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

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-

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 .