College and Research Libraries Letters To the Editor: I write to comment on the study by Bruce Kingma and Gillian McCombs, "The Opportunity Costs of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians" (C&RL 56 [May 1995]: 258-64). In the report's early para- graphs, definition of terms is addressed and a flawed application applied. The researchers are equating faculty status and professional activity. They do not un- derstand fully that with or without fac- ulty status libraries must bear the cost of sending staff to conferences, taking paid leaves, and supporting sabbaticals and ยท professional travel. Faculty status just puts a little incentive into the mix. Where do they see the profession in the future, if indeed they see librarianship as a pro- fession, if practicing librarians do not con- tribute to literature, attend conferences, and otherwise engage in activities that provide for the health and well-being of the profession? One could assume that MARC would not have been developed had not professionals stopped catalog- ing a few hours to talk about, learn about, write about, and travel to meetings to explore the matter of using automation to improve how librarians do their work. This is not research on the value/ cost of faculty status, it is a reckless piece that seeks to justify coping with reduced li- brary budgets by taking advantage of a "new model" that will force librarians to be anti-intellectual, production-minded, unaware sweat shop operators urged on by unenlightened campus administrators. Barbara f. Smith Director Smithsonian Institution Libraries To the Editor: I found the article by Bruce Kingma and Gillian McCombs to be quite inter- esting. Not all librarians appear to be ex- posed to this basic concept, so this recent contribution is welcome. However, the authors suggest conclusions based on only half the story. Faculty status imposes costs, ~ but its prevalence on many campuses indicates it also provides some value. Taking Kingma and Mc- Combs's article as the com- plete picture requires that we accept an argument that faculty status generates ex- penses, but returns no value. Instead, they imply that librarians ought to give up fac- ulty status in favor of adopting the em- ployee model used by computer center colleagues. This is an inappropriate con- clusion since they provide no analysis to test the second premise. It may be worth- while looking a little closer at librarian- ship by seeking the benefits returned the campus by the presence of faculty status. Kingma and McCombs's vignette illus- trates the potential impact of faculty sta- tus in terms of opportunity cost. How- ever, their illustration presumes that there is more cataloging to be done than there are catalogers available to do it. They do not control budget constraints which limit the flow of new materials into the library. In those libraries that have no backlog, their point fails. No backlog occurs- there is lower opportunity cost-when all the cataloging gets done in less than the time allocated. Which, of course, leaves time for faculty development and schol- arship. Alternatively, it could be said that institutions should only allocate enough cataloging labor to just catalog all new items. However, this is making a judg- ment on the value of faculty status before it has a chance to prove itself. Extending the authors' argument to the teaching fac- ulty suggests that they are wasting time on scholarship, another opportunity cost. Does that imply that there is no merit in return that exceeds those costs? Additionally, their argument should be reinforced by more complete statistical 555 556 College & Research Libraries analysis. Certainly statistical techniques offer scientific methodology appropriate to the issue. The writers lack control in their data set for libraries that have col- lective bargaining organizations. In one article they quote, they ignore statistical analysis showing that faculty status suc- ceeds nearly as well as faculty unions in increasing salary gains an average six per- cent to ten percent. Collective bargaining across all industries seldom does better than ten percent. With that control absent, a regression analysis on the presence of faculty status will yield misleading re- sults, because there is a negative correla- tion between the existence of unions and faculty status in ARL libraries. A statisti- cal analysis by another cohort has shown librarianship, strengthened by the rigor- ous process of faculty status, positively affects the quality of colleges. What is most troubling about this pa- per, however, has to do with editorial policy of the journal itself. Two individu- November 1995 als, widely published and highly compe- tent statisticians, privately indicated to me their disappointment in the lack of sta- tistical rigor allowed by the current edi- torial board of College & Research Librar- ies. The editors appear to be rejecting re- search reports out of concern that scien- tific (statistical) work is too sophisticated for the readership. Rather, they appear satisfied to publish work substantiated by rhetoric, anecdote, and opinion surveys. C&RL supposedly represents the pre- miere research forum for academic librari- anship. Hopefully, the editors can over- come their timidity regarding methodol- ogy, proven valuable in social science re- search, to admit material they may be un- comfortable with, such as regression analysis. In the meantime, the journal loses credibility by publishing work with incomplete analysis. Richard W Meyer Director of the Library Trinity University Statement of ownership, management, and circulation College & Research Libraries, ISSN 0010-0870, is published bimonthly by the Association of College and Research Libraries, American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611- 2795. The editor is Gloriana St. Clair, E506 Pattee Library, Pennsylvania State University, Univer- sity Park, PA 16802. Annual subscription price, 25.00. Printed in U.S.A. with second-class postage paid at Chicago, lllinois. As a nonprofit organization authorized to mail at special rates (DMM Section 424.12 only), the purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the ex- empt status for federal income tax purposes have not changed during the preceding twelve months. Extent and nature of circulation (Average figures denote the average number of copies printed each issue during the preceding twelve months; actual figures denote actual number of copies of single issue published nearest filing date: September 1995 issue.) Total number of copies printed: average 12,510; actual12,760. Sales through dealers, carriers, street vendors, and counter sales: none. Mail subscription: average 11927; actual12,213. Free distribution: average 264; actual319. Total distribution: average 12,191; actual 12,532. Office use, leftover, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: average 319; actual 228. Total: average 12,510; actual 12,760. Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation (PS Form 3526, Oct. 1994) for 1995 filed with the United States Post Office Postmaster in Chicago, October 27, 1995.