College and Research Libraries


Administrators' Views of 
Library Personnel Status 

Thomas G. English 
A questionnaire survey elicited the opinions of forty-seven university administrators (nonli-
brarians) on the issue of faculty status for academic librarians. An analysis of the survey results 
led the author to conclude that academic institutions may lack a clear rationale for granting 
librarians faculty status. This conclusion was based primarily on the fact that the opinions 
expressed by administrators tended to confirm the validity of two key suppositions: (1) that, 
presently at least, there are no substantive advantages to an institution for granting librarians 
faculty status and (2) that the terms and conditions of faculty appointments are largely un-
suited to the day-to-day activities and responsibilities of librarians. 

s it to the advantage of an aca-
demic institution to place its li-
brarians in the same personnel 
category as its regular teaching 

faculty? Is it to the advantage of librarians 
to have faculty status, as opposed to a pro-
fessional or administrative classification? 
Are the traditional, primary faculty re-
quirements for tenure-demonstrated ef-
fectiveness in teaching and research-
appropriate to the regular duties and 
responsibilities of librarians? Answers to 
these questions were sought by the author 
through an analysis of opinions collected 
from university administrators of forty-
seven academic member institutions of 
the Association of Research Libraries. 

METHODOLOGY 

The author first conducted an extensive 
search of the literature in an effort to deter-
mine if the views of college and university 
administrators on the subject of librarian 
status had been published. Finding only 
one relevant article, 1 the author elected to 
carry out a survey designed specifically to 
solicit such views. Accordingly, a ques-
tionnaire was sent to the office of aca-
demic affairs, or the equivalent adminis-

trative office, in each of the eighty-nine 
U.S. academic member institutions of the 
Association of Research Libraries. Eventu-
ally, completed questionnaires were re-
turned by administrators (nonlibrarians) 
of forty-seven different institutions-52.8 
percent of the target group. Thirty-two of 
the respondents were from state institu-
tions, and fifteen were from private insti-
tutions (see table 1). Librarians were re-
ported to have faculty status in 
twenty-one of the institutions, and profes-
sional (nonfaculty) status in twenty-six 
(see table 2). 

The original survey, which consisted of 
ten questions, was augmented by several 
short, follow-up surveys. Five of the origi-
nal questions were directed at, and an-
swered by, all forty-seven respondents. 
The other five questions were directed 
only at those institutions whose librarians 
had faculty status, so that, appropriately, 
only twenty-one respondents answered 
the latter queries. The purpose of the 
follow-up surveys was to obtain brief writ-
ten statements from respondents in sup-
port of their answers to key questions. 
Thus, more than thirty supplementary 
statements were added to the initial ques-

Thomas G. English is assistant professor and head, Bell Museum of Natural History Library, University of 
Minnesota. The author is indebted to Victor D. Meskill and L. Drew Meskill, whose 1975 review article was the 
principal inspiration for this study. 

189 



190 College & Research Libraries May 1984 

1. Arizona 
2. California at Davis 
3. Cincinnati 
4. Colorado 
5. Colorado State 
6. Connecticut 
7. Florida 
8. Florida State 
9. Geor~ia 

10. IllinOIS 
11. Indiana 
12. Iowa 
13. Iowa State 
14. Kansas 
15 . Louisiana State 
16. Maryland 

TABLE 1 

LIST OF PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS 

State institutions (32) 

17. Michigan 
18. Michigan State 
19. Nebraska 
20.. Ohio State 
21. Oklahoma 
12. Oregon 
23. Purdue 
24. South CaroliRa 
25. SUNY at Albany 
26. Tennessee 
27. Texas A&M 
28. Utah 
29. Virginia 
3D. Virginia Poly,teclmic 
31.. Washington {'SeatHe) 
32. Wisccn<tsin 

TABLE2 

Pr,ivate Ins titutions \il5) 

1. Boston 
2. Case Western 
3. Columbia 
4. Cornell 
5. Dartmouth 
6. Duke 
7. Georgetown 
8. Miami 
9. Noril:h.west,ern 

10. Princeton 
11. Southern California 
12 . .Stanford 
13. Syracuse 
14. Tulane 
15. Ya1e 

PARTICIPATING INSTITUTJONS LISTED ACCORDING 
TO THE PERSONNEL STATUS OF THEIR LIBRARIANS 

Institutions Reporting Faculty 
Status for Librarians (21) 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 

10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 

Arizona 
Colorado 
Colorado Sta:te 
Florida 
Illinois 
Iowa State 
Kansas 
Louisiana State 
Miami 
Nebraska 
Ohio State 
Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Purdue 
South Carolina 
Southern California 
SUNY at Albany 
Tennessee 
Texas A&M 
Virginia 
Virginia Polytechnic 

tionnaire data. These statements, in ±!he 
opinion of the author, greatly emidhted the 
content of the final report. 

ADVANTAGES 
TO LIBRARIANS 

The first question of the survey -asked 

Institutions Reportin g Non£aoulty 
Status for Librarians (26) 

1. l3(])stcm 
2. California at Davis 
3. Case Weste;rn 
4. Cincinnati 
5. C())Jumbia 
6. Connecticut 
7. Cor.mell 
8. Dartm())lll.lh 
9. IQuike 

10. Florida Stale 
1.1.. Georg-etown 
12. Geor-gQa. 
B. Indiana 
14. Iowa 
15. Mary~an- d 
16 . Micliligan 
17. Michigan State 
18 . Northwestern 
19. Primceton 
20. Stanf()):rd 
21. Syracuse 
22. Tulane 
21. !Utah 
24. Washington ·(Seatfle) 
25. Wisollnllsin 
26. Yale 

wJil:efuer ad.mirlicstr.a:tOJrs thought faculty 
status is an advantage to lfbrarians. Over-
ahl, thirty-one of fo.r~y-seven respondents 
't&"6 ;perc.enJ:) felt ·iihat faculty status was of 
"s0m.e-" ,oH· "" ccmsiderable advantage" to Jl( 
lib.rcarians. As 1rrright be expected, in iliose 
irrstit1!Jiti:o>llil'S wlil<crse librarian.s .had faculty 



status, an even larger majority (85.7 per-
cent) were of the same opinion. In those 
institutions whose librarians had nonfac-
ulty status, respondents were evenly di-
vided in their views. Thirteen of these 
twenty-six respondents (50 percent) felt 
that librarians were advantaged by faculty 
status, while the other thirteen (50 per-
cent) felt that faculty status provided "no 
advantage" to librarians. 

COMPARISON OF UBRARIAN 
BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES 

In table 3, the benefits and privileges of 
faculty librarians were compared w ith 
those of nonfaculty hbrarians in the insti-
tutions surveyed. The results indicated 
that faculty status does tend to provide 
more advantages to librarians than does 
nonfaculty status. At the same timer fac -
ulty status may impose terms and condi-
tions of appointment on the probationary 
appointee that are neither advantageo-u;s 
nor desirable. This: seeming paradox. 
whose roots lie in the difficulties. encoun-
tered in the intapTetation of faculty ten-
ure requirements for librarians" is dis-
cussed later in the report. 

ADVANTAGES TO 
THE INSTITUTION 

As for advantages to the institution of 
granting librarians faculty status, the ma-
jority of administrators held a more nega-
tive view. Only three of forty-seven re-
spondents (06A percent), all from state 
institutions with faculty librarians." were 
of the opinion that faculty status for IibraiT-

Administrators' Views 191 

ians was of "considerable advantage" to 
the institution. Sixteen respondents (34 
percent) indicated "some advantage," 
while twenty-eight respondents (59 .6 per-
cent) felt that faculty status for librarians 
was of "no advantage" to the institution : 
Several respondents who indicated 
"some advantage" to the institution also 
added marginal notes such as "little" or 
"very few." And one respondent noted 
that "while there are some advantages to 
the institution, there are more disadvan-
tages." Even more revealing, perhaps, 
was the fact that eight administrators-
representing institutions with faculty 
librarians-thought that granting librari-
ans faculty status was of "no advantage" 
to the institution. 

Substantive advantages to the 
institution-measurable benefits or gains 
that could only be achieved by librarians 
with faculty status-were not readily dis-
cernible" either in the literature of librari-
anship, or in the data collected in the sur-
vey. Any advantages that may have once 
been gained by an institution in recruit-
ment (e.g., during the 1960s) would ap-
pear to be largely nullified in the dimin-
ished 198Ds job market. But in the past at 
least, some institutions evidently believed 
that the ability to offer librarians faculty 
appointments tended to give them an 
edge in the recruitment of once-scarce per-
sonnel. Data showed that fourteen of 
twenty-one respondents (66.7 percent) 
felt that competition in recruitment was of 
"some" or "considerable importance" in 
the institution's original decision to grant 
libliarians faculty status. 

TABLE 3· 

.BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGE& OF FACULTY LIBRARIANS VERSUS 
NONFACULTY LIBRARIANS (BY NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS) 

Institutions Institutions 
with Fac ul ty 

Librarians· (21)' 
with Nonfac ulty 
Librarians (26) 

Faculty rank 14 (66.7%) 0 (0%) 
Inde~inite tenu:ue· 19 (9Q.5P/o) 1 (03.8%) 
Pe:IitSi<iHit 21 (100%) 26 (100%) 
Research fmtds 19 (90.5%). 14 (53.8%) 
Travel funds 21 (100%) 26 (100%) 
Research Leave 17 (81%) 19 (73 .1%) 
Sabbati.l.talleave 18 (85 .7%) 4 (15.4%) 
Tuition break 13 
Option of nina~onth 

(61 . .9P/o) 19 (73.1%) 

appoinfm-ent 6 (28 .6%) 6 (23 .1%) 



192 College & Research Libraries 

PERCEIVED ADVANTAGES 

Statements provided by administrators 
fell into two categories: (1) statements of 
perceived advantages to the institution, 
and (2) statements of perceived disadvan-
tages to the institution of granting librari-
ans faculty status. In listing their per-
ceived advantages to the institution, 
administrators focused on chiefly psycho-
logical factors, with a good deal of conjec-
ture about the probable (desirable) influ-
ence of faculty status on librarian conduct 
and performance. The result was a rather 
idealized portrait of the librarian as a fac-
ulty member. Analysis of the statements 
revealed the following: (1) faculty status 
allegedly attracted a ''better qualified, 
more academically oriented professional 
to library service''; (2) faculty status was 
believed to improve the morale and self-
esteem of librarians, giving them II a closer 
feeling of belonging to the institution, 
rather than second-class citizenship"; (3)" 
faculty status was purported to prompt 
the acceptance of librarians II as profes-
sional peers by faculty members in other 
disciplines"; (4) faculty status was 
thought to motivate librarians to I' act re-
sponsibly," exhibit a "professional atti-
tude toward the position,'' and to 'I de-
velop research programs"; and (5) faculty 
status was believed to open the way for li-
brarians "to participate on university 
committees," to "participate in all faculty 
curricular deliberations, and thus under-
stand the course and direction of univer-
sity academic policy.'' 

If it is true, as suggested in some of the 
aforementioned statements, that it is to 
the institution's advantage to encourage 
librarians to develop research projects, to 
serve on faculty committees, and to partic-
ipate in curricular deliberations, etc., it 
does not necessarily follow that these 
goals can only be achieved by granting li-
brarians faculty status. On the contrary, in 
some of the institutions surveyed, it was 
found that the lack of faculty status did not 
deter librarians from participating fully in 
the academic enterprise: 

Librarians at ... University have many of the 
same rights and privileges as faculty. . . . They 
can achieve tenured status .... They have sab-

May 1984 

baticalleave opportunities; they participate in 
the same fringe-benefit system as faculty; and 
they are represented on the Faculty Council 
and participate fully on many faculty commit-
tees. 

Librarians at ... University are provided op-
portunity for librarian/instructional staff inter-
action and consultation through membership 
in the University Senate, election to the Senate 
Assembly, and the Senate Advisory Committee 
on University Affairs, and all committees estab-
lished by this governance structure. Librarians 
are also encouraged to develop research proj-
ects and to contribute to other original scholar-
ship. 

Librarians at .. . University are placed in an 
"academic librarian" classification (nonfac-
ulty). However, they are eligible to serve on the 
University Senate (two positions are reserved 
for the libraries), and on university standing 
committees, either by election or by appoint-
ment. Currently, a librarian is serving on the 
Senate Executive Committee. Also, librarians 
in this institution are eligible for academic leave 

1 

with pay, so that they may have additional op- 1 
portunities to carry out original research. 

PERCEIVED DISADVANTAGES 
OF FACULTY STATUS 

Statements of perceived disadvantages 
to the institution for granting librarians 
faculty status were nearly uniform in sin-
gling out the unsuitability for librarians of 
the traditional faculty requirements for 
tenure-demonstrated effectiveness in 
teaching and research. These traditional 
tenure requirements were thought by ad-
ministrators to be inappropriate for librari-
ans because (1) librarians have I' different 
basic responsibilities" from the regular 
teaching faculty; (2) their "work and tradi-
tions are different''; and (3) I' the degree of 
freedom and independence afforded li-
brarians is much less than for the faculty.'' 
As a consequence: 

. Librarians have difficulty in meeting common 
standards of teaching and scholarship. 

j -vice-president for academic affairs 

Only a very few of the academic librarians can 
meet faculty requirements for tenure. 

-associate vice-presiden~ for 
academic affairs 

It is inappropriate to place librarians under the 
same evaluation criteria. They are not faculty . 

-assistant provost 

Promotion and tenure decisions are difficult be-

.. 

0 



cause the criteria for librarians are different 
than for faculty generally. 

APPROPRIATE 
CLASSIFICATION 
OF LIBRARIANS 

-provost 

The next two items of the survey sought 
administrators' opinions regarding the 
most appropriate classification for aca-
demic librarians. Only eleven of forty-
seven respondents (23.4 percent) were of 
the opinion that librarians were appropri-
ately classed as faculty, while thirty-six re-
spondents (76.6 percent) were of the opin-
ion that academic librarians were more 
appropriately classed as nonfaculty. All 
twenty-six of the administrators from in-
stitutions with nonfaculty librarians (100 
percent) felt that librarians w-ere more ap-
propriately placed in a nonfaculty cate-
gory. In contrast, administrators from in-
stitutions whose librarians were faculty 
were in considerable disagreement on this 
question. Ten of these twenty-one respon-

. dents (47.6 percent) expressed the view 
that librarians in their institutions-who 
had faculty status-would be more appro-
priately classed nonfaculty. 

LIBRARIAN SATISFACTION 

Data revealed that the great majority of 
administrators felt that librarians in their 
institutions were satisfied with their per-
sonnel status. Only two of forty-seven re-
spondents (04.3 percent) indicated that li-
brarians in their institutions were 
dissatisfied with their present personnel 
status. At one university, according to the 
respondent from that institution, librari-
ans were dissatisfied because ''a signifi-
cant number of librarians, at least, want 
full faculty status, but without scholarship 
or publishing requirements." At another 
university, whose librarians were re-
ported to have nonfaculty status, librari-
ans were apparently situated in a hybrid 
of faculty and professional status that 
tended to require case-by-case interpreta-
tion for each new question that arose. 

DIFFICULTIES WITH 
TENURE REQUIREMENTS 

The final four questions of the survey 
were directed only at those institutions 

Administrators' Views 193 

whose librarians were reported to have 
faculty status, so that, appropriately, only 
twenty-one respondents went on to com-
plete these items. The questions were 
designed to prompt administrators to 
compare librarian activities and responsi-
bilities with those of the regular teaching 
and research faculty and to consider if the 
terms and conditions of faculty appoint-
ments were appropriate for librarians. 
None of the twenty-one respondents (0 
percent) felt that there was a "strong simi-
larity'' between librarian and faculty activ-
ities and responsibilities. Nine respon-
dents (42.9 percent) felt that there was 
"some similarity," while twelve respon-
dents (57 .1 percent) were of the opinion 
that there was ''little similarity'' between 
faculty and librarian activities and respon-
sibilities. 

Administrators were then asked if the 
institution had ever been required to relax 
or amend the traditional, primary faculty 
requirements for tenure in order to grant . 
tenure to librarians. Two respondents 
(09.5 percent) indicated "no" to this ques-
tion, but nineteen of twenty-one respon-
dents (90.5 percent) indicated "yes" that 
the traditional tenure requirements-
demonstrated effectiveness in teaching 
and research-had been relaxed or 
amended in order to grant tenure to librar-
ians. As a follow-up to this question, those 
respondents who had indicated "yes" 
were asked to provide a brief statement 
explaining why the faculty criteria were al-
tered or given a different emphasis for li-
brarians. Thirteen administrators fur-
nished statements. An analysis of the 
statements revealed a rather striking am-
bivalence toward librarians as faculty 
members. All thirteen respondents had 
earlier acknowledged that librarians in 
their institutions had been accorded fac-
ulty status. But the tenor of their state-
ments strongly suggested that probably 
none of them actually perceived librarians 
to be faculty-at least not in the traditional 
sense of the word. Rather, librarians 
tended to be characterized in the state-
ments as a unique professional group, 
separate and distinct from the regular 
teaching and research faculty. To begin 
with, librarians were seen to play a negli-
gible role as classroom teachers, as the fol-



194 College & Research Libraries 

lowing extracts from the statements attest: 
Librarians at our institution do not teach . . . 

. . . teaching effectiveness [of librarians] has 
not been considered . . . 

No teaching required of librarians ... 

. . . librarians do little or no formal teaching . . . 

Moreover, the respondents appeared to 
expect little from librarians in the way of 
scholarship and research, as evidenced by 
the following excerpts: 

Librarians have never been required to demon-
strate scholarship or research .. . 

Less ngorous requirement for original scholar-
ship and publication. 

. . . nor do they [librarians] conduct research as 
it is conventionally viewed ... 

Librarians ... simply are not trained well 
enough to even approach the level of research 
we expect and get from the basic disciplines . . . 

The role that these administrators did per-
ceive for librarians tended to emphasize 
traditional librarianship, with its atten-
dant concern for professional competence 
and service: 

Librarians are judged on criteria of service to li-
brary users, community service, technical 
knowledge and competence . 

Less emphasis on teaching and research, more 
upon professional expertise, service, and im-
provement of library resources. 

More emphasis upon university service and 
professional activity . . . 

The next survey item asked respondents 
to compare untenured librarians with un-
tenured members of the teaching faculty, 
in regard to their relative capability to 
meet the traditional faculty requirements 
for tenure. Fourteen of twenty-one re-
spondents (66.7 percent) were of the opin-
ion that if the faculty performance criteria 
were applied evenly and stringently for all 
untenured faculty, untenured librarians 
would find it "considerably more diffi-
cult" to meet the traditional criteria than 
would untenured teaching faculty. (Sev-
eral respondents added the word impos-
sible.) Three respondents (14.3 percent) in-
dicated that librarians would find it 
''somewhat more difficult,'' while four re-
spondents (19 percent) felt that librarians 
would find it ''no more difficult'' to meet 
the traditional criteria . 

May 1984 

TERMINATIONS 

In his earlier study, 2 the author found 
that faculty librarians up for tenure or pro-
motion were characteristically required to 
meet two distinct sets of performance cri-
teria: one set designed to measure compe-
tence in librarianship; the other set de-
signed to measure effectiveness in 
teaching and research. Moreover, the ear-
lier study uncovered a case in which a 
''superb reference librarian'' had been ter-
minated for failing to meet faculty teach-
ing and publishing requirements. 3 

Prompted by his knowledge of that inci-
dent, the author sought to document 
other cases in which faculty librarians, 
who were judged to be performing effec-
tively as librarians, had been terminated 
for failing to meet the traditional faculty 
requirements for tenure. Indeed, the 
results revealed that such terminations 
had occurred iri five of the twenty-one re-
porting institutions (23.8 percent). Details 
of these terminations were not revealed in 
the data returned, so that the weight given 
the faculty criteria relative to the weight 
given the professional criteria in these sit-
uations could not be determined. What-
ever the case, the incidence of such dis-
missals does draw attention to the 
double-bind difficulties confronting li-
brarians who are required to meet two sets 
of performance criteria-particularly 
when the primary faculty criteria are rigor-
ously applied. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

Administrators tended to perceive aca-
demic librarians-including those with 
faculty appointments-to be a distinct, 
professional (nonfaculty) group, with du-
ties and responsibilities different from 
those of the regular teaching and research 
faculty. Evidently, the term faculty status 
was not considered by administrators to 
be synonymous with the word faculty. 

Only eleven of forty-seven respondents 
(23.4 percent) felt that librarians were ap-
propriately classed as faculty, while the 
great majority (76.6 percent) were of the 
opinion that academic librarians were 
more appropriately placed in a profes-
sional (nonfaculty) personnel category. 

Sixty-six percent of the respondents 



• 

were of the opinion that librarians were 
advantaged by the provision of faculty sta-
tus. At the same time, however, 59.6 per-
cent were of the opinion that granting li-
brarians faculty status was of no 
advantage to the institution. Difficulty 
with the interpretation of faculty tenure 
requirements for librarians was most often 
cited by administrators as the principal 
disadvantage-both to the institution and 
to librarians-of granting librarians faculty 
status. 

In attempting to list perceived advan-
tages to the institution of granting librari-
ans faculty status, administrators ap-
peared to focus chiefly on psychological 
factors, with a tendency to indulge in con-
jecture about the supposed uplifting ef-
fects of faculty status on librarians' atti-
tudes, conduct, and performance. But 
none of the stated advantages to the insti-
tution were felt by the author to be sub-
stantive. At one time, the ability to offer li-
brarians faculty status was apparently 
thought to give the institution an advan-
tage in the recruitment of once-scarce li-
brary personnel, e.g. , during the 1960s. 
But such an advantage would seem to be 
largely nullified in the diminished job 
market of the 1980s. 

More than 90 percent of the respondents 
from institutions with faculty librarians 
answered "yes" that the institution had 
been required to relax or amend the tradi-
tional, primary faculty requirements for 
tenure- demonstrated effectiveness in 
teaching and research-in order to grant 
tenure to librarians. Moreover, 81 percent 
of this group of respondents felt that if in-
stitutions were to apply tenure require-
ments evenly and stringently for all their 
probationary faculty, untenured librari-
ans would find it more difficult to meet the 
requirements than would untenured 
members of the teaching faculty. And, fi-

Administrators' Views 195 

nally, 23.8 percent of these respondents 
reported that there had been cases in their 
institutions in which librarians-who 
were otherwise performing their jobs 
satisfactorily-had been terminated be-
cause they did not meet faculty tenure re-
quirements. 

CONCLUSIONS 

An analysis of the opinions of forty-
seven university administrators (nonli-
brarians) suggested that academic institu-
tions may lack a rational basis for granting 
librarians faculty status. To begin with, an 
interpretation of the opinions provided 
led the author to conclude that, presently 
at least, there are no substantive advan-
tages to an institution for placing its librar-
ians in the same personnel category as its 
regular teaching faculty. Indeed, the sur-
vey results tended to support the view 
that librarians with professional (nonfac-
ulty) status-given equal opportunity and 
encouragement-can probably serve the 
needs of the institution as effectively as li-
brarians with faculty status, with few, if 
any, of the inherent drawbacks. More-
over, taken in toto, the opinions ex-
pressed by administrators suggested that 
the terms and conditions of faculty ap-
pointments are largely inappropriate to 
the principal activities and responsibilities 
of librarians: librarians were seen by ad-
ministrators to play a negligible role as 
classroom teachers; and administrators 
seemed to expect little of librarians in the 
way of scholarship and research contribu-
tions . The role that administrators did 
seem to consider most appropriate for li-
brarians tended to emphasize the duties 
and functions of traditional librarianship . 
Thus, professional competence, technical 
expertise, and service were seen by ad-
ministrators as the principal concerns of 
academic librarians. 

REFERENCES 

1. Victor D. Meskill and L. Drew Meskill, " Let 's Consider the Faculty Status of Librarians," Edu ca-
tional Horizons 53 :176-80 (Summer 1975) . 

2. Thomas G . English , " Librarian Status in the Eighty-Nine U .S. Academic Institutions of the Associ-
ation of Research Libraries: 1982," College & Research Libraries 44 :199- 211 (May 1983). 

3 . Thomas W. Shaughnessy, assistant director of libraries for public services, University of Houston, 
telephone interview with author, Dec. 14, 1981 .