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