Bolger.indd


 
 

           

            

 
  

 

    
     

    
     

     
      

      
     

 

      

     
       

     

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal 
Arts Colleges: An Investigation 
into the Correlation among Faculty 
Status, Professional Rights and 
Responsibilities, and Overall 
Institutional Quality 

Dorita F. Bolger and Erin T. Smith 

This survey of liberal arts colleges sought to determine a correlation 
between the personnel status of librarians and overall institutional qual-
ity. Based on the responses of the 125 colleges that participated in the 
survey, the higher the tier in which an institution is ranked in the U.S. 
News & World Report annual report on America’s colleges, the less likely 
that librarians will have faculty status or rank, the less likely they will be 
required to undergo a formal review process, the less likely they will have 
access to research funds, and the less likely they will be eligible to serve 
on campuswide faculty committees. Specifically, colleges in the top tier 
of the U.S. News and World Report rankings were almost seven times 
less likely to afford librarians faculty status and sixteen times less likely 
to afford faculty rank than those in the fourth tier. 

great deal has been wri en 
about the personnel status of 
academic librarians, ranging 
from large-scale quantitative 

surveys designed to ascertain current 
practices to rhetorical arguments both for 
and against the increased demands and 
benefits that accompany faculty status. 
However, very little has been written 
about the link between librarian status 
and the quality of a specific academic 
institution. 

In an a empt to address this issue, a 
survey of liberal arts colleges was con-
ducted. Using the 217 institutions ranked 
by U.S. News & World Report in its annual 
report on America’s colleges as a sample 
group, this study sought to determine if 
there is a correlation between the person-
nel status of librarians and the overall 
quality of a college. 

Previous studies indicate that the mean-
ing of the phrase “faculty status” varies 
drastically from institution to institution. 

Dorita F. Bolger is a Professor, Reference, ILL, and an Information Literacy Librarian in the McGill Li-
brary at Westminster College; e-mail: dbolger@westminster.edu. Erin T. Smith is an Assistant Professor, 
Electronic Resources, and a Systems and Cataloging Librarian in McGill Library at Westminster College; 
e-mail: smithet@westminster.edu. 

217 

mailto:smithet@westminster.edu
mailto:dbolger@westminster.edu


 

       
         
        

      
       

       
      

      
     

       
        

     
      

     
       

       
   

       

     
     

     
 

      
      

 
      

       

     
  

      

    
      

      

     

      
      

     
    

   

      
     

      
 

     

    

       
     

    
       

     

     

     
    

     
      

      

 
      

     
       

    
    
       

      
     

218 College & Research Libraries May 2006 

In fact, one researcher noted: “If one can-
not judge a book by its cover, one should 
also not judge the status of a librarian 
by his/her title.”1 Therefore, the current 
study asked questions not only about the 
titles and types of appointment held by 
librarians, but also about the individual 
rights and responsibilities of librarians on 
liberal arts college campuses. Specifically, 
information about the more visible signs of 
faculty status was sought: the existence of a 
formalized peer review process, eligibility 
for sabbaticals or other paid professional 
development leaves, access to research 
funds comparable to those of other faculty, 
and eligibility for election to standing and 
ad hoc faculty commi ees. 

Selected Relevant Literature 
Much of the quantitative data on the issue 
of faculty status is the result of surveys of 
large university libraries, such as insti-
tutions belonging to the Association of 
Research Libraries (ARL) or those with 
a Carnegie Classification of research or 
doctorate-granting university.2 Far fewer 
studies have surveyed a significant num-
ber of liberal arts institutions, although 
liberal arts or four-year colleges have been 
included in a number of surveys conduct-
ed at the state and regional levels.3 

Two of the studies that surveyed a 
significant number of liberal arts colleges 
examined the issue of faculty status for 
librarians by type of institution. Charles 
B. Lowry surveyed the library directors 
of a sample of 500 libraries selected at 
random from the Carnegie Classification 
of Institutions of Higher Education, as 
well as the directors of ARL members.4 
He found that the presence of faculty 
status for librarians varied by institution 
type: nearly 57 percent of the eighty-six 
liberal arts institutions that responded 
to the survey granted faculty status to 
librarians, compared to about 54 percent 
of research/doctoral institutions, 77 per-
cent of comprehensive universities, and 
69 percent of two-year institutions. 

Betsy Park and Robert Riggs also used 
the Carnegie Classification as the basis for 

their 1993 article that examined tenure 
and promotion practices by institutional 
type.5 However, they found that only 34.1 
percent of the 144 liberal arts colleges 
that responded to their survey afford 
faculty status to librarians, compared 
to 20 percent of research institutions, 50 
percent of doctorate-granting institutions, 
and nearly 57 percent of comprehensive 
institutions. They also found that liberal 
arts college librarians were less likely to 
undergo a formal review process or be 
required to publish than librarians at 
other types of institutions. They hypoth-
esized that this difference was a result 
of the liberal arts institutions’ emphasis 
on teaching rather than research and 
“indicate that expectations for librarians 
at liberal arts colleges may parallel those 
for other faculty.”6 

The discrepancy between the numbers 
of librarians with faculty status reported 
by Lowry and by Park and Riggs was 
most likely due to institutional differ-
ences in the definition of faculty status. 
The former simply asked respondents 
to report whether or not they had fac-
ulty status based on their particular 
institution’s definition of the phrase. The 
la er provided respondents with a strict 
definition of faculty status, under which 
librarians must be accorded the same 
titles as other faculty and be eligible for 
tenure and promotion. 

The 1999 ACRL survey of academic 
libraries, which also addressed differ-
ences by institution type, a empted to 
avoid the ambiguity of the phrase “faculty 
status” by asking questions about the nine 
components of academic status included 
in the 1990 version of ACRL Guidelines 
for Academic Status.7,8 In each of the 
nine categories, librarians at institutions 
granting bachelor of arts degrees were 
the least likely to be fully afforded the 
rights and responsibilities outlined in 
the guidelines. Librarians were eligible 
for tenure at only 29.6 percent of the 
bachelor’s institutions, compared to 53.5 
percent of associate of arts degree institu-
tions, 53.7 percent of master’s institutions, 



     

      

      
 

   
       

 
 

     

      

       

     

    

      
      

       

      
    

     
 

      
     

       

      
     

     

      
    

      
 

       
        

        
    

       
    

    
      

    
     

      
      

        
      

      
    
    

       
         

     
      

      
      

       
    

     
    

    
 

      
 

       

    
     

     
      

      
    

      
        

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges 219 

and 46 percent of doctoral institutions. 
Furthermore, they were less likely to be 
able to be full members of campuswide 
bodies of governance, to go through a 
peer review process for promotion, to be 
eligible for sabbaticals, and to have access 
to research funds.9 

Small- and medium-sized academic 
libraries were the focus of a survey in-
cluded in an ACRL Clip Note published 
in 1997.10 Fi y-one percent of the respon-
dents reported that librarians had faculty 
status, but only 36 percent were eligible 
for tenure, 37 percent had academic rank, 
and 61 percent were eligible for promo-
tion. In addition, 74 percent of the institu-
tions that grant tenure to librarians used 
the same criteria for evaluating librarians 
and other faculty and 41 percent devel-
oped library-specific criteria for tenure 
and promotion decisions. 

The only study to examine the broader 
impact of tenure for librarians on the 
liberal arts campus as a whole was con-
ducted by Richard W. Meyer in 1999.11 
Specifically, he studied the effect of the 
presence of tenure for librarians on the 
teaching quality of the Oberlin Group, an 
informal organization of private liberal 
arts colleges, as measured by graduation 
rate, graduate school a endance by alum-
ni, and cognitive development. He found 
that faculty status for librarians has a 
positive impact on liberal arts institutions 
and support for what he called the “intui-
tive assertion” that faculty status enables 
librarians to be full partners with the 
teaching faculty and more fully contribute 
to the overall academic experience. These 
findings were particularly interesting in 
light of an earlier study in which Meyer 
reported that faculty status for librarians 
had a negative impact on ARL institu-
tions; institutions that included librarians 
as members of the faculty produced about 
9 percent less research.12 

Methodology 
The Questionnaire and Survey Population 
Every year, U.S. News & World Report 
publishes an index of the best colleges in 

the United States. To be included in the 
Liberal Arts Colleges–Bachelor’s category 
of the report, an institution must have 
the Carnegie designation “Baccalaureate 
Colleges—Liberal Arts.” Carnegie defines 
liberal arts colleges as institutions that 
are “primarily undergraduate colleges 
with major emphasis on baccalaureate 
programs…[and award] at least half of 
their baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts 
fields.13 The colleges then are assessed on a 
variety of established indicators of quality, 
such as peer assessment, retention, faculty 
resources, student selectivity, financial 
resources, graduation rate performance, 
and alumni giving rate and are assigned 
a rank and placed in one of four tiers.14 
Although the authors acknowledge that 
many in the academic community have 
criticized the U.S. News methodology, the 
publication’s ubiquitous nature made it an 
appropriate choice as a measurement of a 
college’s overall educational quality. 

The 2004 edition of “America’s Best 
Colleges” included 214 institutions in 
the Liberal Arts Colleges—Bachelor’s cat-
egory.15 The names and e-mail addresses 
of the library directors of 212 of these col-
leges were available via their institutions’ 
Web sites.16 In September 2003, a six-item 
questionnaire was distributed via e-mail 
to each of the directors who were encour-
aged to reply to the survey by the end of 
the month. Two reminder messages were 
sent out during the month: one at the 
midpoint and another three days before 
the survey completion deadline. 

The questionnaire was designed to 
assess the personnel status and rank 
of librarians at liberal arts institutions, 
as well as their individual rights and 
responsibilities on college campuses. To 
accomplish this goal, directors first were 
asked to describe the personnel status of 
librarians at their institution (full faculty 
status and rank, faculty status only, no 
faculty designation, or faculty status 
and/or rank is situational based on the 
type of position held or time of hire). They 
then were asked if the librarians at their 
institutions possessed the more concrete 

http:sites.16
http:egory.15
http:tiers.14
http:fields.13
http:research.12


 

      
    

       

        

     
       

       

     
     

      

    

    
     
       

   

    
    

     
      

     
       

      

   
     

      

 

 
           

    

     
        

     

  

     

220 College & Research Libraries May 2006 

of the components of faculty status: a 
peer-review review process, the avail-
ability of paid leaves, the availability of 
research funds, and eligibility for service 
on campuswide faculty commi ees. 

The data were analyzed according to 
the U.S. News & World Report tier rankings 
using SPSS to generate frequency counts, 
as well as Chi Square tests and odds ratios 
when appropriate and possible. 

Response Rate 
Of the 212 colleges e-mailed a question-
naire, 125 participated in the survey 
(response rate = 59%). Thirty of the re-
sponding colleges (24%) were ranked in 
U.S. News & World Report’s top tier, thirty-
nine (31.2%) in the second tier, thirty-two 
(25.6%) in the third tier, and twenty-four 
(19.2%) in the fourth tier. 

Results 
Status and Rank 
Of the 125 responding institutions, al-
most 34 percent appoint librarians as 
full members of the faculty with status 
and rank equal to other campus faculty. 
Nineteen percent reported that librarians 
have faculty status, but not faculty rank. 
However, six of these “status-only” insti-
tutions indicated that although librarians 
have the designation, they are distinct 
from classroom faculty in that they are not 
eligible for tenure. (See table 1.) 

Twenty-seven (21.6%) colleges re-
ported that faculty status and rank were 
situational. Examples of this category 
include institutions that hire instructional 
librarians with faculty status and rank, 
but not catalogers, or institutions at which 
new appointments have different status 
from earlier appointments. Fi een of the 
colleges in this category reported that 
only the director of the library has faculty 
status. Herea er, this type of status is 
referred to as situational. 

Thirty-two colleges (25.6%) reported 
that librarians have neither faculty sta-
tus nor rank but do have professional, 
administrative, or staff status. Herea er, 
this type of status is referred to as profes-
sional. 

Table 1 also illustrates that an analysis 
by U.S. News & World Report tier designa-
tion revealed statistically significant dif-
ferences among the institutions, accord-
ing to a Pearson Chi-Square test (Χ2 [df = 
9, n = 125] = 22.102, p < 0.01).17 Less than 10 
percent of the colleges ranked in the top 
tier reported that all librarians have full 
faculty status and rank, and almost half 
reported that librarians have professional 
status. On the other end of the spectrum, 
around half of both the Tier Three and 
Tier Four institutions reported full faculty 
status and rank and just over 10 percent of 
schools in these tiers reported that librar-
ians held professional status. Tier Two 

TABLE 1 
Librarian Status at Liberal Arts Colleges 

All 
Institutions 

Tier One Tier Two Tier Three Tier Four 

Total respondents 125 
100.0% 

30 
24.0% 

39 
31.2% 

32 
25.6% 

24 
19.2% 

Full faculty status and 
rank 

42 
33.6% 

2 
6.7% 

13 
33.3% 

14 
43.8% 

13 
54.2% 

Faculty status only 24 
19.2% 

6 
20.0% 

9 
23.1% 

5 
15.6% 

4 
16.7% 

Status situational 27 
21.6% 

8 
26.7% 

6 
15.4% 

9 
28.1% 

4 
16.7% 

Professional status 32 
25.6% 

14 
46.7% 

11 
28.2% 

4 
12.5% 

3 
12.5% 

http:0.01).17


 
   

 
   

   
  
 

   
  

  

   

  
  

   

   
  

  
 

   
   
  
   
  

   
   

  
  
   

   

  
   

   
  

   
  

   

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

  
 

 
 

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges 221 

institutions exhibited 
a more even distribu-
tion, with 33 percent of 
respondents reporting 
that librarians have full 
faculty status and rank 
and about 28 percent 
reporting that librar-
ians have professional 
status. 

Review Process 
Almost 64 percent of 
the colleges surveyed 
reported that librarians 
are required to under-
go a formalized review 
process. (See table 2.) 
Of those seventy-eight 
institutions, almost 30 
percent reported that 
librarians undergo the 
same process as other 
faculty on campus and 
about 34 percent re-
ported that librarians 
undergo a different, 
library-specific review 
process. 

Not surprisingly, li-
brarians with full fac-
ulty status and rank 
were significantly more 
likely to undergo the 
same formalized re-
view process as other 
faculty. Of these in-
stitutions, 71 percent 
require librarians to 
undergo the same re-
view process as other 
faculty. Only a quarter 
of the colleges that af-
ford librarians faculty 
status, but not rank, 
have this requirement. 
None of the librarians 
with professional sta-
tus or at institutions 
where faculty status 
and rank are situational 

TA
B

L
E

 2
R

ev
ie

w
 P

ro
ce

ss
 a

s 
C

om
pa

re
d 

to
 O

th
er

 F
ac

ul
ty

 o
n 

C
am

pu
s

A
ll 

In
st

itu
tio

ns
 (n

 =
 1

22
) 

T
ie

r 
O

ne
 (n

 =
 3

0)
 

T
ie

r 
Tw

o 
(n

 =
 3

6*
) 

T
ie

r 
T

hr
ee

 (n
 =

 3
2)

 
T

ie
r 

F
ou

r 
(n

 =
 2

4)
Sa

m
e 

D
iff

er
en

t 
N

on
e 

Sa
m

e 
D

iff
er

en
t 

N
on

e 
Sa

m
e 

D
if

fe
re

nt
 

N
on

e 
Sa

m
e 

D
iff

er
en

t 
N

on
e 

Sa
m

e 
D

iff
er

en
t 

N
on

e 

A
ll 

ca
te

go
ri

es
of

 p
er

so
nn

el
st

at
us

 

36
29

.5
%

 
42

34
.4

%
 

44
36

.1
%

 
2

6.
7%

 
10

33
.3

%
 

18
60

.0
%

 
11

30
.6

%
 

13
36

.1
%

 
12

33
.3

%
 

12
37

.5
%

 
11

34
.4

%
 

9
28

.1
%

 
11

45
.8

%
 

8
33

.3
%

 
5

28
.1

%
 

Fu
ll 

fa
cu

lty
st

at
us

 a
nd

ra
nk

 (n
 =

 4
2)

 

30
71

.4
%

 
10

23
.8

%
 

2
4.

8%
 

1
50

.0
%

 
1

50
.0

%
 

0 
8

61
.5

%
 

5
38

.5
%

 
0 

10
71

.4
%

 
3

21
.4

%
 

1
7.

1%
 

11
84

.6
%

 
1

7.
7%

 
1

7.
7%

 

Fa
cu

lty
 s

ta
tu

s
on

ly
 (n

 =
 2

4)
 

6
25

.0
%

 
12

50
.0

%
 

6
25

.0
%

 
1

16
.7

%
 

3
50

.0
%

 
2

33
.3

%
 

3
33

.3
%

 
5

55
.6

%
 

1
11

.1
%

 
2

40
.0

%
 

1
20

.0
%

 
2

40
.0

%
 

0 
3

75
.0

%
 

1
25

.0
%

 
St

at
us

si
tu

at
io

na
l

(n
 =

 2
4*

) 

0 
12

50
.0

%
 

12
50

.0
%

 
0 

1
12

.5
%

 
7

87
.5

%
 

0 
3

10
0.

0%
 

0 
0 

6
66

.7
%

 
3

33
.3

%
 

0 
2

50
.0

%
 

2
50

.0
%

 

Pr
of

es
si

on
al

st
at

us
 (n

 =
 3

2)
 

0 
8

25
.0

%
 

24
75

.0
%

 
0 

5
35

.7
%

 
9

64
.3

%
 

0 
0 

11
10

0.
0%

 
0 

1
25

.0
%

 
3

75
.0

%
 

0 
2

66
.7

%
 

1
33

.3
%

tu
s 

si
tu

at
io

na
l”

 c
ol

le
ge

s,
 w

ho
 w

er
e 

al
l s

ec
on

d-
tie

r i
ns

tit
ut

io
ns

, c
ou

ld
 n

ot
 b

e 
in

cl
ud

ed
 in

 th
is

 c
al

cu
la

tio
n 

be
ca

us
e 

th
ey

 d
id

 n
ot

 h
av

e 
a 

lib
ra

ry
w

id
e 

po
lic

y 
on

ia
ns

 w
ho

 h
av

e 
fa

cu
lty

 s
ta

tu
s 

w
en

t t
hr

ou
gh

 a
 re

vi
ew

 p
ro

ce
ss

, b
ut

 li
br

ar
ia

ns
 w

ho
 h

av
e 

pr
of

es
si

on
al

 s
ta

tu
s 

di
d 

no
t)

. 
*T

hr
ee

 o
f t

he
 “

st
a

re
vi

ew
 (i

.e
., 

lib
ra

r



 

  
  

     

    

    
    

    

   

    

   
   

     

   

   
    
   

    
   

  

 

    

    
    
    

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

222 College & Research Libraries May 2006 

TA
B

L
E

 3
R

es
ea

rc
h 

F
un

ds
 a

s 
C

om
pa

re
d 

to
 O

th
er

 F
ac

ul
ty

 o
n 

C
am

pu
s

A
ll 

In
st

it
ut

io
ns

 (n
 =

 1
23

) 
T

ie
r 

O
ne

 (n
 =

 2
9*

) 
T

ie
r 

Tw
o 

(n
 =

 3
9)

 
T

ie
r 

T
hr

ee
 (n

 =
 3

1*
) 

T
ie

r 
F

ou
r 

(n
 =

 2
4)

Sa
m

e 
D

iff
er

en
t 

N
on

e 
Sa

m
e 

D
iff

er
en

t 
N

on
e 

Sa
m

e 
D

iff
er

en
t 

N
on

e 
Sa

m
e 

D
iff

er
en

t 
N

on
e 

Sa
m

e 
D

iff
er

en
t 

N
on

e 

A
ll 

ca
te

go
ri

es
 o

f
pe

rs
on

ne
l s

ta
tu

s 
61

49
.6

%
 

22
17

.9
%

 
40

32
.5

%
 

5
17

.2
%

 
7

24
.1

%
 

17
58

.6
%

 
21

53
.8

%
 

8
20

.5
%

 
10

25
.6

%
 

16
51

.6
%

 
6

19
.4

%
 

9
29

.0
%

 
19

79
.2

%
 

1
4.

2%
 

4
16

.7
%

 
Fu

ll 
fa

cu
lty

st
at

us
 a

nd
 ra

nk
(n

 =
 4

1*
) 

38
92

.7
%

 
1

2.
4%

 
2

4.
9%

 
2

10
0.

0%
 

0 
0 

12
92

.3
%

 
0 

1
7.

7%
 

11
84

.6
%

 
1

7.
7%

 
1

7.
7%

 
13

10
0.

0%
 

0 
0 

Fa
cu

lty
 s

ta
tu

s
on

ly
 (n

 =
 2

4)
 

15
62

.5
%

 
2

8.
3%

 
7

29
.2

%
 

3
50

.0
%

 
0 

3
50

.0
%

 
6

66
.7

%
 

2
22

.2
%

 
1

11
.1

%
 

3
60

.0
%

 
0 

2
40

.0
%

 
3

75
.0

%
 

0 
1

25
.0

%
 

St
at

us
si

tu
at

io
na

l
(n

 =
 2

7)
 

6
22

.2
%

 
7

25
.9

%
 

14
51

.9
%

 
0 

2
25

.0
%

 
6

75
.0

%
 

2
33

.3
%

 
2

33
.3

%
 

2
33

.3
%

 
2

22
.2

%
 

3
33

.3
%

 
4

44
.4

%
 

2
50

.0
%

 
0 

2
50

.0
%

 

Pr
of

es
si

on
al

st
at

us
 (n

 =
 3

1*
) 

2
6.

5%
 

12
38

.7
%

 
17

54
.8

%
 

0 
5

38
.5

%
 

8
61

.5
%

 
1

9.
1%

 
4

36
.4

%
 

6
54

.5
%

 
0 

2
50

.0
%

 
2

50
.0

%
 

1
33

.3
%

 
1

33
.3

%
 

1
33

.3
%

 
no

t t
o 

re
sp

on
d 

to
 th

is
 q

ue
st

io
n.

 
*T

w
o 

co
lle

ge
s 

op
te

d

are required to undergo the 
same process. 

Conversely, colleges with 
professional status were 
most likely to lack a for-
malized review process for 
librarians. Seventy-five per-
cent of the institutions where 
librarians have professional 
status and 50 percent of the 
colleges where status is situ-
ational do not require librar-
ians to undergo a formalized 
review process of any kind. 
Twenty-five percent of the 
institutions that afford only 
faculty status and less than 
5 percent of the institutions 
that afford full status and 
rank lack this requirement. 

Institutions in all status 
categories reported a formal-
ized review process unique 
to the library. Fi y percent of 
both the schools that afford 
librarians faculty status only 
and those in which status is 
situational reported using a 
separate review process for 
the evaluation of librarians. 
Interestingly, around a quar-
ter of both the institutions 
that afford librarians faculty 
status and rank and those 
that give librarians profes-
sional status reported using 
a unique review process. 

Analysis by tier revealed 
statistically significant dif-
ferences among the institu-
tions (Χ2 [df = 3, n = 122] = 
10.860, p < 0.05). Sixty per-
cent of the Tier One schools 
that responded to the survey 
do not have a formalized re-
view process for librarians, 
compared to 33 percent of 
Tier Two schools, 28 per-
cent of Tier Three schools, 
and 28 percent of Tier Four 
schools. On the other hand, 



    
    

    

    

    
   

    
     

      
    

     
     

    

    

 

    
     

     
   

  
   

     

  
    

   

 
 

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges 223 

TA
B

L
E

 4
E

lig
ib

ili
ty

 fo
r 

F
ac

ul
ty

 C
om

m
it

te
es

A
ll 

In
st

it
ut

io
ns

 (n
 =

 1
24

) 
T

ie
r 

O
ne

 (n
 =

 2
9*

) 
T

ie
r 

Tw
o 

(n
 =

 3
9)

 
T

ie
r 

T
hr

ee
 (n

 =
 3

2)
 

T
ie

r 
F

ou
r 

(n
 =

 2
4)

E
lig

ib
le

 
In

el
ig

ib
le

 
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

E
lig

ib
le

 
In

el
ig

ib
le

 
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

E
lig

ib
le

 
In

el
ig

ib
le

 
A

ll 
ca

te
go

ri
es

 o
f

pe
rs

on
ne

l s
ta

tu
s 

85
68

.0
%

 
39

31
.2

%
 

11
36

.7
%

 
18

60
.0

%
 

26
66

.7
%

 
13

33
.3

%
 

26
81

.3
%

 
6

18
.7

%
 

22
91

.7
%

 
2

8.
3%

 
Fu

ll 
fa

cu
lty

 s
ta

tu
s

an
d 

ra
nk

 (n
=4

2)
 

42
10

0.
0%

 
0 

2
10

0.
0%

 
0 

13
10

0.
0%

 
0 

14
10

0.
0%

 
0 

13
10

0.
0%

 
0 

Fa
cu

lty
 s

ta
tu

s 
on

ly
(n

=2
4)

 
22

91
.7

%
 

2
8.

3%
 

5
83

.3
%

 
1

16
.7

%
 

8
88

.9
%

 
1

11
.1

%
 

5
10

0.
0%

 
0 

4
10

0.
0%

 
0 

St
at

us
 s

itu
at

io
na

l
(n

=2
6*

) 
15

57
.7

%
 

11
42

.3
%

 
2

28
.6

%
 

5
71

.4
%

 
3

50
.0

%
 

3
50

.0
%

 
6

66
.7

%
 

3
33

.3
%

 
4

10
0.

0%
 

0 

Pr
of

es
si

on
al

 s
ta

tu
s

(n
=3

2)
 

6
18

.7
5%

 
26

81
.2

5%
 

2
14

.3
%

 
12

85
.7

%
 

2
18

.2
%

 
9

81
.8

%
 

1
25

.0
%

 
3

75
.0

%
 

1
33

.3
%

 
2

66
.7

%
 

ot
 to

 re
sp

on
d 

to
 th

is
 q

ue
st

io
n.

 
*O

ne
 c

ol
le

ge
 o

pt
ed

 n

only about 7 percent of Tier One 
institutions require librarians to 
undergo the same review process 
as other campus faculty, com-
pared to 30 percent of Tier Two 
institutions, 37 percent of Tier 
Three institutions, and almost 46 
percent of Tier Four institutions. 

Research Funds 
Eighty-three of the 125 (67.5%) 
responding institutions reported 
that librarians, regardless of their 
personnel status, were eligible 
for research funds. (See table 3.) 
Librarians and other faculty on 
campus apply for the same funds 
at almost 50 percent of the col-
leges, whereas librarians at nearly 
18 percent of the schools apply 
for funds that are distinct from 
those for which the other faculty 
applies. Thirty-two percent of the 
colleges indicated that librarians 
were not eligible for research 
funds of any kind. 

A correlation between faculty 
designation and the availability 
of research funds was observed. 
Of the colleges that afford librar-
ians full faculty status and rank, 
93 percent reported that librar-
ians were eligible for the same 
funds as other faculty, compared 
to 63 percent of the colleges that 
grant only faculty status, 22 per-
cent of the colleges where status 
is situational, and 6 percent of 
colleges where librarians have 
professional status. Conversely, 
librarians were ineligible for 
research funds of any kind at 
less than 5 percent of the “full” 
institutions, almost 30 percent of 
the “status-only” institutions, 52 
percent of the “situational” insti-
tutions, and nearly 55 percent of 
the “professional” institutions. 

Statistically significant dif-
ferences were found when the 
availability of research funds 



 

 

     
      

        

      

     

    
     

       
     

      

     

      

    
   

 

     
      

     

    

 
 

224 College & Research Libraries 

TA
B

L
E

 5
Sa

bb
at

ic
al

s/
P

ai
d 

P
ro

fe
ss

io
na

l L
ea

ve
s

A
ll 

T
ie

rs
 (n

 =
 5

9)
 

T
ie

r 
O

ne
 (n

 =
 2

2)
 

T
ie

r 
Tw

o 
(n

 =
 1

7)
 

T
ie

r 
T

hr
ee

 (n
 =

 1
3)

 
T

ie
r 

F
ou

r 
(n

 =
 6

)
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

N
/R

 
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

N
/R

 
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

N
/R

 
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

N
/R

 
E

lig
ib

le
 

In
el

ig
ib

le
 

N
/R

 

A
ll 

no
n-

fa
cu

lty
 s

ta
tu

s
in

st
itu

tio
ns

 

11
18

.6
%

 
42

71
.2

%
 

6
10

.2
%

 
6

27
.3

%
 

15
68

.2
%

 
1

4.
5%

 
3

17
.6

%
 

13
76

.5
%

 
1

5.
9%

 
1

7.
7%

 
9

69
.2

%
 

3
23

.1
%

 
1

16
.7

%
 

5
83

.3
%

 
1

16
.7

%
 

St
at

us
si

tu
at

io
na

l
(n

=2
7)

 

4
14

.8
%

 
18

66
.7

%
 

5
18

.5
%

 
1

12
.5

%
 

7
87

.5
%

 
0 

1
16

.7
%

 
4

66
.7

 
1

16
.7

%
 

1
11

.1
%

 
5

55
.6

%
 

3
33

.3
%

 
1

25
.0

%
 

2
50

.0
%

 
1

25
.0

%
 

Pr
of

es
si

on
al

st
at

us
 (n

=3
2)

 
7

21
.9

%
 

24
75

.0
%

 
1

3.
1%

 
5

35
.7

%
 

8
57

.1
%

 
1

7.
1%

 
2

18
.2

%
 

9
81

.8
%

 
0 

0 
4

10
0.

0%
 

0 
0 

3
10

0.
0%

 
0 

*N
ot

e:
 N

/R
 =

 N
o 

R
es

po
ns

e 

May 2006 

was analyzed by tier (Χ2 [df = 3, n = 123] 
= 12.764, p < 0.01). Librarians employed 
by the top-tier institutions are the least 
likely to be eligible for research funds. 
Forty-one percent of colleges in the top 
tier reported that librarians were eligible 
for some form of research funds, as did 74 
percent of Tier Two schools, 71 percent of 
Tier Three schools, and 83 percent of Tier 
Four schools. However, only 17 percent of 
Tier One schools reported that librarians 
were eligible for the same funds as other 
faculty, compared to almost 54 percent 
of Tier Two schools, almost 52 percent of 
Tier Three schools, and 79 percent of Tier 
Four schools. 

Faculty Committees 
Sixty-eight percent of responding institu-
tions reported that librarians were eligible 
for election to standing and ad hoc faculty 
commi ees. (See table 4.) Librarians were 
eligible to serve on campuswide faculty 
commi ees at all the institutions that af-
ford librarians full faculty status and rank 
and at almost 92 percent of the institu-
tions that afford librarians only faculty 
status. Librarians are eligible for faculty 
commi ees at more than 50 percent of 
“situational” schools, but at less than 19 
percent of colleges where librarians hold 
professional status. 

A Pearson Chi-Square test revealed 
statistically significant differences among 
the tiers in terms of commi ee eligibility 
(Χ2 [df = 3, n = 124] = 21.018, p < 0.001). 
Almost 37 percent of institutions in Tier 
One reported that librarians were eligible 
for commi ees, as opposed to 66.7 percent 
of Tier Two institutions, 81.3 percent of 
Tier Three institutions, and 91.7 percent 
of Tier Four institutions. 

Sabbaticals/Paid Professional Leaves 
Respondents at institutions where librar-
ians do not have full faculty status and 
rank were asked about the availability 
of paid professional development leaves 
similar to sabbaticals. (See table 5.) More 
than three-quarters of schools where 
librarians have professional status indi-



   

     

    
     

   

   
     
      

     

     
     

       

     

    

      
     

     

      

     
    

      

     
     

     

     
     

     

      
     

      

    

    

   

     
    

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges 225 

cated that librarians were not eligible for 
paid professional development leaves. 
Eighty-one percent of the colleges where 
faculty status and rank are situational 
reported that librarians did not have the 
option of applying for this type of leave. 
Due to the fact that only colleges without 
faculty status were asked about the avail-
ability of sabbaticals, the frequencies were 
too small to determine if these results are 
statistically significant. Future studies 
will ask all respondents about the avail-
ability of paid professional development 
leaves. 

Summary of Faculty Rights and 
Responsibilities for Librarians 
The combination of status, rank, and the 
individual rights and responsibilities 
addressed in the survey provides an 
interesting snapshot of the role of the 
librarian on liberal arts college campuses, 
as illustrated in table 6. Only 22.4 percent 
of the institutions surveyed indicated that 
librarians have exactly the same rights 
and responsibilities as the other faculty 
on their campus; that is, they have faculty 
status, faculty rank, the same formalized 
review process, the same research funds, 
and the same commi ee eligibility. On 
the other hand, almost 25 percent of the 
colleges reported that although librarians 
do not hold faculty rank, they are func-
tionally the same as other faculty: they 
undergo a formalized review process, can 
apply for research funds, are eligible for 

some type of paid leave for professional 
development, and can serve on institu-
tional faculty commi ees. 

Less than 15 percent of the colleges 
reported that librarians have absolutely 
none of the rights and responsibilities 
associated with a faculty appointment. 
Librarians at these institutions have nei-
ther faculty rank nor status, they cannot 
apply for research funds, they are ineli-
gible for paid professional development 
leaves, and they cannot serve on faculty 
commi ees. 

Only one college in the top tier (3.3%) 
reported that librarians were exactly the 
same as other faculty, and 10 percent 
reported that although librarians lacked 
faculty rank, they were functionally the 
same as other campus faculty. Almost 
13 percent reported that librarians are 
afforded none of the rights and respon-
sibilities associated with a faculty des-
ignation. 

About 20 percent of second-tier institu-
tions reported that librarians were exactly 
the same as other faculty on campus, an 
additional 20 percent reported that librar-
ians did not have faculty rank but were 
functionally the same as other faculty, and 
almost 13 percent reported that librarians 
had none of the rights and responsibilities 
associated with faculty status. 

A quarter of third-tier institutions 
reported that librarians were exactly the 
same as other faculty, almost 19 percent 
reported that librarians were function-

TABLE 6 
Summary of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities for Librarians  

All Institutions 
(n = 125) 

Tier One 
(n = 30) 

Tier Two 
(n = 39) 

Tier Three 
(n = 32) 

Tier Four 
(n = 24) 

Librarian is exactly the same 
as other faculty on campus. 

28 
22.4% 

1 
3.3% 

8 
20.5% 

8 
25.0% 

11 
45.8% 

Librarian is functionally the 
same as other faculty on 
campus. 

31 
24.8% 

3 
10.0% 

18 
20.5% 

6 
18.7% 

4 
16.7% 

Librarian has none of the 
rights and responsibilities 
of faculty. 

18 
14.4% 

9 
30.0% 

5 
12.8% 

3 
9.4% 

1 
4.2% 



 

  

     
   

    
    

    
     

   

  

     

      
    
     

     
     

     
     

    
      
     

     
     

     
      

     
     
     

     
     
     

     
    

      
    

    
      

     

 
 

226 College & Research Libraries May 2006 

ally the same as other faculty, and 
less than 10 percent reported that 
librarians had none of the rights 
and responsibilities associated 
with faculty status. 

More than 45 percent of fourth-
tier institutions reported that 
librarians were exactly the same 
as other campus faculty, almost 
17 percent reported that librar-
ians were functionally the same 
as other faculty, and only one 
(4.2%) reported that librarians 
did not have any of the rights and 
responsibilities associated with 
faculty status. 

Conclusions 
The purpose of this study was 
twofold: first, it sought informa-
tion about both the titles and types 
of appointment held by librarians, 
as well as the individual rights 
and responsibilities of librarians 
on liberal arts college campuses; 
and second, it was designed to 
isolate a correlation. if one existed, 
between those factors and overall 
institutional quality. 

The number of librarians 
with faculty status reported in 
previous research was confirmed 
by the current work. Less than 
34 percent of the institutions 
that responded to the current 
survey reported that they afford 
librarians full faculty status and 
rank, which is exactly the same 
percentage as reported by Park 
and Riggs, who employed a 
very strict definition of faculty 
status (i.e., faculty status meant 
that librarians had the same 
titles and same requirements for 
tenure and promotion as other 
faculty on campus).18 However, 
an additional 19 percent of the 
colleges surveyed reported that 
librarians have faculty status, 
but not rank, which means that 
almost 53 percent of institutions 

TA
B

L
E

 7
R

is
k 

E
st

im
at

es
F

ac
ul

ty
 S

ta
tu

s 
O

nl
y 

F
ac

ul
ty

 S
ta

tu
s 

an
d

F
ac

ul
ty

 R
an

k 
R

ev
ie

w
 P

ro
ce

ss
 

(A
ny

 F
or

m
al

 P
ro

ce
ss

) 
A

va
ila

bi
lit

y 
of

 R
es

ea
rc

h 
F

un
ds

 (A
ny

 K
in

d)
 

C
om

m
it

te
e

E
lig

ib
ili

ty
 

O
dd

s 
ra

tio
 fo

r
tie

r 1
 / 

tie
r 2

 
3.

6
[9

5%
 C

I 1
.2

74
, 9

.9
01

;
p 

= 
0.

01
3;

 N
 =

 6
9]

 

7.
0

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.4
39

, 3
4.

48
3;

p 
= 

0.
00

8;
 N

 =
 6

9]
 

3.
0

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.0
96

, 8
.1

97
;

p 
= 

0.
03

0;
 N

 =
 6

6]
 

4.
1

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.4
66

, 1
1.

49
4;

 
p 

= 
0.

00
6;

 N
 =

 6
8]

 

3.
3

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.2
00

, 8
.9

29
;

p 
= 

0.
01

9;
 N

 =
 6

8]
O

dd
s 

ra
tio

 fo
r

tie
r 1

 / 
tie

r 3
 

4.
0

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.3
74

, 1
1.

76
5;

p 
= 

0.
00

9;
 N

 =
 6

2]
 

10
.9

[9
5%

 C
I 2

.2
08

, 5
2.

63
2;

p 
= 

0.
00

1;
 N

 =
 6

2]
 

3.
8

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.3
26

, 1
1.

11
1;

 
p 

= 
0.

01
1;

 N
 =

 6
2]

 

3.
5

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.1
86

, 1
0.

10
1;

p 
= 

0.
02

1;
 N

 =
 6

0]
 

7.
1

[9
5%

 C
I 2

.2
17

, 2
2.

72
7;

p 
= 

0.
00

1;
 N

 =
 6

1]
O

dd
s 

ra
tio

 fo
r

tie
r 1

 / 
tie

r 4
 

6.
7

[9
5%

 C
I 2

.0
20

, 2
2.

22
2;

p 
= 

0.
00

1;
 N

 =
 5

4]
 

16
.7

[9
5%

 C
I 3

.1
95

, 8
3.

33
3;

p 
= 

0.
00

0;
 N

 =
 5

4]
 

5.
7

[9
5%

 C
I 1

.6
72

, 1
9.

60
8;

p 
= 

0.
00

4;
 N

 =
 5

4]
 

7.
1

95
%

 C
I 1

.9
23

, 2
6.

31
6;

p 
= 

0.
00

2;
 N

 =
 5

3]
 

17
.9

[9
5%

 C
I 3

.5
21

, 9
0.

90
9;

p 
= 

0.
00

0;
 N

 =
 5

3]
*N

ot
es

: 
1.

 T
he

 o
dd

s 
ra

tio
s 

ge
ne

ra
te

d 
by

 S
PS

S 
w

er
e 

in
ve

rt
ed

 fo
r c

la
ri

ty
.

   
   

   
   

   
2.

 A
 ri

sk
 e

st
im

at
e 

co
ul

d 
no

t b
e 

ca
lc

ul
at

ed
 fo

r s
ab

ba
tic

al
 e

lig
ib

ili
ty

 d
ue

 to
 s

m
al

l c
el

l s
iz

e.
3.

 F
or

 a
n 

ex
pl

an
at

io
n 

of
 th

e 
va

ri
an

ce
 in

 th
e 

ab
ov

e 
N

 v
al

ue
s,

 s
ee

 th
e 

pr
ec

ed
in

g 
ta

bl
es

. 

http:campus).18


       

      
      

   

    

       

     

     
    

 
    

       
      

       

       

      

     

    
    

      
      

    

      
     

       
 
     

       
       
     

     

    

     

     

       
        
        

      
      

    
      
       

      
       

      
    

      
  

     

 
      

      

      

      

    

     

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges 227 

afford librarians faculty status, a figure 
that corroborates Lowry’s finding that 
57 percent of liberal arts colleges afford 
faculty status.19 

The current study indicates that librar-
ians with faculty status and rank are three 
times more likely to have exactly the same 
rights and responsibilities as other faculty 
on campus (i.e., same review process, 
same research funds, and same commit-
tee eligibility) than librarians who have 
faculty status only. Therefore, although it 
has long been known that the individual 
rights and responsibilities afforded to 
librarians who have the phrase “faculty 
status” a ached to their position vary 
widely, faculty rank seems to be a more 
accurate indicator of faculty rights and 
responsibilities. 

This survey also found that the tier 
in which a liberal arts college is ranked 
by U.S. News and World Report is an 
indicator of both the personnel status 
of librarians and their individual rights 
and responsibilities. However, unlike 
earlier findings reported by Meyer that 
found that faculty status, and tenure in 
particular, was a positive indicator of 
the institutional success or quality of a 
liberal arts college, this survey indicates 
an inverse relationship between librar-
ians with faculty status and overall 
institutional quality.20 

Based on the institutions that respond-
ed to this survey, the best colleges—that 
is, those in the top tier of the U.S. News 
and World Report rankings—were almost 
seven times less likely to afford librar-
ians faculty status and sixteen times less 
likely to afford faculty rank than those 
in the bo om tier. Top-tier colleges were 
about four times less likely to afford 
librarians faculty status than colleges in 
both the second and third tiers, and were 
seven times less likely to afford librarians 
faculty rank than Tier Two colleges and 
approximately eleven times less likely 
than Tier Three colleges. These findings 
contradict earlier work by Meyer, who 
reported that faculty status, and tenure 
in particular, was an indicator of the in-

stitutional success or quality of a liberal 
arts college.21 The odds ratios for Tier One 
colleges against the other three tiers are 
presented in table 7. 

Colleges in the top tier also were 
the least likely to afford librarians the 
individual rights and responsibilities 
normally associated with faculty status, 
with the exception of the availability of 
paid research leaves. Librarians employed 
by Tier One colleges were the least likely 
to go through a formal review process, to 
have access to research funds, and to be 
eligible for election to standing and ad hoc 
faculty commi ees, whereas librarians at 
Tier Four colleges were the most likely to 
have these rights and responsibilities. On 
the other hand, top-tier institutions were 
the most likely to provide paid research 
leaves similar to sabbaticals for librar-
ians with professional status, whereas 
fourth-tier colleges were the least likely 
to provide this option.22 

In summary, this survey indicates 
that the higher the tier (i.e., the be er the 
overall quality of the liberal arts college as 
determined by U.S. News & World Report), 
the less likely librarians will have faculty 
status or rank, the less likely they will 
be required to undergo a formal review 
process (one that is either the same as 
faculty or unique to the library), the less 
likely they will have access to research 
funds (either the same funds for which 
other faculty on campus apply or differ-
ent funds), and the less likely they will 
be eligible to serve on standing or ad hoc 
faculty commi ees. 

It is beyond the scope of this research 
to speculate on the causes or the larger 
meaning of this correlation, and the 
authors would like to echo Meyer’s con-
cluding remark that “no statistical study 
ever provides incontrovertible proof of 
an assertion.”23 However, the authors 
hope that these results encourage more 
research into the issue of the personnel 
status of librarians on liberal arts col-
lege campuses and how status and the 
presence (and absence) of the individual 
rights and responsibilities normally as-

http:option.22
http:college.21
http:quality.20
http:status.19


 

      

      

 

 
 

 
 

             
 

 
             

 

     
 

 

  

              

 
 

 

 
   

           

          

    

  
  

  

              

 

228 College & Research Libraries May 2006 

sociated with faculty status affect both the importance of the library and its staff to 
efficacy of individual librarians in their the overarching educational goals of the 
positions and their ability to advocate the college campus. 

Notes 

1. Virginia Vesper and Gloria Kelley, comps., Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic 
Librarians: Clip Note no. 26. (Chicago: ALA, 1997), 2. 

2. See Ronald Rayman and Frank Wm. Goudy, “Research and Publication Requirements 
in University Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 41 (Jan. 1980): 43–48; Thomas G. English, 
“Librarian Status in the Eighty-nine U.S. Academic Institutions of the Association of Research 
Libraries: 1982,” College & Research Libraries 44 (Mary 1983): 199–208; Joyce Payne and Janet Wag-
ner, “Librarians, Publication, and Tenure,” College & Research Libraries 45 (Mar. 1984): 133–39; W. 
Bede Mitchell and L. Stanislava Swieszkowski, “Publication Requirements and Tenure Approval 
Rates: An Issue for Academic Librarians,” College & Research Libraries 46 (May 1985): 249–55; Janet 
Krompart and Clara DiFelice, “A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971–1984,” Journal of Aca-
demic Librarianship 13 (Mar. 1987): 14–18; Joan M. Leysen and William K. Black, “Peer Review in 
Carnegie Research Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 59 (Nov. 1998): 512–22; W. Bede Mitchell 
and Mary Reichel, “Publish or Perish: A Dilemma for Academic Librarians?” College & Research 
Libraries 60 (May 1999): 232–43. 

3. See Krompart and DiFelice, “A Review of Faculty Status Surveys, 1971–1984”; Janet Krom-
part, “Researching Faculty Status: A Selected Annotated Bibliography,” College & Research Librar-
ies 53 (Sept. 1992): 439–49; and Vesper and Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic 
Librarians. 

4. Charles B. Lowry, “The Status of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians: A Twenty-year 
Perspective,” College & Research Libraries 54 (Mar. 1993): 163-72. 

5. Betsy Park and Robert Riggs, “Tenure and Promotion: A Study of Practices by Institutional 
Type,” Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (May 1993): 72–77. 

6. Ibid., 76. 
7. ACRL, “Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for Librarians,” 1999 Statistical Summaries for 

Academic Libraries. Available online from h p://www.virginia.edu/surveys/ACRL/1999/trends. 
html. [Accessed 18 January 2005]. 

8.“Guidelines for Academic Status for College and University Librarians,” College & Research 
Libraries News 51 (Mar. 1990): 245–46. 

9. For a summary of the results, see Shannon Cary, “Faculty Rank, Status, and Tenure for 
Librarians,” College & Research Libraries News 62 (May 1990): 510–11, 520. 

10. Vesper and Kelley, Criteria for Promotion and Tenure for Academic Librarians. 
11. Richard W. Meyer, “A Measure of the Impact of Tenure,” College & Research Libraries 60 

(Mar. 1999): 110–19. 
12. ———, “Earnings Gains through the Institutionalized Standard of Faculty Status,” Library 

Administration and Management 4 (Fall 1990): 184–93. 
13. The Carnegie Foundation, “Category Definitions,” The Carnegie Foundation for the 

Advancement of Teaching Classification Home (2000). Available online from h p://www.carn-
egiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/defNotes/ Definitions.htm. [Accessed 21 January 
2005]. 

14. “Using the Rankings,” U.S. News & World Report (Aug. 22, 2003). Available online from 
h p://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/about/04rank_brief.php. [Accessed 14 
April 2004]. 

15. America’s Best Colleges 2004. U.S. News & World Report (Aug. 22, 2003). Available online 
from h p://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranklibartco_brief.php. [Accessed 
14 April 2004]. The Web site indicates that the ranking includes 217 Liberal Arts—Bachelor’s 
institutions, but only lists the names of 214 colleges. 

16. The e-mail addresses of library personnel at Thomas Aquinas College and at Fisk University 
could not be obtained online. In addition, some of the colleges shared library resources: More-
house College and Spelman College are both served by Robert W. Woodruff Library; St. John’s 
University and the College of Saint Benedict are served by two separate libraries, but by the same 
library staff; and Pitzer College, Scripps College, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont McKenna 
College, and Pomona College are all served by the Libraries of The Claremont Colleges. 

17. This difference is significant according to a chi-square test. The expected value for Tier 
Four institutions that afford librarians faculty status only was 4.6; however, because the table is 



 
 
 
 
 

 

    
      

    
   

  
    

   
   

    
   

    
    

   
    

    
  
  

   
     

    
     

     
     

     
  

    
    

      

     
   

   
   
    

    
  

    
     

   
   

  

  
   

       

 

 

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges 229 

larger than 3 x 3 and all the other expected frequencies were greater than 5, chi square is still a 
good “approximation.” For more on the minimum frequency thresholds of the chi-square test, 
see Jeff Connor-Linton, “Chi Square Tutorial,” Georgetown Linguistics (Mar. 22, 2003). Available 
online from h p://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/webtools/web_chi_tut.html. 

18. Park and Riggs, “Tenure and Promotion,” 73. 
19. Lowry, “The Status of Faculty Status for Academic Librarians,” 165. 
20. Meyer, “A Measure of the Impact of Tenure,” 118. 
21. Ibid. 
22. The frequencies for this question were much smaller than the others (n = 54) due to the 

fact that only institutions that do not afford librarians faculty status answered it; therefore, the 
statistical significance of this data point could not be determined. 

23. Meyer, “A Measure of the Impact of Tenure,” 118. 

Applications/Nominations Invited for C&RL Editor 

The deadline for receipt of applications is December 4, 2006. 
Finalists will be interviewed at the Midwinter Meeting in January 2007. 

Applications and nominations are 
invited for the position of editor 
of College & Research 
Libraries (C&RL), the 
bimonthly, scholarly 
research journal of the 
Association of College 
and Research Libraries 
(ACRL). The editor is 
appointed for a three-
year term, which may 
be renewed for an 
additional three years. 
Applicants must be a 
member of ALA and 
ACRL. Qualifications 
include professional 
experience in academic 
libraries, a record of scholarly 
publication, editing experience, an 
ability to meet publication deadlines, 
an understanding of the scholarly 
communication process, and a broad 
knowledge of the issues confronting 
academic libraries. 

Some funding for editorial assistance 
and travel to relevant conferences 
is available, and there is a small 
honorarium for the editor. 

Appointment will be made by the 
ACRL Board of Directors at the 2007 

Annual Conference upon 
the recommendation of 
the search commi ee and 
of the ACRL Publications 
CoordinatingCommi ee. 
The incoming editor will 
serve for at least one 
year as editor-designate, 
working with the current 
editor, before assuming 
full responsibility for 
C&RL in July 2008. 

Nominations or resumes 
and le ers of application, 
including the names of 

three references, should be sent to: 

C&RL Search Commi ee 
c/o Dawn Mueller 
ACRL Production Editor 
50 East Huron Street 
Chicago, IL 60611 
e-mail: dmueller@ala.org 

M a y 2 0 0 6 • Vo l u m e 6 7 • N u m b e r 3 

Publication Patterns of U.S. Academic Librarians from 1998 
to 2002 
Stephen E. Wiberly, Jr., Julie M. Hurd, and Ann C. Weller 

Faculty Status and Rank at Liberal Arts Colleges: An 
Investigation into the Correlation among Faculty Status, 
Professional Rights and Responsibilities, and Overall 
Institutional Quality 
Dorita F. Bolger and Erin T. Smith 

Faculty Publishing Productivity: Comparisons over Time 
John M. Budd 

Organizational Socialization Through Employee Orientations 
at North Carolina State University Libraries 
Angela Ballard and Laura Blessing 

Virtual Reference Training: The Second Generation 
Lynn Westbrook 

Emotional Intelligence: Which Traits Are Most Prized? 
Peter Hernon and Nancy Rossiter 

COLLEGE & 
RESEARCH 
LIBRARIES 

Association of 
College and 
Research 
Libraries