonprint format By analyzing the jobs done by beginning librarians, we found a number of sur- prises. Ninety-four percent of all librari- ans, both technical and public service, were involved in answering reference questions. Only three respondents, all technical service librarians, indicated that they were never involved in reference ac- tivities. Edwards, in his study of Califor- nia beginning academic librarians, also found that a high percentage of the librari- ans were involved with reference activi- ties.1 In total, fifteen technical service li- brarians out of the eighteen who responded indicated involvement in an- swering reference questions. Another public service function, "discussing li- brary policies and procedures with pa- trons," was the second most frequently engaged in activity. Forty-nine, or 91 per- cent of our respondents, were involved in this function. Many of the libraries we sur- veyed employ relatively few profession- als, therefore, each librarian has the op- portunity to work in a variety of job capacities. Another interesting finding was that 87 percent of the respondents indicated they supervised personnel on a regular or occa- sional basis. This corresponds with Edwards' findings. 2 An analysis of the in- house job titles given respondents re- vealed that fewer than five were adminis- trative positions. Most of the librarians' titles were reference librarian, cataloger, or media librarian. Yet, all but seven indi- cated that they performed supervisory functions. It is probable that in many cases the beginning librarians are supervising nonprofessional personnel, that is clerks, technical assistants, and students. Still, the large number of entry level librarians engaged in supervision is noteworthy. The existence of faculty status for librari- ans in SUNY schools, with resulting em- phasis on professional contributions, and university and community service, may account for the large numbers of begin- ning librarians who are involved in com- mittee work and writing for publication. Not surprisingly, 81 percent of the librari- ans surveyed indicated that they were in- volved with library committees. Fifty-two percent were members of university-wide committees, indicating early career in- volvement in university governance. Sur- prisingly, 46 percent participated in com- mittee activities at regional, state, and/or national levels. The emphasis placed on committee work varies considerably from campus to campus. Other duties performed by more than one-half of the librarians are: preparation of reports and memoranda (85 percent); selection of print and non print library ma- terials (83 percent); verification of biblio- graphic data (81 percent); formulation of procedures and policies (76 percent); par- ticipation in faculty liaison activities (72 percent); and development of user guides in print format (63 percent). Actual Method of Preparation for Job Responsibilities As mentioned earlier, Part III of our questionnaire allowed respondents to in- 226 College & Research Libraries dicate which method was most used for job preparation. Only. five librarians agreed on where they had learned specific job techniques. There was general agreement, however, that serials cataloging and copy cataloging were learned on-the-job. Self-instruction was listed as the primary method of learn- ing for those involved with writing for publication and those serving on univer- sity, regional, state, or national library committees. Beyond these, there was little consensus. The one job most of the lib_rari- ans were involved with, answering refer- ence questions, was the one with which there was least agreement. Thirty-three percent of those involved with reference believed that library school had been most important in preparing them for their ref- erence responsibilities. Thirty-six percent felt that on-the-job-training was most im- portant, while 31 percent felt that they had learned about reference through self- instruction. None of the respondents considered li- brary school as a primary means of prepar- ing them for professional activities, in- cluding committee work and writing for publication, bibliographic instruction ac- tivities, hiring and training personnel, or serials cataloging. A small percentage of the librarians indicated that library school had prepared them for evaluating and su- pervising personnel, original cataloging of special formats, copy cataloging, explain- ing policies and procedures, and acting as liaison with faculty. Continuing education was thought to be an important method of learning by even fewer of the respondents . In only nine cat- egories was it noted at all, and in only two categories, teaching library instruction courses and writing for publication, did over 10 percent consider it the primary learning method. Largely, the respondents considered on-the-job-training as their most impor- tant means of learning job responsibilities . At least 50 percent of the librarians indi- cated that they had learned the following activities primarily on-the-job: discussing library policies and procedures with pa- trons, online bibliographic searching, giv- ing library instruction lectures, doing orig- inal and copy cataloging of all formats, May 1983 and evaluating personnel. The exceptions to on-the-job-training were: developing user guides, serving on university, state, national, or regional committees, writing for publication, and selecting library mate- rials. Self-instruction was also considered an important means of learning professional duties. Jobs emphasizing personal skills such as committee work, writing, and fac- ulty liaison were thought to have been learned primarily through self- instruction. The exceptions to self- instruction learning were: original cata- loging of serials and monographs, copy cataloging, online searching, and verifica- tion of bibliographic data. In summary, the results of Part III of the questionnaire indicated that respondents felt self-instruction and on-the-job- training were the most important means of learning specific job responsibilities. Li- brary school was, in their estimation, of substantially less importance, as was con- tinuing education. Preferred Method of Preparation for Job Responsibilities In Part IV of the questionnaire, respon- dents were asked to indicate which of the four educational methods should be of pri- mary importance . Expectations for library school appear to be relatively high. More than 75 percent of those librarians per- forming online searching and original cat- aloging of monographs believed that these jobs should be learned in library school. Over 50 percent of the librarians performing these duties thought that the following activities should be learned through the formal library education sys- tem: answering reference questions, de- veloping user guides, verifying biblio- graphic data, selecting library materials, cataloging serials and other formats, and preparing budgets . On-the-job-training was listed as the primary method of preparing beginning librarians for explaining library policies, teaching library instruction courses, se- lecting gift materials, working with ven- dors, serving as faculty liaison, copy cata- loging, training, supervising and evaluating personnel, and formulating policies. The percentage of respondents Preparation for Academic Librarianship 227 selecting on-the-job-training as the pre- ferred method of learning was low for only one activity, that of writing for publi- cation. Unlike library school and on-the-job- training, self-instruction was seldom the preferred primary method of learning. In only five categories did more than 25 per- cent of the librarians indicate that they be- lieved self-instruction should be the major means of preparation for professional re- sponsibilities. These activities: serving on committees, preparing reports, and writ- ing for publication, all emphasize com- munication skills. There were several ac- tivities which none of the respondents believed should be learned· through self- education. These were: online biblio- graphic searching, working with vendors, original cataloging of monographs and se- rials, and copy cataloging. In general, rela- tively few of the librarians thought that self-instruction should be the primary means of learning job responsibilities. Continuing education was not consid- ered as a primary method of preparing for professional duties. We interpret this, not as a lack of interest in continuing educa- tion, but rather, as a belief that continuing education is most effective when it sup- ports previous learning. Although there is no clear consensus, there is a strong indication that, as a group, the respondents thought that li- brary schools and hiring institutions should share the responsibility for prepar- ing beginning librarians for their jobs. In some areas, particularly those emphasiz- ing communication skills, the librarians were willing to assume responsibility for their own development. CONCLUSIONS The results of our survey suggest to us that there is little agreement among begin- ning librarians in the SUNY system re- garding the primary method by which they learned to do their jobs. It is appar- ent, however, that ~espite disagreement about particular activities, there is general agreement that self-instruction and on- the-job-training were of greater impor- tance in preparing beginning librarians for their current positions than was library school. When reviewing the librarians' percep- tions about actual versus ideal prepara- tion, it is interesting to note the relation- ships between self-instruction, library school, and on-the-job-training. It ap- pears that the respondents believe that they assumed responsibility for learning the jobs which were not adequately taught by their library schools or hiring institu- tions. It also appears that they do not be- lieve this is how it should be. Although there is no clear consensus re- garding the primary responsibility for the education and training of librarians, some conclusions can be drawn. Survey respon- dents indicated that responsibility for pro- fessional education should be shared by li- brary schools and the hiring institutions. Duties that are largely institution-specific, or less likely to be theoretically based, such as gift and vendor selection, or the explanation of policies, should be handled primarily through on-the-job-training. Job functions that are common to all libraries should be learned primarily through li- brary school: reference, online searching, bibliographic verification, selection of li- brary materials, and cataloging. Librari- ans willing to assume primary responsibil- ity for their learning are those involved with personal professional development, such as serving on committees and writ- ing for publication. There are several unresolved questions. Are the perceptions of these librarians representative of all beginning academic librarians? Do their ideas about library ed- ucation match those of library educators and administrators? If not, do these differ- ences in expectations explain some of the continuing dissatisfaction with the library education system? The answers to these questions await further research. REFERENCES 1. Ralph M. Edwards, Th e Role of the Beginning Librarian in University Libraries, ACRL Publications in Librarianship, no .37 (Chicago: American Library Association, 1975), p. 38. 2. Ibid., p . 42.