College and Research Libraries Research Notes 133 Librarians, Publication, and Tenure Joyce Payne and Janet Wagner Over the past ten years, there has been a plethora of literature on faculty status for academic librarians. Only now, however, is the full impact of this phenomenon be- coming apparent, as librarians begin to stand for tenure and as the need to meet the criteria for academic rank takes on in- creasing importance. Many academic li- brarians are coming to the realization that along with faculty status and its concomi- tant perquisites come certain require- ments not previously anticipated. As more and more librarians are standing for tenure, the question has been raised as to how many and which of the requirements for all faculty members are required for the granting of tenure to librarians. Usually, several criteria are weighed at the time of tenure consideration for librari- ans, but only recently has the issue of pub- lication as one of the requisites for tenure assumed major importance. A trend to- ward emphasizing research and publica- tion for librarians to the same degree as for teaching faculty seems to be developing. In the past, some combination of the ten- ure criteria for teaching faculty has been necessary, but not all of the requirements had to be fulfilled-the rationale. being that librarians differ sqmewhat from the teaching faculty in professional responsi- bilities, educational preparation, hours of work, and work load. As Davey and Steer recently pointed out: Research is part of the teaching faculty mem- ber's duties and accordingly a large amount of time is provided for this purpose . Few librari- ans can spend a large proportion of work time on the same purpose, if they want to fulfill their assigned functions within the library system in a satisfactory manner. 1 In order to determine if this increased emphasis on research and publication for tenure and promotion is representative of a national trend, we did a review of the lit- erature. Only one recent study on the topic, an article by Rayman and Goudy, reported the results of a survey they con- ducted of ninety-four members of the As- sociation of Research Libraries. Their sur- vey attempted to "determine to what extent research and publication actually constitute a requirement for academic li- brarians, the inhibiting or promotional factors affecting this activity, and the ram- ifications that this issue holds not only for ARL libraries but also for the field of aca- demic librarianship itself." 2 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY Since their survey was limited to re- search libraries and revealed wide dis- crepancies in criteria from institution to in- stitution, we designed a questionnaire/ survey which expanded upon Rayman and Goudy's study. The purpose of our survey was to examine librarians in an- other group of academic libraries to deter- mine the extent to which publishing is a factor for them in obtaining tenure and/or promotion and to compare the results of our study with those of Rayman and Goudy (see table 1). For our study, we used ''Rank Order Ta- ble I: Volumes in Library" from ACRL University Library Statistics, 1978-1979: A Compilation of Statistics from Ninety-Eight Non-ARL University Libraries. 3 From that listing, we selected groups 2-6 (excluding Canadian institutions). This provided us with a list of fifty-nine academic libraries with holdings ranging from roughly one- half million to one million volumes. METHODOLOGY The questionnaire we designed, mod- eled after Rayman and Goudy's, con- Joyce Payne and Janet Wagner are reference librarians, Reference Department, Hofstra University Library, Hempstead, New York. 1-1 ~ TABLE 1 n 0 PUBLICATION IN ACRL LIBRARIES-COMPARISON WITH RAYMAN AND GOUDY* = ~ Faculty Academic (JQ All "Other" ~ Category by Responses Status Status Status ~ Professional R&G P&W R&G P&W R&G P&W R&G P&W Classification No . % No. % No . % No . % No. % Np. % No . % No . % ~ ~ Tenure Granted Cll ~ Yes 39 57 30 61 24 100 25 86 14 50 2 22 1 6 3 27 ~ No 29 43 19 39 0 0 4 14 14 50 7 78 15 94 8 73 n Publication Requirements ::r' t"" Required . 10 15 3 7 10 42 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6" Encouraged; not required 41 60 36 84 13 54 23 82 20 71 6 86 8 50 7 88 lot Not encouraged 17 25 4 9 1 4 2 7 8 29 1 14 8 50 1 12 ~ lo<• Publication Required ~ For promotion only 1 10 2 14 1 10 1 33 Cll For tenure on!f' 0 0 4 29 0 0 0 0 Promotion an tenure 9 90 8 57 9 90 2 67 Require Publication in :: Librarianship only 2 20 1 4 2 20 1 33 ~ All disciplines 8 80 22 96 8 80 2 67 n Publication Released Time ::r' Specific released time 7 10 17 46 4 17 13 50 3 11 2 33 0 0 2 40 1-1 I.C ~ply for released time 28 41 13 54 9 32 6 37 00 ~ o released time 33 49 20t 54 7 29 13 50 16 57 4 67 10 63 3 60 Fundins for Research 18 23 8 19 11 33 6 21 2 7 2 25 5 29 0 0 Withm library From university 40 51 28 65 20 61 20 71 16 57 4 50 4 24 4 67 Not available 20 26 7 16 2 6 2 7 10 36 2 25 8 47 2 33 Library Research Committee Yes 20 31 7 18 16 67 5 17 2 8 2 40 2 12 0 0 No 45 69 33 83 8 33 24 83 23 92 3 60 14 88 7 100 *Percents listed are out of the number of responses received for each question . tSabbatical included . 0 Question applicable . -Question not applicable . sisted of nine questions (several with sub- sections). As did Rayman and Goudy, we attempted to determine the status of li- brarians, but we sought more complete in- formation on terms of employment (work- week and workyear) and educational requirements (see table 2). We sought to establish how many of the institutions do indeed grant tenure to librarians and the Research Notes 135 differences, if any, in policies and criteria for tenure and/or promotion. We at- tempted to define, with some precision, the types of publishing that were most de- sirable and acceptable. Chi-square tests were performed where appropriate to make comparisons between this study and Rayman and Goudy's. This type of statistical test determines whether there TABLE 2 STATUS, TENURE, AND PUBLICATION* Category Terms of Employment Twelve-month calendar Academic calendar Choice of twelve-month or academic calendar. All Responses (N=49) 45 2 2 Faculty+ Status (N=29) 25 2 2 No. of hours in workweek 40 37.5 35 40 37.5 35 ------- 12 5 Eligible for Tenure Yes 30 No 19 Educational Requirements M~ ~ MLS plus 2d master's degree 3 MLS plus credits 2 Ph.D. 0 Other 1 No response 19 Policy Statement for Tenure for Librarians Yes 29 No 10 No response . 10 Criteria for Tenure Same as for Teaching Faculty Yes 14 No W No response 14 Publishins Is A reqmrement 3 An option 35 Unnecessary 5 No response · 6 Publishing Is an Enhancement Yes 22 No 5 No response 22 Publishing a Requirement for Tenure 2 Promotion 3 Tenure and promotion 9 No response 35 Publishing Must Be In field of librarianship 1 Dther disciplines/subJect areas 1 B~ n No response 25 25 4 18 3 2 0 1 5 24 3 2 13 14 2 3+ 23 2 1 20 2 7 1t 0 2 17 1 1 18 9 Academic Status (N=8) 8 0 0 Administrative Status (N=7) 7 0 0 "Other" Status (N=5) 5 0 0 40 37.5 35 40 37.5 35 40 37.5 35 ---------- 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 2 1 2 4 0 6 1 1 1 1 6 0 1 0 7 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 3 0 2 5 0 5 0 2 1 0 6 1 0 0 6 0 0 2 5 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 2 3 0 2 1 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 *Responses may not add up to total-some institutions may have responded to more than one choice. tOne responded faculty and administration . Table 2 continues on p.136 136 College & Research Libraries March 1984 TABLE 2 (continued) STATUS, TENURE, AND PUBLICATION* All Faculty+ Academic Administrative " Other" Re~onses Status Status Status Status Category ( = 49) (N=29) (N=B) (N=7) (N=5) Research Funding Available Yes 35 25 5 4 1 No 7 3 2 0 2 No response 7 1 1 3 2 From university 28 19 5 3 1 From library 9 7 2 0 0 From other sources 14 10 2 1 1 Travel Funding Available Yes 41 25 7 5 4 No 3 3 0 0 0 No response 5 1 1 2 1 For research 21 15 3 2 1 For presentation of professional pa- pers 35 23 6 5 1 From library 37 22 6 5 4 From university 16 11 3 1 1 From other sources 5 3 2 0 0 Special Committees For Research and Publication y~ 22 17 3 1 1 No 18 10 3 3 2 No res~onse 9 2 2 3 2 From li rary 7 5 2 0 0 From university 22 17 3 1 1 *Responses may not add up to total-some institutions may have responded to more than one choice . tOne responded faculty and administration. are significant differences in the percent- age breakdowns. We sent our questionnaire, with a self- addressed envelope, to the directors of fifty-nine university libraries covering thirty-five states and the District of Co- lumbia. Within this group, forty-eight were public universities; eleven were pri- vate. Within two weeks, we had received the great majority of what was eventually to be a response from forty-nine (83 per- cent) of the institutions. Rayman and Goudy had had the same quick response, and based their results on a return from 68 (72 percent) of the institutions. Obviously there is a great interest in the topic and a desire on the part of academic librarians to know where they and their colleagues stand on this issue of "publish or perish." RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Faculty Status In an ''Academic Status Survey'' con- ducted by ACRL and reported in the June 1981 issue of College and Research Library News, "forty-four percent of 126 libraries polled by ACRL claim to have full faculty rank, status and privileges for their librari- ans.''4 Of the libraries participating in the ACRL 100 Libraries Project with the agree- ment to complete periodic questionnaires on library policies and practices, the breakdown is as follows: ARL libraries-30 percent full faculty sta- tus University libraries-34 percent full fac- ulty status Four-year colle~e libraries-26 percent full faculty status Of the forty-nine university libraries that responded to our questionnaire/ sur- vey, 29 (59.2 percent) granted full faculty status to librarians, 8 (16.3 percent) as- signed "academic" status to librarians, 7 (14.2 percent) placed them in administra- tive positions, and 5 (10.2 percent) had ''other'' classifications. Based on state- ments by respondents in the section of the questionnaire that allowed for comments, we noted that the difference between those with faculty status and those with academic status was the general inability of the "academics" to be promoted through faculty ranks. In Rayman and Goudy's study, only 24 (35.3 percent) of their group had faculty status, with 28 (41.2 percent) having academic status and 16 (23.5 percent) falling into the II other" category. A chi-square test compared our percentages to Rayman and Goudy's. To allow for direct comparison, the ''other'' and 11 administrative" categories in our study were collapsed into one group for a total number of 11. The chi-square equals 8.3 with two degrees of freedom. This is statistically significant to less than 5 per- cent margin of error. 6 The test showed that our percentages are significantly different from Rayman and Goudy's. We asked our group about their terms of employment. Forty-five of the forty-nine responded that their institutions require them to work a twelve-month calendar year. Of those with faculty status, 25 out of 29 (86.2 percent) work a twelve-month calendar year. All with academic status (8), administrative status (7), and ''other'' status (5) work a twelve-month calendar year. Two of the institutions with faculty status offer their librarians the option of working on a calendar-year or an academic-year (nine or ten months) schedule, and two libraries offer only the academic-year schedule. This would indi- cate that, regardless of status, most librari- ans in our group work a twelve-month cal- endar year. A shortened workyear is offered to only 6.1 percent of our group, and only to librarians with faculty status. Tenure At 30 (61 percent) of the institutions that responded to questions relating to tenure, all librarians were eligible for tenure, and all except one library in that group of 30 had a written policy statement on tenure for librarians. For 13 (43 percent) of that group of 30, tenure criteria were the same as those for teaching faculty, and for 17 (57 percent) they were different. Many li- braries where the criteria were different stated that tenure requirements were less rigorous. This may suggest a partial solu- tion to the problem of meeting teaching faculty criteria while working a calendar year. Publishing as a Criterion for Tenure and/or Promotion We concentrated specifically on the im- portance of publishing as a consideration Research Notes 137 for tenure and/or promotion. Where pub- lishing was a requirement, was it neces- sary for tenure or promotion, or both? Where publishing was an option, did it enhance a librarian's chances for tenure? Were the support services, which publica- tion demands, available for librarians? Were there special research committees available for advice and counsel? Was there released time, or could special leaves or sabbaticals be arranged to allow for re- search? Of the forty-three libraries that re- sponded to these questions only three said publishing is a requirement for ten- ure, and for two of the three publishing is a requirement for promotion as well. All three responded that their criteria for ten- ure are the same as those for teaching fac- ulty. Librarians at all three receive support services of some kind. Two of the three have released time, travel time, and fund- ing for research from the library as well as the university, with special committees for support of research and publishing available. We draw the reader's attention to the fact that this is a very small sample. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 20 percent of the libraries in our group stated that publishing was unnecessary for ei- ther tenure or promotion. Nevertheless, all !eceive some form of support for pub- lishing. An interesting note about this group of four is that one of the institutions follows an academic calendar. The overwhelming majority of our pop- ulation responded that publishing is an option for librarians. Since they comprise the largest identity group (73.5 percent) of our sampling, we studied them in detail. The Option Group (35 Libraries) All librarians in this group work a twelve-month year and hold at least an MLS degree. Faculty status is granted at twenty-three universities; twenty-six li- braries have specific tenure policy state- ments; ten institutions have the same cri- teria for tenure as the teaching faculty. Support services are available: 25 insti- tutions offer access to secretarial services; 16 will pay for postal expenses; 15 offer ac- cess to computer time; 10 make university printing services available. Funding for re- 138 College & Research Libraries search is available at 29 institutions, with the great majority-24 (82. 7 percent)- offering funds from the university. Only six offer funding from the library. (Note: respondents could indicate more than one answer to this question.) There is special leave time available at 15 libraries, and sabbaticals for research can be requested at 19 institutions. It appears that research and publication are supported by both li- braries and universities, but there is quite a bit of variation in the extent and form of support within this group. For those libraries where publishing is at least an option, responses indicate that it is equally acceptable to publish in the field of librarianship or a discipline/subject area. Several stressed that the important con- sideration is that the publication be rele- vant to one's professional responsibilities. The consensus seems to be that the form of publication was less significant than the fact of publication. Interpretation of the criteria would seem to be far less stringent for librarians than for teaching faculty. All types of publication were acceptable for li- brarians. Conclusions In our group, the majority (60 percent) have faculty status. This is a significantly higher percentage than in the Rayman and Goudy study. The libraries studied in the ACRL Academic Status Survey fall be- tween. This may be attributed to the size and type of institution we selected, but this is difficult to assess without compara- ble studies. We hope that such studies will be undertaken. The overwhelming number of librarians in our group and Rayman and Goudy's group work a twelve-month year and 35-40-hour week regardless of their sta- tus. In order that librarians can conduct and publish research, libraries and/ or uni- versities provide many services; but for most, special leaves and sabbaticals have to be negotiated. Travel money is gener- ally available from the libraries, and re- search funds are available from the uni- versity, with librarians competing for these monies with the teaching faculty. For the greatest number of our group, March 1984 publishing is an option in consideration for tenure and/or promotion. In many cases, support is available for research and publication, but there is no consistency from institution to institution. In our group, about 25 percent of the li- brarians employed at the responding li- braries have engaged in some form of pub- lishing activity. Since our question was intended to yield only a quantitative re- sponse, we were unable to distinguish among those librarians who had pub- lished in the past, those who regularly publish, and those with work in progress. This is a subject that also deserves further exploration and clarification. We hope to follow this survey with an in-depth analy- sis of the type of publishing activity in which librarians are involved. If publishing is a factor of increasing sig- nificance, it is essential that librarians be- gin to thoroughly and realistically exam- ine their institutions to determine what kind of support is available to encourage research and publication. Some institu- tions have created special committees ei- ther at the library or university level for purposes of consultation and encourage- ment. Such a group is the Research Inter- e~.t Group at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, which is described in detail in a recent article in the Journal of Academic Librarianship. 7 Exploration of statistical and computer services and identification of resource people for consultation at one's institution would be the first step for those who are about to embark on a research project. Lo- cation of sources of financial support on campus, as well as grants and special funding from private institutions, should follow closely. In the past, librarians have been reticent about active pursuit of the perquisites of the teaching faculty, but now it is time to leave the library walls and exploit all sources available to teaching faculty. Most important of all, as the au- thors of this article can well attest, is the need to make provision for adequate avail- ability of time. Librarians who work a thirty-five-hour week on a calendar year must pursue all avenues leading to re- leased time and sabbatical leave for re- _1, search. Time is the one resource usually unavailable to librarians, and it is essential if they must meet the same criteria as teaching faculty. Library and university administration must realize that support for all their fac- ulty is essential. Librarians should take a Research Notes 139 long hard look at what is available, and what is not, and strongly recommend ad- justments and/or additions which will provide support for the research and pub- lication that is becoming more than just an enhancement. REFERENCES 1. Gaby Divay and Carol Steer, "Academic Librarians can be Caught by the Pressure to do Re- search," Canadian Library ]ournal40:92-93 (Apr. 1983). 2. Ronald Rayman and Frank William Goudy, "Research and Publication Requirements in Univer- sity Libraries," College & Research Libraries 41:43 (Jan. 1980). 3. Julie A. C. Virgo, Sarah How, and Annette Fern, comps., ACRL University Library Statistics, 1978-1979 (Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, 1980), p .23. 4. "Academic Status Survey," College & Research Libraries News 42:171 (June 1981). 5. Ibid. 6. Joan Welkowitz and others, Introductory Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Academic Pr. , 1976), p.242-57. 7. Darrell L. Jenkins, M. Kathleen Cook, and Mary Anne Fox, "Research Development of Academic Librarians : One University' s Approach," The Journal of Academic Librarianship 7:83-86 (May 1981). ~idvvest Library Service You won't find more personal attention .. . anywhere College and university librarians : We have what you're looking for . While Midwest utilizes state-of-the-art computer systems , we realize machines can 't do it all . So when you want to place an order, ask a question , or discuss a problem , you can call direct on Midwest's toll-free WATS line and conduct business on a name- to-name basis with your personal customer service representative . It's the kind of attention that Midwest has provided to college and un iversity libraries for 24 years . Midwest Library Service 11443 St. Charles Rock Road Bridgeton, MO 63044 Call toll-free (800) 325-8833 Missouri librarians call toll-free (800) 392-5024 Canadian librarians call collect (314) 739-3100