College and Research Libraries On Becoming Faculty Librarians: Acculturation Problems and Remedies W. Bede Mitchell and Bruce Morton The acculturation of librarians to faculty librarian positions is compared and contrasted to the socialization process of the professoriate. Substantive differ- ences in graduate library education and the attitudes it cultivates are discussed. Librarians are seen, for the most part, as being ill-prepared to assume peer roles within a university faculty. Suggestions are offered to remedy this dys- functional pattern. uring the past two decades there has been discussion ad nauseam in the library litera- ture about the pros, cons, and mechanics of librarians performing as faculty. 1 The lack of consensus among librarians about the desirability of faculty status has had various consequences, not the least of which is impeding librarians' acculturation to the academic environ- ment. Some evidence indicates that many academic librarians do not under- stand the fundamental tenets of being members of a faculty. 2 Not surprisingly, the transition from student to professional is usually stress- ful in any profession. 3 For librarians, however, the stress naturally inherent in the process of socialization to a new job and a new work environment is exacer- bated by ingrained characteristics of edu- cation for librarianship, by the attitudes articulated in the literature of librarian- ship, and by reinforcement of both by more senior librarians. Librarians who do not understand what it means to be faculty members find themselves uncomfortable and therefore at a disadvantage. They may find them- selves unprepared or unwilling to carry out faculty responsibilities; if this is the case, they are likely to be unhappy or inef- fective. The resultant ebb in morale may result in the declining performance of new and veteran librarians alike. Such factors could lead to short tenures and high staff turnover for newer library faculty. Indeed, a high turnover rate, whether it be be- cause of frustrated expectations or be- cause of not meeting performance criteria, is an indicator of ineffective so- cialization.4 The lack of consensus among librari- ans about faculty status seems to be rooted in two controversies. First, there continues to be disagreement over whether librarians qualify as faculty. Are their duties and responsibilities suffi- ciently scholarly, academic, and pro- fessional to warrant having the same rights and similar performance expecta- tions as the instructional faculty? Offi- cially, this issue was affirmatively resolved among librarians in the affirmative when the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) adopted the "Stand- ards for Faculty Status for College and University Librarians." 5 The second con- troversy is whether the performance cri- teria for librarians should be identical to W. Bede Mitchell is Associate Librarian for Public Services at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina 28608, and Bruce Morton is Assistant Dean of Public Services for the library and a professor at Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717-0332. 379 380 College & Research Libraries that of the instructional faculty or mod- ified to allow for differences in duties and schedules. In other words, are librar- ians faculty of a somewhat different sort? The ACRL "Standards for Faculty Status" state that librarians should be regularly and rigorously reviewed and that promotion and tenure provisions should be the same as those for the in- structional faculty, but there is no expli- cit statement as to whether librarians' evaluation criteria should be identical to the instructional faculty's. The "Model Statement of Criteria and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion in Academic Rank, and Tenure for College and Univer- sity Ubrarians" indicates general catego- ries of performance, such as scholarship and effectiveness as a librarian, that should be considered when evaluating librarians for promotion or tenure/ but because the "Model" is intended to pro- pose only minimal criteria, it is restricted to general language that allows for sub- stantial local interpretation. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM: ACCULTURATION TO WHAT? The "Model" and "Standards" pro- vide little effective guidance to an aca- demic librarian interested in learning about what might be specifically re- quired in faculty status positions. At some institutions the performance cri- teria might be identical with the criteria used for evaluating instructional faculty, while elsewhere substantial differences may exist. It is important to understand that inadequate acculturation to the aca- demic model and the role of faculty lead to other performance problems beyond the frequently expressed difficulties in meeting research requirements. Implicit in having faculty status rather than merely being faculty is an underlying as- sumption that there is somehow a differ- ence and therein turns the worm of doubt. Being a member of the profes- soriate of a university or college faculty is a state of mind that transcends the niceties and formalities of employment. It is a commitment to a transcendent aca- demic culture, to an intellectual commu- nity, and to the pursuit of inquiry. Thus, September 1992 most faculty perform as they do not be- cause they are made to, but because they want to and need to, for that is what they are about. The academic culture is self- selecting in this regard; those who do not conform are winnowed out. Librarians new to librarianship and the academy may be justifiably confused about what to expect in a faculty ap- pointment. The lack of consensus in the profession about faculty status and per- formance criteria cannot but help to con- tribute to undermining and impairing the acculturation of academic librarians to the faculty model. In contrast, colleagues in the nonhbrary faculty go through a socialization process when they study to become mem- bers of the professoriate. The experiences of graduate students in other fields are shaped by values and expectations that prepare them for their rights and responsibilities as faculty members. This is far less true in librarianship. THE PROCESS OF ACCULTURATION How do fledgling faculty members be- come acculturated to their new roles? A professional community like the profes- soriate produces its next generation by controlling the selection of professional trainees, sending recruits through a dis- tinctive socialization process.7 Carol Shul- man summarizes the faculty socialization process in her discussion of graduate schools, seeing the graduate experience as the period when the primary transmission of faculty values takes place. It is in graduate school that students learn that academics are a professional group that claims the right to regulate itself, determin- ing its own methods and judging its own members. It is in graduate school that the importance of research and loyalty to one's discipline are stressed. The professional self-images of graduate faculties and their interest in advancing knowledge and their disciplines or professions dovetail with another central value of the academic model, academic freedom. 8 As explained by Shulman, the academic model that is inculcated in graduate students consists of four tenets: (1) research is the primary focus of the university; (2) academic work requires peer judgment; (3) scholarship is a vocation in its own right; (4) the academic profession serves important social goals.9 These four points, in large part, comprise the state of mind that is characteristic of a member of the professoriate. Shulman's academic model is con- sistent with the sources of integration that Burton Clark believes serve to make the professoriate a true community of scholars in spite of the superficial differences ex- isting among the various disciplines.10 Clark cites academic freedom, scientific norms, scientific methodology, and ethics of scholarship as comprising a set of shared values that override differ- ences among disciplinary faculties. Sherlock and Morris have developed a professional-evolution paradigm that serves as a useful guide for examining how the scholarly values identified by Shulman and Clark are transmitted by graduate schools. In the Sherlock and Morris paradigm, socialization is an in- stitutionalized sequence of processes that represent the collective judgment of a profession as to the best means of re- producing itself. The processes are in- tended to find the appropriate recruits (selection); isolate them from competing influences (sequestration); inculcate nec- essary knowledge (didactic instruction); develop skills, values, and role models (apprenticeship); motivate them to attain the profession's goals (sanctioning); certify those individuals who are demon- strably competent (certification); and launch. the newly certified professional upon a career (sponsorship).11 There fol- lows a discussion of this sequence of processes and the inherent difficulties as they specifically apply to librarianship. Selection Selection of appropriate candidates for the professoriate involves both self-selection and recruibnent Interested undergraduate students develop an understanding and identification with subject content, jargon, and research paradigms. Those who are not . interested in terminating their formal higher education with a bachelor's degree may choose to apply for admission into graduate school (self-selection), thus con- On Becoming Faculty Librarians 381 stituting a candidate pool from which the graduate schools will accept those they believe are the most promising stu- dents, based upon past performance, degree of present commitment, and level of demand for new professionals in the field. Given this pattern, librarianship as a discipline is at a distinct disadvantage in that most undergraduate library educa- tion programs are not designed to serve as feed-in programs for library graduate schools.12 Few new graduate students in li- brary science have entered the program be- cause they have been stimulated by undergraduate curricular experience, but rather because they think they will find it appealing on the basis of the experience they have had in a place-the library. The fact that the performer (the librarian) is named on the basis of place, rather than on what is done in the place (assembling knowledge, creating pathways and gateways to knowledge, pro- viding introduction to knowledge or to the pathways and gateways, etc.) skews atti- tudes and focus away from the intellectual fabric of the enterprise. Sequestration The sequestration or isolation aspect of socialization attempts to eliminate in- fluences, usually of an extracurricular nature, that interfere with students' learning the desired professional model and values. Sherlock and Morris speak of selective patterning of experience that promotes the role of professional stu- dent and subordinates other sources of identity. It seems intuitive that this selec- tive patterning of experience is most ef- fective with full-time students in that "the intensity of any socializing ex- perience is probably related to the degree of separation, for separated set- tings are able to reduce potentially con- flicting influences. They can command more of the recruits' time and energy.'' 13 Evidence suggests that the process of sequestration in graduate education for academic librarianship falls short.14 Instruction and Apprenticeship The inculcation of necessary knowl- edge is the formal transmission of a dis- cipline's theory and knowledge base 382 College & Research Libraries through classroom instruction, study as- signments, and laboratory exercises. This aspect of socialization, the phase of didactic instruction, contributes signifi- cantly to the attrition of marginal or un- committed students. Closely related to didactic instruction is apprenticeship in- struction, a phase of socialization in which graduate students gain firsthand experience in teaching and research. Didactic instruction and apprenticeship are the phases of socialization where the process is explicit. According to Sherlock and Morris, apprenticeship is one of the most important aspects of socialization because "the hallmarks of a professional are acquired in the apprenticeship pe- riod. It is at this stage that concerns with regard to actual clients, ethical and tech- nical problems, and career plans emerge as important preoccupations." 15 Of course, the key nonlibrary faculty roles are teaching and research; for aca- demic librarians librarianship may be re- garded and performed as analogous to those roles. Rather than thinking pas- sively of librarianship as the organizing and retrieving of knowledge, librarians should think of it in dynamic terms: as- sembling knowledge, creating pathways and gateways to knowledge, and pro- viding introductions to knowledge or to the pathway and gateways. In many dis- ciplines, students have ample oppor- tunities as graduate teaching assistants to practice both literally and figuratively their trade . didactically. For the most part, new librarians in the academic set- ting are no more prepared for the demands of instructional programs or collection development than are nonli- brary faculty who did not have the op- portunity to train as teaching assistants while in graduate school. Research skills are mastered through the highly structured experience of de- signing, conducting, writing, and defend- ing a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation. Such apprenticeship ex- periences are carefully tailored to suit the variations of knowledge contexts that exist between disciplines. The re- search methods and problem-solving techniques in a discipline tend to dictate September 1992 how faculty interact with students and colleagues, and hence the apprentice- ship period for aspiring faculty will re- flect those relationships and working styles. For example, graduate students in the pure sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology) often become members of a col- laborative research enterprise in which their research supervisor controls their re- search theme and dictates the schedules and performance habits to which the stu- dents must abide. This approach works well in the pure sciences because problems tend to be easily divisible. Thus, an effec- tive method of solving the problem is by synthesizing the solutions to the various sub-problems found by a team of re- searchers, with teamwork naturally im- plying conformity to group norms and a readiness to accept the authority of the team leader. 16 Colleagues in the nonlibrary faculty go through a socialization process when they study to become members of the professoriate. This contrasts strongly with the way research tends to be done in disciplines like history or anthropology, in which collaboration is less frequent because, as Tony Becher has observed, "problems tend to be broadly defined and not readily amenable to subdivision .... " 17 The individual approach to research in such disciplines is naturally reflected in the way doctoral candidates conduct their dissertation studies. Becker stated that "far from being regarded as em- ployees, they are treated like self-em- ployed persons or individuals of independent means. They are not re- quired to observe any firm rules of atten- dance .... Contact with their research supervisors is usually sporadic." 18 The apprenticeship experience is in- tended to give students the opportunity to gain hands-on experience and work with role models, both in teaching and research. By contrast, students in librar- ianship rarely have teaching experiences because there are not many under- graduate library classes for them to teach, and only a very few of the students will become professors of librarianship. In- stead, it seems more appropriate for library students to serve internships that enable them to perform in a library, doing whatever the students think they may do when they graduate, such as cataloging or working in a reference department. Such internships offer the opportunities for hands-on experience and for working with role models. However, students seek- ing the M.L.S. do not conduct a dissertation research project because the M.L.S. pro- gram is not designed to produce re- searchers.Althoughsome M.L.S. programs require a master's thesis, such projects are not comparable to doctoral research either in rigor or substance, and even then, most programs permit the graduate student to opt for more courses in lieu of the thesis. Therefore, academic librarians usually lack socialization to research that other faculty gained in graduate school. As a result, librarians not only are unprepared to meet research requirements found in promotion and tenure criteria but also lack an empathetic appreciation for the rigors and methodology of research, which may be reflected in decisions about serv- ice policies. These very weaknesses are the primary reasons why a graduate degree in addition to the M.L.S. is so desirable for academic librarians. The subject exper- tise gained from the additional graduate degree is a residual benefit.19 William G. Jones asserts that "another advanced degree would, however, assure that librarians who provide services to scholars understand the intellectual norms of dis- ciplines recognized within the scholarly community and the importance of pri- mary and secondary sources in them."20 Sanctioning Throughout every step of the accultura- tion process, performance is influenced by rewards and punishments. Such perform- ance sanctioning takes place mostly in didactic instruction and apprenticeship, but at any point students' appearance, demeanor, and behavior may also be judged. Library schools are no less in- clined to sanction classroom or behavioral On Becoming Faculty Librarians 383 performance than are other professional schools. However, little if any evidence exists that library schools attempt to teach prospective academic librarians to think or act as faculty members or to relate with nonlibrary faculty as col- leagues. It seems that the prevailing atti- tude is that they are training professionals, not scholars. Emphasis is placed on models that present nonli- brary faculty to be clients, or that describe librarians as playing important but sup- portive or subsidiary educational roles to the nonlibrary instructional faculty. This is consistent with the service model that per- vades library education, regardless of tracking into public, special, or academic librarianship. The emphasis on serv- ice-the server and the served-severely handicaps librarians who will eventu- ally find themselves assuming positions where the collegiality of academic peer relationships with nonlibrary faculty is an expected norm. Library education un- intentionally inculcates librarian stereo- types in the prospective academic librarian.21 All members of the profes- soriate are professionals. The term pro- fessional should not be conveniently misconstrued by librarians as one of ex- clusivity; just the opposite is true. Certification and Sponsorship The final socialization phases are certi- fication and sponsorship. Students re- ceive a school's certification, usually in the form of a degree, once academic re- quirements have been met satisfactorily. "Certification . . . provides visible and creditable evidence that the individual is a professional in the legal sense of the word." 22 Certification is also intended to contribute to the sense of professional identity that the socialization process is meant to create. Sponsorship works as a continuing influence on professionals after they have graduated through such acts as collaboration or recommenda- tions to colleagues via the old-boy or -girl network. Such activities include job placement efforts and assistance in gain- ing desired postgraduate internships or fellowships. Sherlock and Morris note that "differential sponsorship exists so 384 College & Research Libraries that the best positions are not equally available." 23 Clearly, certification and sponsorship can be powerful tools for controlling the quality of new pro- fessionals. Students who are weak per- formers or who do not conform run the risk of not receiving certification, and those marginal students who do obtain certification may receive little in the way of sponsorship, thus achieving limited professional opportunities. Mentoring Even in the best of circumstances pre- paratory education does not completely prepare the new faculty member for the workplace. One library school professor used to say in a mixture of truth and hyperbole that the M.L.S. would only get one past the first day on the job. More senior faculty colleagues must be pre- pared to provide mentoring to a junior colleague. 24 Mentoring is often assumed to be synonymous with looking out for someone. This is simplistically incorrect and will inevitably lead to shortchang- ing those in need of mentoring. It is es- sential that library faculty, as part of their professional development, learn what it is to be a mentor. They must understand the needs of faculty, based not on an articulation of those needs by the novice, but rather on their own knowledge of librarianship, the local in- stitution, and academe in general, and their experience in all three. They must expect to be friend, career guide, infor- mation source, and intellectual guide.25 If senior librarians do not have an ade- quate understanding of these fun- damental aspects of their environment, they must acquire such an understanding. It is no good to teach when it is the wrong things that are taught. Only in this way will the pattern of dysfunctional academic behavior be broken. Most library faculty have not been trained in the mentoring process and have little real experience in it. It is therefore imperative that faculty and administrators recognize the need to develop not only mentoring programs for their new li- brary faculty but also to develop faculty who will be able to mentor successfully. September 1992 IMPLICATIONS OF THE SOCIALIZATION MODEL While nonlibrarian faculty members in their first professorial positions still have much to learn, they have already developed a set of expectations, an un- derstanding of their disciplines' typical modes of operation and inquiry, a set of professional and scholarly ethics, and firsthand experience performing the ac- tivities that are rewarded with promo- tion and tenure. Many or most new academic librarians have also under- gone a socialization process and have developed expectations, a set of ethics, and so on, but the socialization process for librarians is different from that for instructional faculty. The process for librarians lacks certain components and emphases found in the process for in- structional faculty, and the consequence of these differences is that academic librarians may not be fully prepared to function as faculty. Faculty members are part of a scholarly community because they share a common set of values and beliefs. Shulman has called these values and beliefs the academic model, while Clark regards them as sources of integra- tion. In either case, core values and beliefs serve to unite faculty members and provide focuses that direct faculty activities. Therefore, instructional fa- culty members from different disciplines may be said to relate similarly to shared values and beliefs. However, there is se- rious question as to whether librarians relate to the academic model in the same way as do instructional faculty. Specifi- cally, the role of research and scholarship is not so central to the duties of academic librarians as it is to instructional faculty. This is exacerbated by what Steven K. Stoan sees as librarians' and instructional faculty's differing views of information. 'The emphasis on information-retrieval techniques that link researchers directly to the ideas, interpretations, suggestions, comments, and views of their peers dovetails neatly with the sizable litera- ture on the intellectual processes in- volved in research. These studies point to the powerful influence of creative in- sight and intuition that come only from a well-instructed mind working con- tinually with the subject matter of the discipline." Despite the popular concep- tion to the contrary, research is normally random, nonlinear, and nonsequential. 26 Consequently, librarians too often have difficulty thinking as faculty do about knowledge as a dynamic and expanding realm, rather than as an accreting mass to be stored and retrieved. The education of librarians has conditioned them to be myopic, to think in terms of bibliogra- phies, indexes, and abstracts, not in terms of ideas. Librarians not only are unprepared to meet research requirements •.• but also lack an empathetic appreciation for the rigors and methodology of research. Undeniably, academic librarians do a considerable amount of scholarly work every day as they carry out their library responsibilities. But in spite of this, they are for the most part out of the faculty research loop. v Studies continue to show that research-and-publication activity is not a central part of the performance expectations for many academic librari- ans.28 Research also indicates that among the competencies deemed necessary for the practice of academic librarianship, research skills are recognized as desirable but are not deemed to be a particularly high priority.29 Librarians apparently believe that research, al- though central to the university's mis- sion, is only to be supported by librarians, not done by them. One re- turns to the question of whether librari- anship is to be thought of as a service profession or an academic discipline. The concern is not simply that many institutions do not appear to consider librarians to be scholars, but that there are not enough senior librarians trained to do research and to publish, or who have excelled in the faculty model to serve as mentors for the new librarians. It is a chicken-and-egg problem. Barton On Becoming Faculty Librarians 385 and Gaughan correctly note that "course work and research are the formal expres- sions of socialization."30 As long as there is no commitment to the notion that librarians should be required to do re- search and publish, there will be little incentive for library schools to socialize their students fully to the same kind of scholarly attitude and commitment ex- pected of instructional faculty. But it is in the graduate library schools that aca- demic librarians are formed, nourished, and hatched. There neither can nor will be an immaculate inception of academic faculty attitudes and inclinations among library school students. Library educa- tors must begin tracking potential aca- demic librarians early on so that the students' vision of this particular kind of librarianship is not confused with that of public or special libraries. If graduate school is the best place for the acculturation of faculty values, then it is disturbing to note research question- ing the extent to which library science faculty have absorbed those values. In discussing the results of a survey of graduate library school deans, Mary Kingsbury notes that while the library schools' faculty evaluation criteria em- phasize research and teaching, "com- ments from respondents to this study reveal that many library schools have yet to build a tradition of research and pub- lication."31 The impending crisis caused by the graying of library school faculty as discussed by Elizabeth Futas and Fay Zipkowitz provides alternatives for both concern and hope. 32 There is concern that the entry-level professoriate in the graduate library school is not lucrative to librarians who have built a base of professional experience. The fear is that "the inability to recruit faculty may soon be mirrored in the profession as a whole." 33 Such a scenario may only serve to ex- acerbate the current situation described by Kingsbury by compounding it with in- experience or high faculty-to-student ra- tios. On the other hand, the opportunity presented by entering into a sea-change period in which there will be a greening of graduate library school faculty offers 386 College & Research Libraries the possibility of developing faculty who can provide both positive role models and mentoring opportunities for graduate stu- dents who will become faculty librarians. Undoubtedly, library schools are at a disadvantage when competing for appli- cants. Few undergraduate library pro- grams act as feeders to the graduate library schools. Moen and Heim have shown that the graying of library school faculty is compounded by the relative maturity (i.e., more than half are over thirty years old) of library school stu- dents.34 It is natural to inquire whether anything can be done to select applicants who have the potential and interest to become academic librarians and who are fully socialized to the academic model. Nevertheless, the wrong signals are being sent. As long as librarianship is viewed as a core of skills through which can be cycled all prospective librarians If an academic model is to be embraced it must be embraced for all that it is-academic freedom, scientific norms, scientific methodology, and the ethics of research and scholarship. regardless of the kind of librarianship (public, special, or academic) they wish to practice (if they even know), and as long as library educators see no choice but to prepare their students for jobs with the emphasis on providing the tools to compete in the job interview and ulti- mately gain employment, 35 librarians will have difficulty in acculturating to the professoriate, and library school fac- ulty and library administrators will con- tinue to give low priority to the intellectual fiber that forms the fabric of the academic environment. If library school faculty members are not inculcat- ing the academic model, for whatever reason, then clearly they are not sanctioning behavior that conforms with the professoriate's characteristic behavior. However, there seems to be no reason why such sanctioning could not be done if library school faculty members chose to do it. The same may not be true for September 1992 sequestration. Many library school stu- dents are of necessity part-time students. They must hold down jobs or help with family responsibilities while completing their studies. Therefore these students have many influences that distract from, if not conflict with, the transmission of the professional values that sequestration pro- motes. However, this is also certainly true in all disciplines and institutions, and var- ies in extent or effect based on extenuat- ing factors, such as size of faculty, faculty-to-student ratios, institutional philosophy, tuition levels, and urban-ver- sus-rural geography. If these pressures are not peculiar to library education, why are library science graduate students different from their counterparts in English, political science, or biology? Perhaps it is because librarians fortify themselves with the no- tion that they are different. They are not, but the myth perpetuated becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. IMPROVING THE ACCULTURA- TION OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS There is a temptation to say that the profession must decide whether it is truly committed to the "Standards for Faculty Status" and the sentiments em- bodied therein, but this is a red herring. What the profession says or thinks really is incidental. There are academic institu- tions that see advantage to having librar- ians who are faculty peers. They will set their own standards. Then, of course, some librarians actually prefer being fa- culty.36 They seek out the institutions that offer them the opportunity, and as long as this is the case, librarians, library educators, library administrators, and ap- plicants must each respond in kind. Rather than to continue fruitless discussions about how to act like faculty, it is long past time for librarians to be faculty. To invoke Nike's popular advertising slogan- "just do it." No single prescription exists for solv- ing the malady that infects academic librarianship. Here are some substantive suggestions that, if implemented, will contribute to increasing librarians' con- fidence and performance as faculty. These suggestions constitute a therapeu- tic program, a multifaceted regimen, that, if followed by all participants, may finally treat the pathology at work in- stead of the symptoms and produce a confident and productive generation of library faculty. Library Educators Clearly, library school professors need to be part of the solution, for they will be instrumental in carrying out the grad- uate school acculturation process and will serve as role models for novice librarians who intend to become practic- ing academic librarians with faculty sta- tus. Things that those in library ed- ucation can do are: • Track M.L.S. students in academic librarianship separate from those pur- suing other genres of librarianship. This will allow for more homogeneous concentration on the academic en- vironment and ethos. • Offer financial enticement in the form of postgraduate fellowships to draw those who already have doctoral or master's degrees into M.L.S. programs.37 • Demand substantive evidence of scholarly research and creativity from library school faculty. Provide stu- dents with opportunities to partici- pate in faculty research as part of a mentoring process; among other ways, this might be accomplished by bud- geting for graduate research assistant positions. • Require a research thesis for those M.L.S. students pursuing the academic librarianship track. This will provide a solo research experience under the guidance of a committee of faculty. This experience will provide future empathy with nonlibrary faculty, provide some familiarity with research methodology, and sow the seeds of confidence for fu- ture scholarly activity. • Provide formal instruction that ad- dresses the duties and expectations for librarians with faculty status, espe- cially vis-a-vis the areas of research and creativity (including publication), service to the local institution and the profession, and continuing professional and intellectual development This will re- On Becoming Faculty Librarians 387 duce considerably the too-frequent shock experienced by new librarians when con- fronted by such performance expecta- tions beyond librarianship per se. • Make the Association of College and Research Libraries instead of the Amer- ican Library Association the accrediting body for programs that train graduate students for academic librarianship. It is left to library educators to struggle with the question of whether the afore- mentioned program can be accom- plished through a restructuring of the Librarians apparently believe that research, although central to the university's mission; is only to be supported by librarians, not done by them. current curriculum or whether they must, as have their Canadian colleagues (along with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Univer- sity of California at Los Angeles), go to a two-year M.L.S. program. It is some- what disturbing to observe the closing of graduate library programs over the past decade. Concern is based not so much on the closures per se, but rather on the fact that most have been at research univer- sities, a phenomenon at cross-purposes with the need for research training for academic librarians. Library Administrators Library administrators bear the re- sponsibility for formulating performance criteria for faculty librarians in accord with general faculty expectations at their insti- tution. To them also falls the responsibility of assuring that their librarians have credi- bility in their roles as faculty by not assign- ing them duties that should be performed by support staff. Specific things that the library administrator should do to facili- tate acculturation to the faculty model are: • Clearly express in job announcements the performance expectations for librarians at the institution in ques- tion. This will discourage potential 388 College & Research Libraries applicants who are not interested in a faculty position. • Make clear during employment inter- views just what the library faculty per- formance expectations are. This will discourage candidates who did not fully understand the implications of being faculty as well as encourage those who wish to pursue the faculty model. • Hire intellect and competence first and foremost.38 Intellect and competence will acculturate better and more quickly and will be appreciated by library and nonlibrary colleagues alike. Avoid judging intellect and competence merely by the acquisition of a second graduate degree or the luster of alma mater. However, all other things being equal, opt for additional graduate education. • Pair the new faculty member with a sea- soned librarian who can mentor him or her in regard to organizational and cam- pus culture. This will help acculturate the new librarian to things academic beyond the immediate aspects of librarianship. • Encourage new faculty who are not confident in the area of research and publication to work with a colleague(s) in collaboration on a project; concomi- tant with this is encouraging other faculty to be receptive.39 If such opportunities are not immediately apparent, encourage the new faculty member to take advantage of the ACRL's mentor program.40 • Provide adequate opportunities and support to carry out the kinds and level of scholarship expected of faculty. • Identify senior faculty who are worthy role models and direct new faculty to the best peer models. Reward senior fa- culty for serving in this capacity. There must be an understanding that some colleagues may have been "grand- fathered" into faculty positions, but have not bought into the faculty model. Special sensitivity will be necessary to assure that the new faculty member does not follow such colleagues as a model in regard to faculty perform- ance expectation in certain areas. • Recognize and budget adequately for travel and research support so that librarians will be on a level playing field (vis-a-vis support) with other faculty at September 1992 the institution. This will serve to build morale, increase self-respect, encourage productivity, and diminish excuses. • Neither tenure nor promote any fac- ulty member who is not worthy. This, over time, will build a solid base of senior faculty role models. Faculty Librarians Once a new librarian comes on the job it is his or her colleagues that will have the greatest daily impact on professional development. It is they who will be ob- served as models and from whom advice will be sought. The collegiality of the faculty model imparts special responsi- bilities to colleagues. Things that library peers might do to facilitate acculturation to the faculty model are: • In the interview process probe deeply for understanding and commitment to the faculty model. Support no candi- date who does not show compatible potential. • Understand the faculty model, be committed to it, and demonstrate this in every professional action. Remem- ber, the cliche has truth-actions do speak louder than words. • Accept a responsibility to contribute to the development of junior colleagues. This entails taking on the extra work of mentoring them daily on the job or offering to work collaboratively with them on a research or writing project. • Introduce a new librarian to nonli- brary colleagues in other academic and administrative departments. • Support no colleague during prelimi- nary, tenure, or promotion review who is not completely worthy. If compassion should prevail instead of responsibility, colleagues, the library, and the univer- sity will suffer in both the short and long term. Applicants Applicants who do not understand academe and understand what it means to be faculty and who are n9t committed to being faculty should not apply for faculty positions. Some things that prospective fa- culty librarians might do to assure their success in a faculty position are: • At the interview inquire about and un- derstand performance expectations and evaluation criteria for annual, interme- diate, tenure, and promotion reviews. • Understand that faculty do not work forty-hour work weeks; usually on-cam- pusandoff-