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